[Senate Hearing 108-299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-299
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING PROPOSED LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
__________
JULY 10, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
88-414 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
BILL FRIST, Tennessee EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JACK REED, Rhode Island
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Sharon R. Soderstrom, Staff Director
J. Michael Myers, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Children and Families
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JACK REED, Rhode Island
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Marguerite Sallee, Staff Director
Grace A. Reef, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
JULY 10, 2003
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee 1
Horn, Wade F., Assistant Secretary For Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services................... 5
Bradley, David A., Executive Director, National Community Action
Foundation; Phillip McKain, President and Chief Executive
Officer, CTE, Inc., and President, Connecticut Association For
Community Action; Nathaniel Best, Knoxville, TN; Winifred
Octave, Worcester, MA; and Michael Saucier, Berlin, NH......... 16
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Wade F. Horn................................................. 30
David A. Bradley............................................. 32
Phillip McKain............................................... 71
Michael Saucier.............................................. 74
Patsy C. Lewis............................................... 75
National Association for State Community Services Programs... 77
Letter to Senator Dodd, dated June 30, 2003, from Patricia A.
Wilson-Coker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Social Services............................................ 81
(iii)
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Children and Families,
of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Dodd, and Jeffords.
Opening Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. The hearing will come to order.
First let me apologize to the witnesses and those who are
in the audience for the delay. I was presiding, and we had a
vote, both of those things, so it took me a few minutes to get
here to get started. But we are looking forward to today's
hearing, and I thank you very much for coming.
I want to welcome everyone. This is, as most of you know,
the reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant
Program. That program is important. It helps low-income
individuals and their families achieve dignity and self-
sufficiency, and it accomplishes this by block grants to
States, which then distribute the funds to local groups called
community action agencies. These agencies in turn use the funds
in many different ways to provide a number of social services
to help low-income individuals and their families achieve a
better quality of life--such things as finding a good job,
getting an adequate education or a decent place to live,
finding ways to improve household income.
In Tennessee last year--the State I know the most about--
the CSBG program served over 100,000 individuals and more than
60,000 families, and of those, 40 percent were elderly or
disabled families living on a fixed income, and 90 percent were
living below the Federal poverty level.
The Federal poverty level for an individual is about
$9,000; for a family of two, about $12,000; for a family of
three, about $15,000. So those are the Americans that we are
talking about.
Of those who are involved in the CSBG program, about three-
quarters who sought housing assistance last year moved from a
level of substandard housing to stable housing, and more
individuals and more than 500 families moved away from
homelessness. About four out of 10 people who became involved
with these programs and who were seeking better jobs obtained
better jobs, and two-thirds of those obtained health care
benefits that came along with those jobs.
We are interested today in learning not just about the
success of the program, of which there are many, but about ways
to improve the program. I am especially interested in hearing
more from Mr. Horn and others about ways we can help
individuals find new and better jobs. We live in a prosperous
time on the one hand and a difficult time on the other. There
are a great deal of jobs being created, and there are a great
many jobs being lost.
I would be interested, for example, to hear how the CSBG
program affects those who might have been laid off or lost a
job.
We have two panels of witnesses. The first panel is Dr.
Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families within
the Department of Health and Human Services. His administration
within HHS is responsible for administering this program. He
has a wide range of responsibilities and a well-known
background of reform and helping children and families. We are
looking forward to his testimony.
On our second panel, whom I will introduce now, and we will
ask you to come up after Dr. Horn, the first witness is David
Bradley, executive director of the National Community Action
Foundation, who has been involved with this program for a long,
long time.
Our next three witnesses are individuals who have actually
used the services of CSBG and can tell us a little bit about
the program on a first-hand basis--Nathaniel Best, from
Knoxville, TN; Michael Saucier, from Berlin, NH; and Winifred
Octave, from Worcester, MA.
Our final witness is Mr. Phillip McKain, who is president
and CEO of CTE, Inc., which provides CSBG services in the State
of Connecticut.
I want to thank everyone again for coming. This is an
interesting and diverse group of witnesses who will give us a
first-hand perspective. Several of you have statements which
you have already prepared; we will take those for the record
and ask you to summarize your statements.
First, Dr. Horn, we thank you for coming, and we look
forward to your taking whatever time you need to talk with us
about the program, its successes, and ways that you think it
might be improved as we seek to reauthorize it.
Before we begin I have statements from Senators Kennedy and
Harkin.
[The prepared statements of Senators Kennedy and Harkin
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kennedy
I'm pleased that Ms. Winifred Octave, a graduate of the
Worcester Community Action Council is testifying before the
subcommittee today. The Council has achieved remarkable
successes in its programs, and Ms. Octave is one of these
success stories.
There are 1,000 community action agencies across the
country. They serve 34 million people, and almost every county
has one. The majority of participants are extremely poor,
living at or below 75 percent of the federal poverty line--
that's less than $11,300 a year for a family of 3.
Community action agencies provide vital services that help
people like Ms. Octave to help themselves and achieve self-
sufficiency. Many participants come to these agencies feeling
discouraged, with nowhere else to turn.
The agencies provide vocational education, job training and
emergency food and shelter. They provide domestic violence
counseling, day care, housing, transportation, literacy
assistance and English as a Second Language. They give their
clients opportunities and hope for the future.
Here's a good example from our state. A single mother and
high school drop out came for help in the spring of 2001 after
leaving an abusive relationship. She completed a job skills and
readiness course and a computer literacy course, and earned
credits toward her high school diploma. One year later, she was
working as a teller in a local bank and preparing to take her
high school equivalency exams for her GED. Today, she is
planning to go to college to get a degree in early childhood
education. She agrees that before the program, she had a bad
attitude. But now she feels like she has a future with
attainable goals.
There are countless stories like hers across the country,
and with the continuing economic downturn, there will be many
others who find themselves needing these services. The national
unemployment rate last month reached 6.4%--the highest in more
than 9 years, and the largest monthly increase since the
September 11 attacks. Since March of this year, nearly 1
million jobs have been lost. With worsening economic conditions
and cuts in important low-income programs, we must do more to
see that help is available.
What's unique about these agencies is the way in which they
are part of the community. Although the funds go to the states,
90 percent are passed on to the local community agencies. A
third of the members of each local board must be low-income
community residents. Winifred Octave is one of these board
members in Worcester. The focus on local input helps to see
that the unique and specific needs of the community are known
and addressed.
No two agencies are alike, because each agency provides the
services that are identified as most needed. This program is
one of the few federally funded programs that is so flexible
and so targeted in its delivery system.
Programs can include community economic development, job
opportunities for low-income individuals, rural community
facilities, and the national youth sports program. There is a
community food and nutrition program. Individual development
accounts also provide support services for low-income persons.
The community economic development program has particular
significance for our family. In 1966, when Robert Kennedy was a
Senator, he sponsored the legislation that helped create the
first thirty community development corporations around the
country. Public-private partnerships were launched that
revitalized struggling neighborhoods through job and business
opportunities for low-income residents.
In those years, we like to think, we declared war of a
different kind--the War on Poverty. The nation is still
struggling to win that war. We know that these Community
Services Block Grants help real people and improve real lives,
and I look forward to hearing more about these basic issues
from our witnesses today.
Prepared Statement of Senator Harkin
I would like to thank Chairman Alexander for calling this
hearing today on the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and
the critical role it plays in alleviating poverty in
communities across the country.
In my state of Iowa, CSBG funding is used predominately to
fund Community Action Agencies or CAA's, that help low-income
families overcome challenges in achieving self-sufficiency.
Iowa's CAA's do a remarkable job in carefully identifying needs
of communities and then providing a range of programs and
activities to expand opportunities for low-income people to
escape poverty. This includes resources for employment and
training, education, housing, senior services, domestic
violence prevention and Head Start.
Last year, CSBG funding provided these and other services
to more than 13 million low-income individuals and 6 million
families nationwide. In Iowa, approximately 300,000 individuals
and 117,000 families benefitted from CSBG.
CAA's are also an integral component in welfare reform
efforts. Our welfare caseloads dropped significantly in Iowa
since the 1996 Welfare Reform. CAA's contributed to the success
by helping previous or current welfare participants initiate
family development and self-sufficiency programs to help them
achieve economic independence.
There is no doubt that CSBG funding is the glue that
sustains CAA's agencies and their ability to provide critical
resources and tools to help low-income people. I hear from my
constituents that CSBG funding has been particularly helpful
recently as the unemployment rate rises. The state budget cuts
in social services have also had an extraordinary impact on
low-income people.
I am concerned that the President has continually proposed
funding cuts for this successful block grant. I am pleased that
in my role as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations
Sub-committee that funds CSBG, I was able to significantly
increase funding for CSBG which in FY03 received $729 million.
And, in the bill that recently passed the Appropriations
Committee I was able to minimize the $150 million cut the
President proposed in his budget. I plan to work hard to make
sure funding for this effective anti-poverty program is
maintained and improved.
I look forward to working with members of the Committee and
Administration on bipartisan legislation to build on the
longstanding success of CSBG as we continue to provide the
tools necessary to help people achieve self-sufficiency,
especially in these difficult economic times.
STATEMENT OF WADE F. HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you
again, and I am very pleased to appear before you today to talk
about the President's plan to reauthorize the Community
Services Block Grant Act.
The administration strongly supports the concept of
community-based solutions to issues related to poverty
reduction, and hence we strongly support the reauthorization of
the CSBG Act.
My written statement discusses each of the programs under
CSBG; I will limit my oral remarks to two programs under the
Act that are the focus of the administration's reauthorization
program, the Community Services Block Grant itself and the
Community Economic Development Program.
The cornerstone of our reauthorization proposal is to
strengthen accountability of CSBG to ensure that this
significant source of support for low-income families and
communities is achieving the best results possible. CSBG
services are administered, as you know, in localities across
the country, primarily by a network of 1,100 community action
agencies, or CAAs, in coordination with other neighborhood-
based entities. CAAs have for nearly four decades now garnered
experience in addressing the problems of low-income individuals
and families.
However, annual awards are not open to competition, and the
current law does not provide for a consistent means of
assessing minimum standards of performance by community action
agencies in order to receive funding.
To address these concerns, the President's 2004
reauthorization proposal calls for the development of and
adherence to a common core of national outcome measures for
agencies funded under the CSBG, as well as the design of a
means to review, monitor, and, if necessary, remove local
organizations that are not achieving good results. This builds
on the 1998 reauthorization of CSBG, which mandated that by
2001, States be accountable for the performance of their CSBG
programs through a performance measurement system. States could
design their own system or they could replicate the Secretary's
model program, the Results-Oriented Management and
Accountability System, known as ROMA.
We plan to use the ROMA foundation as the basis for
establishing the national outcome measures. By building this
requirement into statute, more consistent data would be
collected, and program outcomes evaluated to ensure that CSBG
programs are effectively serving at-risk individuals and
communities.
Organizations that are not found to be performing at an
acceptable level could lose their designation as a service
provider for CSBG if acceptable corrections are not made. A
State-run competition would be held to designate new community
action agencies to replace the agencies that fail to meet the
acceptable standards.
Faith-based organizations as well as other nongovernmental
community-based organizations would be eligible to apply for
funding under the proposed revised authority.
Our objective is to have consistently applied outcome
measures to ensure that all agencies administering CSBG can
assess their programs' effectiveness and are accountable for
the services supported by the program.
Once enacted, we will be better-equipped to ensure that
CSBG funding is made to local community organizations that are
effective in achieving the purposes of the Act.
Along with the block grant, the CSBG Act provides the
Secretary with discretionary authority to use up to 9 percent
of the Community Service Block Grant funds to support
employment for community development activities.
Our reauthorization proposal would maintain this authority
to support funding for the Urban and Rural Community Economic
Development Program. The Community Economic Development Program
funds competitive grants to locally-initiated private,
nonprofit community organizations called community development
corporations, for projects that create employment, training,
and business opportunities for low-income community residents.
In the context of this reauthorization, the administration
proposes to strengthen the capability of this program by
increasing accountability and monitoring and expanding the pool
of applicants by redefining entities eligible to receive
funding to include other faith-based and community-based
organizations. We believe that by casting a broader net, we can
make this program work even better for low-income communities
and individuals.
In conclusion, the administration believes that these
programs are an important part of our Nation's commitment to
reducing poverty, but that objective cannot be achieved if we
merely seek to maintain the status quo. The President's
proposal puts forth the framework for a 21st century model of
addressing poverty that requires uniform accountability,
supports competition to enable different ways of approaching
the problem, and makes certain that the programs supported by
funds under the Community Services Block Grant Act provide the
highest quality of service.
We look forward to working with this committee as it
pursues reauthorization of this important program. I would be
very pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Senator Jeffords is here, the former chairman of our full
committee. Senator, I have already introduced Mr. Horn and the
other witnesses, and it is time for questions of Mr. Horn, but
I wonder if you have some comments that you would like to make
at the outset.
Senator Jeffords. No. I will just go right to questions;
that is fine.
Senator Alexander. OK. Then, I will ask a couple, if that
is all right, and then we will see if Senator Jeffords has
some.
Let me ask a larger question about coordination of
community services. One of the things that always intrigues me
as I work in this area is that we have an inevitable tendency
here to look at the world from here down instead of from the
individual, and when I am in Morristown, TN or Maryville, TN,
and I hear about all these programs, it always occurs to me--
how would an individual go about finding out what all these
programs are?
I know, for example, in the area of early childhood,
prenatal through 8, I think we have counted 69 different
Federal programs, plus Head Start, and if I were working in my
home community, which I have before, on prenatal through K
through 8, it would help me to know what all those different
programs are.
There are 1,100 community action agencies. There are 9,000
Head Start centers across the country--something like that.
And you must have thought about this and worked hard on it
given your extensive involvement in the area--what can we do to
make more intelligible to people in communities the large
number of Federal programs and Federal dollars that are
available for social services?
Mr. Horn. Well, I think you have identified a very
important issue, and I think that you are precisely correct.
Sometimes we who work and live in the Washington, DC area see
it from our perspective; but from the ground perspective,
someone who is in need of services, what they know is not that
there might be 55 different spending authorities in the
Administration on Children and Families, but what they want to
know is, I need help with housing today, or I need help with
child care today, and where do I go to get that?
There are lots of different entry points for a single
client to go into, but there is often not a single place where
they can go to find out about the array of supports that may be
available for that individual given what their unique needs
might be. I think that is one of the strengths of the community
action agencies, that they often bring together a variety of
these different resources and funding streams and can
communicate to individual clients not just a single-purpose
service but rather the array of services that may be available
to them, particularly those services that are directed toward
poverty reduction.
But still, there are even limits, unfortunately, to
coordination because of the nature of the highly categorical
funding streams, each with its own reporting requirements, so
the typical community action agency may be coordinating 15 or
20 different funding streams, they may have 15 or 20 different
reporting requirements, they may have different eligibility
criteria, and it may be almost as hard for the service provider
to negotiate all of that as for the individual.
One thing that the administration would like Congress to
consider in the context of a different bill, TANF
reauthorization, is the idea of allowing States to experiment
or innovate with the so-called super-waiver authority that the
President has proposed for putting these various funding
streams together more in sort of a seamless system of service
delivery.
At the very least, for example, a State could say, Look,
what we would like to do is have one data collection system and
reporting requirement, because we are often serving the same
clients. We do not want to tear down this program or that
program, but we sure as heck could save a lot of money and
redirect them into services if we had just one data collection
system that could report on the report on the services that are
being provided.
And from my perspective, if you were to do that, you would
start with the family, the client, and work out as opposed to
the way data collection systems are currently structured, which
is to start with the service and then ask the question who are
we serving. When you start that way, it often sounds as though
there is all this unmet need.
For example, in Head Start, we have a data collection
system for Head Start, and we ask who is being served, and we
pretend as if everybody who is not in Head Start is not being
served. We know that is not true. A lot of those kids are in
State preschool programs, some are in child care programs. But
we do not have a single system of data collection that would
tell us that information, so it a long-winded, and I am sorry
for the long-winded answer to your question, but you have hit
precisely on a very important issue and one that we in the
administration are struggling with and trying to figure out how
to create a truly seamless system of support services so that
an individual knows where to go, and when they get there, the
service provider knows all of the various services and supports
that are available to that family.
Senator Alexander. Would it even be possible for an
individual working in social services, let us say in Knox
County, TN to find a list of all the Federal programs that
might serve, let us just say children prenatal through 8 in
Knox County, TN, or is that money distributed by county?
Mr. Horn. Senator, it is hard for me to know where all the
funding streams are for these programs, because I have 56
different spending authorities at ACF, but there are also
spending authorities for the same populations not only across
other operating divisions in HHS but throughout the Federal
Government. It is a maze that is difficult to negotiate, and
from the local service provider's standpoint, it is not
impossible, and certainly a lot of them are doing a really good
job of doing it--and again, I think that is one of the
strengths of community action agencies--but it is difficult,
and I think the challenge before us here in Washington is to
make sure we are not imposing any barriers that make it
difficult at the local level.
Senator Alexander. You have not said this, but of course,
the real responsibility for that comes back to the Congress,
because it is the Congress that creates all the programs, and
then you have the responsibility to administer them.
I look forward to working with you more on the issue with
this subcommittee particularly on the issue of looking for ways
on programs that have to do with children and families, not
just with CSBG but with other areas under your jurisdiction as
well as the Department of Education, to think of many different
ways--you are suggesting one with the welfare bill, TANF--but
to see if there are other ways, other options, of rationalizing
all these programs and making it simpler for individuals and
communities to get into whatever service it is they need.
I have another question, but I think what I will do is stop
now and ask Senator Jeffords to ask whatever questions he would
like, and then, if there is time, I will come back with mine.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Horn, in your testimony, the two main criticisms of the
community action agencies are that the agencies are static and
that they lack appropriate accountability. Those conclusions
are not consistent with our experience in Vermont. However, the
President has proposed block grants for the child welfare
system and the Head Start programs.
If the current CSBG block grant is static and
unaccountable, why should we be moving to block-grant other
programs that play such important roles in our communities?
Mr. Horn. Well, with all due respect, Senator, we are not
proposing to block-grant either child welfare or the Head Start
Program. In both of those programs, what we are proposing is a
State option that would allow the State to come up with a plan,
in the case of Head Start, to better coordinate Head Start with
State-administered preschool programs, but we are not simply
saying, Hey, look, what we would like to do is take the Head
Start appropriations, apply a State formula to it, send the
money out to the States and have them administer it, so long as
they do it within the broad context of the authorizing statute.
That is what block grants do, as you know, but that is not
what the President is proposing for the Head Start Program.
Similarly in the child welfare proposal, we are not proposing
to block grant child welfare but rather simply to provide an
option to the States in which, if they chose to--and they do
not have to choose to--they could get a fixed sum of money over
5 years which they could spend more flexibly than they can
currently spend under the Title IV Foster Care Program.
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with a
block grant. The TANF Program, for example, is a block grant,
and we think the TANF Program is working pretty well, has a
good track record, although we would like to see some
improvements.
Our criticism is not that this is a block grant, and block
grants are inherently bad, but rather that in this particular
case, there is not enough accountability that we think needs to
occur to assure the American taxpayer that the investment we
are making in this program is achieving results. So what we are
suggesting is that we put that results-oriented system in
place, and my guess is that what we are going to find is that
many community action agencies are doing a terrific job in
their communities helping to reduce poverty and helping people
lift themselves out of poverty.
So this is not a criticism of block grants per se, but we
do think it is time for us to overlay an accountability system
on the community action agencies.
Senator Jeffords. Your proposal calls for the development
of and adherence to national outcome measures for community
action agencies. This would move the agencies from local to
national standards. The administration's Head Start proposal
calls for States to develop their own Head Start standards to
move from national standards to local standards. Although we
have seen few details, the child welfare proposal seems
similar.
Why is the administration pushing in the opposite direction
on these programs--and I might add, you oversee them all.
Mr. Horn. Yes, I do. And again, I am not sure that we are
comparing apples with apples here. In fact, I think there is a
great similarity between what we are suggesting in CSBG and
what we are also doing administratively through the Head Start
Program. As you may be aware, back in the 1998 reauthorization
of Head Start, there was a requirement similar to what happened
in CSBG, that local agencies develop an outcomes-oriented
system that they would apply at the local level. And what we
have found is that that is not a very useful tool for us to be
able to oversee and manage the Head Start Program, because what
we have is 1,300 Head Start grantees, and they have 1,300
different ways of determining outcomes.
So we do not know, for example, looking at that disparate
data, whether this grantee is achieving good outcomes compared
to that grantee. So one of the things we are doing in Head
Start administratively is implementing, very similar to this
proposal--but we have statutory authority to do it in the Head
Start Program--a common core of outcome measures that would be
applied across all Head Start programs in the country. It would
still allow flexibility for locally-determined outcome measures
as well, but there ought to be a common core of outcome
measures that everybody assesses. That is what we are doing in
Head Start, and that is what we are proposing here.
We are not saying that community action agencies should
give up the idea of locally-determined outcome measures. That
would be giving in to precisely the mistake that we here in
Washington sometimes make, which is believing we know best for
every community in America. But rather, it seems to us that it
is not unreasonable to ask that each community action agency,
given there is some core similarity in their mission--that is,
poverty reduction--that there be some core set of common
outcome criteria that they apply to all community action
agencies.
So we actually see a great similarity between what we want
to accomplish through CSBG and what we are also
administratively moving toward in the Head Start Program.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I have one other area that I would be interested in your
comments about. Some of the programs for CSBG are funded
directly from the Federal Government, and the community
economic development is one. And it is there that you talk
about enlarging the pool of applicants to include faith-based
and community-based organizations. I want to make an
observation about that and see what you think.
Have you considered just making it permissible for the
community action agencies themselves to work with faith-based
organizations, because my guess is that most of them already
do. My experience has been that in Nashville, I was chairman of
the Salvation Army's Red Shield initiative, which was the
Nashville effort over a period of 6 years to help individuals
move from dependence to independence under the Welfare Reform
Act which was very successful. And when I was listening to the
debate in Washington about separation of church and State and
faith-based--all that discussion--I realized that in our own
community, we were all head-over-heels doing that. I mean, the
Salvation Army was the chief sponsor of this coalition, which
was basically a mall of social services. The City of Nashville
was the manager and funder of the local child care centers. In
other words, everybody was all mixed up in everything, and
nobody had even stopped to think about the fact that we were
mixing up in effect the church and the State in our little
social services activity there.
Then, someone wrote me a letter and said that the First
Amendment, the Separation of Church and Powers provision, was
intended to apply to the Federal Government, that looking back
to Europe where there was a central government and a central
church, that our Founders were trying to stay away from that,
that our Scotch-Irish pioneers got tired of paying taxes to
support the Bishop of the Church of England, and they didn't
want a central church.
So my practical experience is that it is fairly easy to
work out relationships with faith-based organizations if you
are working within a community. Whenever you elevate the whole
discussion to Washington and begin to have a Federal
application of that, everyone begins to get a little nervous.
I wondered how you thought this might--your idea here about
involving faith-based agencies--might work.
Mr. Horn. As a point of clarification, first, under the
CSBG, community action agencies already can be faith-based
organizations. In fact, as you know, there is a charitable
choice provision in the CSBG Act.
What we are suggesting is under the discretionary program
that is a direct Federal to local grantee program, the
Community Economic Development Program, that currently, the
only eligible applications are community economic development
corporations, and they are not the only ones, however, that
have a history of working in local communities on poverty
reduction and economic development. There are other community-
based organizations and faith-based organizations that also
have a history of doing that.
All that we are suggesting is that when it comes to
competing these grants that we open up the eligible pool so
that we get the best agencies who have the best record in
helping local communities in terms of economic development. And
this is not a knock against community economic development
corporations; it is simply trying to expand the pool.
Clearly, there are church and State issues when you are
talking about providing direct funding from the Federal
Government to a local faith-based organization. Certainly a
faith-based organization who was successful in getting these
moneys could not, for example, discriminate on the basis of
somebody's personal faith perspective in delivery of services.
A faith-based organization could not use the money to
proselytize.
But as you know, the President feels very strongly that we
ought to level the playing field wherever it is appropriate to
ensure that faith-based organizations are not necessarily shut
out from competition in becoming partners with the government
in delivering services, and the question ought to be are they
effective, not are you faith-based or not faith-based.
But at the same time, it is clear that there are
limitations on those faith-based organizations who apply, and
we take as our responsibility as overseers of these programs
that if a faith-based organization is successful in applying
for Federal funds that we make sure they understand that there
is a deal here to be had, that in exchange for accepting
Federal funds, you cannot proselytize and you cannot
discriminate in the delivery of services.
So I think there are sufficient safeguards administratively
that will ensure that church and State separation is preserved.
Senator Alexander. Senator Dodd, who is the ranking member
and former chairman of this subcommittee, is very interested in
the proceeding. He is on the floor engaged in debate. He had
some questions for Dr. Horn, but he will submit those for the
record, and he wanted me to say that in case he does not get
here.
[Response to questions of Senator Dodd were not received at
press time.]
Senator Alexander. Senator Jeffords, do you have any other
questions?
Senator Jeffords. Yes. I have one final observation I would
like to make. The administration is saying, quote: ``Head Start
is effective, but not effective enough. It needs to be more
local,'' while here, the administration is saying CSBG is
effective, but not effective enough, and it needs to be more
national.
I am very concerned about these proposals as to why the
divergence of opinion here. There is no logic or consistent
approach here, it would appear to me. It seems that the only
goal of the administration is to undermine the success of
effective government programs.
While we can always strive to improve programs, I am
concerned that the message here is that no program, no matter
how effective, is safe. I want you to know, Dr. Horn, that I am
very concerned about these proposals that seem to be
conflicting. If you have a comment, I would love to hear it.
Mr. Horn. Well, as a clinical child psychologist who has
spent his career advocating for improving the well-being of
children, I can assure you that none of the administration's
proposals that we are discussing here are designed to undermine
effective services.
I think the difference between CSBG and Head Start is that
CSBG does not have the kind of outcome and accountability data
that we have in place already for Head Start. For example, we
have a national random sample of children in Head Start whom we
follow every year--a different sample, obviously--through
something called FACES, the Family and Children Experiences
Survey. And that is where we get the information that tells us
that kids do improve in Head Start, but they still lag
significantly behind their more economically advantaged peers.
And the challenge there is to improve that effectiveness.
Here, I think the challenge is to get a system in place
that will tell us how effective the community action agencies
are. And again, I have every reason to expect that we will find
a number of them are quite effective. But we don't have that
system in place yet, and that is what we are trying to do is
get that system in place.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Senator Dodd, I have introduced the
witnesses, and Dr. Horn has testified and submitted his
testimony; Senator Jeffords and I have said what we had to say
and asked our questions. So it is your turn, and after that, we
will invite the second panel of witnesses to come up.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, and I apologize. I was just
offering an amendment on the floor of the Senate to the State
Department authorization bill, so I apologize for being late,
but if you get a chance to offer an amendment on the floor, you
had better take advantage of it; it may be light-years before
you get another opportunity. Those of you who are familiar with
how the Senate operates will appreciate my tardiness.
So I would ask unanimous consent if I could, Mr. Chairman,
to include an opening statement in the record and will just
express some general views.
Senator Alexander. It will be done.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Dodd
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening this
hearing on the Community Services Block Grant.
I have worked with Community Action Agencies throughout my
career in the Senate, particularly those in Connecticut, and
have long been impressed with their innovative and creative
efforts to address the needs of individuals and families living
in poverty.
The Community Action Agencies have a very difficult job. As
we all know, there is no magic wand to eliminate poverty or the
impact poverty has on families, particularly families with
young children. I wish we could give every Community Action
Agency a magic wand. But, instead, we rely on them as they each
conduct a community needs assessment and set out to
individually meet their specific needs within each diverse
community.
CSBG funds local programs. The needs within each community
vary tremendously. There is a common thread that CSBG serves
poor families, increasingly working poor families, but no two
communities really are the same. That's what makes each
Community Action Agency unique.
In 2001 alone, a quarter-million low-income individuals
called upon their local Community Action Agencies in the state
of Connecticut for assistance. With the current economy, the
demands on these agencies are on the rise nationally.
These families, largely working poor families, have no
margin for error or change: rising fuel prices alone, for
instance, can put their hard-earned self-sufficiency in a
vulnerable state. In Connecticut, individuals in crisis will
turn to local Community Action Agencies since they are uniquely
positioned to pull together an individualized set of resources
and supports to meet the needs of each client.
The variation and diversity found across Community Action
Agencies demonstrates the success of the statute in doing what
it set out to do: create local responders with the flexibility
to vary their efforts as needed in order to meet the particular
and immediate demands of their low-income populations and
communities.
CSBG provides a framework for a national system of local
activists: government leaders, business and community members,
coming together to mobilize local resources for monitoring,
improving and addressing community-wide responses to poverty. I
continue to be impressed with the ability of Community Action
Agencies to use CSBG funds to leverage other resources.
Nationally, every CSBG dollar is matched by over $14 from other
sources.
CSBG supports over 1,144 entities that create a nation-wide
network of local first responders in combating the causes and
effects of poverty. I thank each of you, not only for
testifying today, but for your daily commitment and involvement
in these programs and agencies. I look forward to learning how
we can use this reauthorization as an opportunity to further
improve and strengthen our efforts to combat poverty.
Senator Dodd. Let me ask a few questions if I can, and my
staff tells me that a number of the questions I would have
asked have already been raised, so I will try to keep this
relatively brief.
First of all, welcome. It is a pleasure to have you with
us.
To begin, having read over your testimony, there was a
White House press release in August 2001, which I have with me
and will be glad to include in the record, that singles out the
Community Services Block Grant as one of the rare--and I am
almost quoting here--one of the rare programs that examines
through impact evaluations whether the funds achieve the
desired results.
I am also aware that ROMA is a mandated accountability
system that was pioneered by the community action agencies
themselves, not mandated by the administration.
Now ROMA is a mandated component of all local agencies and
is nationally recognized as the leading government innovation
by folks who ought to know, such as the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard.
What happened, I guess the question is, between August of
2001 and today to change your mind about the accountability
standards or efforts under the community action agencies that
they operate?
Mr. Horn. First of all, just as a point of clarification,
ROMA is not a mandated system in terms of local agencies. What
is required in the 1998 reauthorization, as you know, is that
every community action agency must have a system of assessing
results and the impact of their services. The local agencies
can come up with their own, States can come up with their own
system and apply that to the local agencies, or the local
agencies can adopt the Secretary's model program known as ROMA.
So ROMA is not mandated at the moment for all community
action agencies. But it is true that ROMA was developed in
partnership as a bottom-up, not top-down, system of
accountability that many--not all, but many--community action
agencies in fact do participate in. And what we are suggesting
is that we have statutory authority to require a common core of
outcome measures, which will be largely based upon the ROMA
system, be applied to all community action agencies so that we
can have for the first time consistent data across the board.
So we think that ROMA is a good system but at the moment do
not have the statutory authority to require the community
action agencies to actually deliver it. I think it is a
testament to that system that so many do, but there is not a
statutory authority to require it.
Senator Dodd. In your testimony, you give these community
action agencies sort of mediocre performance grades. That is
how I read your testimony. Is that an accurate description?
Mr. Horn. I think the accurate description is that we do
not have a good sense about how effective they are, and that is
what we are trying to do is implement a system to get a better
sense of that in terms of impact, not in terms of just process.
Senator Dodd. Because when you look at the HHS Annual
Agency Performance Reports and the statistical reports, it
looks as though they have exceeded targets set by the
Department; is that not true?
Mr. Horn. It is true that there are some targets that we
set that----
Senator Dodd. Overall, they exceeded them.
Mr. Horn. Well, again, many of them unfortunately are
process-oriented and less outcome-oriented, and what we would
like to do is a more outcome-oriented system.
Senator Dodd. You are still calling that mediocre. You
know, most government agencies, when they get those kinds of
numbers, I would call it better than mediocre. I wish we could
have that kind of results in other agencies.
Mr. Horn. I do not think I would characterize my testimony
as indicating that we have a strong belief that we have
mediocre results in this program.
Senator Dodd. All right. I appreciate that.
The discretionary programs that you mentioned such as the
Rural Community Facilities Grant Program, aren't they in fact
not duplicative in nature, but rather a program that supports
the start-up and planning stages of what down the road might
lead toward EPA funding but for which EPA does not fund at the
preliminary planning level. The need in rural America is
obviously very great--and I know you know that. Close to $14
billion is necessary to help rural communities adequately their
wastewater needs, and if we eliminate the Rural Community
Facilities Program, how will remote and small communities--I
have some in my State despite the size of my State, and I know
that my chairman has many rural and more remote communities in
his larger State--how do they tap into the expertise needed to
successfully navigate the extensive and thorough planning
process that must predate any application to the USDA and EPA
if they don't have that kind of support and help?
Mr. Horn. Well, we believe that the Rural Community
Facilities Program is duplicative of programs both in the EPA
and the USDA, and not only do we think they are duplicative, we
think that the expertise for actually managing those kinds of
programs is more directly found in EPA and USDA than in HHS.
Senator Dodd. You really think they are that duplicative?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Senator Dodd. All right. I have a couple more questions,
Mr. Chairman, but in the interest of time, we will submit a
couple more to you in writing. And I am glad at least to hear
you think that your report was not a mediocre analysis. I will
consider that my victory for the afternoon.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Horn, thank you very much for
coming.
I will now ask the second panel to come forward and take
their seats.
Senator Dodd, I was saying a little earlier that we have
David Bradley, who has been deeply involved with the community
action agencies for a long time; we have three individuals who
have taken the advantage of being a part of CSBG services whom
we welcome especially today; and we have Mr. McKain from the
State of Connecticut, who provides those services. So we have
testimony already, but if you might summarize your testimony or
tell your stories, we will start with Mr. Bradley and go to Mr.
McKain next, and then we look forward to hearing from the three
of you.
Mr. Bradley, welcome.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID A. BRADLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COMMUNITY ACTION FOUNDATION; PHILLIP McKAIN, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CTE, INCORPORATED, AND PRESIDENT,
CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ACTION; NATHANIEL BEST,
KNOXVILLE, TN; WINIFRED OCTAVE, WORCESTER, MA; AND MICHAEL
SAUCIER, BERLIN, NH
Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Senator
Dodd. I have testimony that I would like to just submit for the
record and give some brief oral comments.
I must express my gratitude for not only the invitation to
appear here today but even more for this subcommittee's history
of concern and support of community action, the Community
Services Block Grant, and most important, the low-income
communities it serves.
Since its beginning in 1964 through the creation of the
Community Services Block Grant in 1981 and up to today, every
reauthorization that this committee has worked on has resulted
in the strengthening, improvement, and further focusing of the
Community Action Program.
We know that it can be further improved, and as always, we
have some proposals that we are presenting to you in
anticipation of a strong bipartisan reauthorization effort.
There is much that we agree with the administration, but I
must say that as an important partner in fighting poverty,
there are a couple of things that overall are disappointing
about the administration's views on the Community Services
Block Grant.
First, in the budget submission, there was discussion that
community action agencies are a ``static'' group of agencies.
The word ``static'' can mean a couple of things--one, community
action agencies are not updating their programs to address the
poverty conditions of today. Our witnesses and the panelists
here today will tell a different story about how community
action agencies and the Community Services Block Grant makes a
real difference in today's lives.
For the record, I have prepared innovative approaches going
on in every State, for every member of the subcommittee--
examples of the laboratory innovation of meeting today's needs.
I would like to also submit that for the record.
The other meaning of ``static'' is the same old
organizations getting CSBG funds. This complaint could reflect
an honest mistake about the role of Congress and how they have
assigned community action agencies their unique
responsibilities in the low-income community.
In 1964, the Nation decided to establish permanent local
institutions run by boards that represent a partnership with
the low-income community, business, and private nonprofits
including religious communities and local government. Board
structure was engineered to allow stability, legitimacy, and
the freedom to customize local anti-poverty responses using
whatever resources could be developed.
This committee and all of your predecessors, regardless of
the party holding the chair, has maintained that the design and
principle of community action is worth continuing. Every
grassroots group in the country sometimes dub themselves
``community actin'' nowadays, but the network of 1,100 CSBG
grantees is different. Its members have the credibility and
integrity to administer about $9 billion a year, including over
half a billion dollars from private donations. They serve more
than 13 million people a year, one out of every four people
living in poverty, with integrated, responsive programming.
And of course, if you support a national institution of
community action, you need to ask what CSBG contributes to
community action agencies to do their job. Some thing that CSBG
is basically funding for direct services, projects, or even
grants to individuals--money that makes up the shortfall in
other government funds--but it is more than that.
CSBG is the money that community action agencies use to do
the unique local job they are assigned. I would like to quote
to you the best description I think ever written of community
action, and I quote: ``While the operation of programs is the
CAA's principal activity, it is not the community action
agencies' primary objective. Community action agency programs
must serve the larger purpose of mobilizing resources and
bringing about greater institutional sensitivity. The critical
link between service delivery and improved community response
distinguishes the community action agency from other agencies.
A CAA's effectiveness, therefore, is measured not only by the
services which it directly provides, but more importantly by
the improvements and changes it achieves in the community's
attitudes and practices toward the poor and in the allocation
and focusing of public and private resources for anti-poverty
purposes.''
Mr. Chairman, those words were expressed by then OEO
Director Donald Rumsfeld, published in 1970. They have
reinforced and clarified the community action mission for 33
years.
Our Results-Oriented Measurement and Assessment system
which Senator Dodd was involved with in 1998 in creating the
environment to measure outcomes--called ROMA now--does not just
measure CSBG results--it measures community action agency
results, all $9 billion, and 13 million served by over 500
different combinations of projects.
As Senator Dodd pointed out, in 2001, it was singled out by
the White House as an innovative program for measuring agency
results; and as Senator Dodd also pointed out, it was a
semifinalist at the Kennedy School of Government for the
prestigious Innovations in Government Award.
Since 1981, we have tried through every reauthorization to
require better performance for all partners in this program.
With that, we do not disagree with the administration. We want
the program--all particular partners in the program--to do
better, to have more measurable outcomes, and to continue
helping the low-income. But to do that, we also need to make
sure that during this reauthorization, as we look at the role
that community action agencies play and their outcomes, that we
also assess the effectiveness, the performance, and the
partnership of both State and Federal.
We have given the committee some good ideas, we think, on
reauthorization, and we are proud of those ideas; we are proud
of how we think we can improve the Community Services Block
Grant.
But just as important as the pride we take in what we offer
the committee as our suggestions for reauthorization language,
we are also proud of the witnesses here today who will be able
to tell you a story about, that community action agencies and
the Community Service Block Grant have made a real difference
in their lives and communities.
Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Do you remember
who was Mr. Rumsfeld's assistant in 1970?
Mr. Bradley. Yes. Are you ready? Some guy named Dick
Cheney.
Senator Alexander. That was him. [Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. He probably wrote that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Mr. McKain, thank you for being with us
today.
Senator Dodd. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKain is my
constituent----
Senator Alexander. Why don't you introduce him?
Senator Dodd. Well, this is a wonderful human being, and we
are very proud of him in Connecticut. He has done more than 30
years of commitment to community action and to serving the
underprivileged. In fact, if you list--and I do not know how
you do this--I read the list of organizations that he is a
member of in the Greater Stamford Area in Connecticut, and it
is breathtaking. In addition to that, he is very active in his
own church and is just a remarkable human being. But for 10
years, he has been a responsible steward for CSBG's mission in
the area of successfully advancing local and State
accountability, and currently is president of the Connecticut
Association for Community Action Agencies throughout the State;
that is how highly-regarded and respected Mr. McKain is.
It is truly an honor for me, Mr. McKain, as a member of
this committee, to have you here with us today and to thank you
publicly for a lifetime of service to your community. You are a
true patriot, I want you to know, and we thank you.
Mr. McKain. Thank you, Senator, very much. My mother would
be very happy to hear you say that. She taught me community
service.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Dodd, I really want to thank you
for inviting me here to testify on behalf of the
reauthorization of CSBG. I was here some 5 years ago to talk
about CSBG and to really talk about the Results-Oriented
Management and Accountability System, which community action
agencies have really worked hard at implementing, so I want to
again come to tell you today what it has all meant.
You have my testimony, and I am going to submit it for the
record.
I also want to submit for the record from the commissioner
of the Department of Social Services, Patricia Wilson Coker,
which she wrote to Senator Dodd on June 30 in which she talks
about the value of CSBG to the State of Connecticut and how she
is partnering with the community action agencies to in fact
implement some very, very innovative approaches to human
services delivery in the State of Connecticut.
That is really what I want to talk about, because Chairman
Alexander, when I was listening to your opening remarks, you
talked about the array of services and how do we think
differently about how we coordinate services and help the
client or the customer--I like to call them ``customer''--how
we help the customer of our services be able to really enter
into the system and also get out of the system and become self-
sufficient in a way that is not confusing to them.
I want to really commend the Senate and Congress for
passing the Community Services Block Grant, because the genius
of the Community Services Block Grant is that you have in your
own hands right now at the Federal level a block grant program
that in fact can be the basis for bringing all of this
together. That is what we are doing in Connecticut.
We looked at the system in Connecticut and said that the
fragmented and confusing system for the Department of Social
Services delivery system needed to be modeled, frankly, after
what we do at community action in terms of a comprehensive
approach where the client comes in and takes a look at all the
services and getting them to them.
So we got together and, using CSBG funds, were able to put
together a technology-oriented system where we bought the
software and incorporated the Results-Oriented Management and
Accountability outcomes into that system and sat down with
Governor Rowland and his staff and the commissioner of the
Department of Social Services and said this is a new way in
which we should be taking a look at the delivery of human
services.
As a result, the commissioner turned to the community
action agencies for implementing programs for the disabled in a
time of crisis when they were faced with budget cuts, because
in her words, she said the community action agencies, through
their CSBG-funded programs and how they have been able to come
together is the only system at the State level that she can
turn to to make sure that the low-income and the disabled and
those who are underserved can be served.
So, Senator, when you talk about how do we help the client
navigate through this system, you have the Community Services
Block Grant that can be designed to do that. And I would say
that that is not a static system. The beauty of the Community
Services Block Grant in Connecticut is that we can respond very
quickly to needs. We have now created what we call the Human
Services Infrastructure Program which in fact will be a one-
stop self-sufficiency. We partner with DSS, the Department of
Social Services, but also InfoLine, which is a Statewide
information and referral system funded by the United Way, in
which we will in fact have one portal which low-income persons
can come through so they can then take a look at the array of
services that their family needs. If they need DHHS eligibility
for services, we get them there; if they need another sort of
service, we get them there. But we keep a case management
system going where we can in fact work with that family all the
way through to self-sufficiency.
That is what we are doing with CSBG funds, and it could not
have happened without CSBG. So when you read the commissioner's
letter, and you see the examples, you will see what the value
of community services is all about, and what Dave Bradley is
talking about when he talks about what we are all about.
We are about change at the State level and bringing about
innovation, but also more important, I want to talk to you
about how we go about community change at the local level
through CSBG. I can talk about my situation in Stamford. The
Senator is correct. I am part of almost every board and
commission in Stamford--but that is for a reason. The reason is
because that is what the mission of the Community Services
Block Grant is--to mobilize private and public resources to
address the basic causes of poverty, and we do that.
So the local community, for example, recently turned to us
because Stamford, which is a highly affluent area, had a very
serious issue related to affordable housing. They asked the
community action agencies to bring together the business
community, faith-based community, public officials, the
nonprofit housing developers, the private developers, to bring
about a situation where we can take a look at how do we create
affordable housing for the working poor--the nurses' aides, the
teachers' aides, even some of the local policemen, who have not
been able to live in the community.
What we did through that collaborative that we used--and
CSBG dollars were involved--we were at the place where they
met, we provided the food, the minutes of the meetings, and we
kept everybody on task because everyone comes at things a
different way. But that is the beauty of the Community Services
Block Grant is bringing the community together to create an
environment so that the needs of low-income people are not just
met on the direct service level, but the environment is created
in the community so that there is sensitivity to those needs.
And as a result of that, Stamford has a zoning law. The mayor
created a task force, and we now have recommendations for
affordable housing; we have an inclusionary zoning law that in
fact requires that at least 12 percent of the housing that is
developed in Stamford, whether it is through a private
developer or a nonprofit developer, has an affordability
requirement along all the areas of income that exist, because
as the Senator knows, in Stamford, CT, if you just do it by the
standard HUD definition, a lot of people will still be left
out. So we were able to be creative and create an income tier
that in fact creates affordable housing as a result.
This has not hurt the housing market. The developers are
developing housing. We have created housing for, as I said,
nurses and nurses' aides and teachers' aides. In fact, we have
a goal of creating 300 units a year, and we are working on
that. But that would not have happened, Senators, without a
CSBG-funded entity having the trust of that community to bring
this issue together.
The other issue--and I know I am going over my time----
Senator Alexander. Please finish, but we need to get to the
other witnesses.
Mr. McKain. I will finish. Let me just say that in fact the
State turned to community action agencies because they knew we
had a flexible funding stream in order to bring changes. The
local community turned to us because they knew that we had
trust and commitment to the poor so that we could bring about
change. And individuals turned to us because they have changes
in their lives, and the one thing that makes that happen is the
Community Services Block Grant, and that is the genius of it,
because they know that there is a flexibility there that allows
them to meet their goals.
So I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today,
and I will be more than happy to answer questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for taking the time to come
today and for your service to our country and your community.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKain may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Now, we asked a couple of our other
committee members, our chairman, Judd Gregg, and our ranking
member, Senator Kennedy, and then I did the same--we thought it
might be interesting to hear from what Mr. McKain calls ``the
customers.''
So, Mr. Best--Pastor Best, I guess I should say--Ms.
Octave, Mr. Saucier, I am going to ask each of you to take just
3 or 4 minutes and introduce yourselves to us and tell us how
you saw things from your point of view. And I cannot help--I
hope you will excuse me, but Pastor Best is from Tennessee, and
it is even better than that--there is only one movie that I
have watched six times in my whole life, and it is, ``Oh,
Brother, Where Art Thou?'' and he sang in it. So he is a pretty
big deal to me just for that reason.
So, Pastor Best, thank you very much for coming, and we
welcome you to our hearing.
Mr. Best. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dodd.
I am very honored to be here to speak on behalf of this
great organization because it literally changed my life in so
many ways. My daughter is serving in the navy right now, and
she has just about completed her fourth year, but in her second
year, she said, ``Dad, you really need to go back and finish up
some old business in my life.'' I did not get my high school
diploma, and I always wanted to go back and get it, but there
were some things that I had achieved in the music field, and I
was just ashamed, and I thought that maybe people would look at
me strange or funny if I went to school to try to get my G.E.D.
because of all the other accomplishments that I had made.
But 1 day, my wife and I sat down with our daughter, and we
talked about it once when she came home, and I said, ``You
know, I am going to go back and do this. I am going to go and
do it for you and my daughter.''
So when I got to the school, there was a lady named Dr.
Collins, and I said, ``I am here, I want to get my G.E.D., and
I want to do it for my wife and daughter.''
She said, ``I am sorry. You need to go back out the door.''
I said, ``What do you mean?''
She said, ``Well, if you are not going to do it for
yourself first, then you are really just wasting your time.''
When she said that to me, a light just went off on me, and I
said, Oh, my God, this is what it is about. I have to want it.
So it just sparked something in me.
So I went through the class, and I did get my G.E.D., and
they were very kind to me during that time. They made me feel
like I was family. It was not just an organization. They made
me feel like family. And I wanted to be a part of it even after
I got my G.E.D.
So once I got that, it sparked up so much energy in me
until I went out and started doing other things in music, and I
was able to do that movie. Since that time, I was put in two
Halls of Fame, I was able to sing at the Grand Ole Opry--things
that I have always wanted to do as a child I was able to
accomplish because of what I had gotten from them in that
program. They pushed me in an area that I did not think I could
go any more.
After that, I wanted to be a part of it, so my wife and I
started a scholarship fund in Nashville at Metropolitan Action,
and it is designed for children who get their G.E.D., but they
do not have enough money to get their books for school. So my
wife and I wanted to do a scholarship fund for that purposes,
and every year at the graduation, I go to Nashville and provide
services as far as a system for the graduations. I just want to
be a part of it.
I was listening to what was being said today about the
faith-based organizations, and I am a pastor, and I always look
to see how the church can do more for the community. But when I
heard that, I got to thinking about the fact that we have a lot
of pastors and churches that will put people in positions for
these types of things because they know them--``I know you, and
you are my friend, so I will put you there''--but they do not
really have the knowledge to be in those positions. That is why
I feel really close to Metro Action, because they take time.
And then, the Bible says ``Study to show thyself approve unto
God; a workman needeth not be ashamed, but rightly dividing the
word of truth.''
I believe that these people who brought me through the
program really care about what they are doing, and they study
to make sure that you know what you are doing when you leave
there.
So I just want to say that whatever I can do to assist
them, I want to be in there all the way, and I am very honored
to be here to speak on their behalf.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Pastor Best. That was 2nd
Timothy 2:15, right?
Mr. Best. That is right. Second Timothy 2:15, that is
right.
Senator Dodd. I am not going to challenge that, I want you
to know. If we had a little more time, we would have you sing
for us right here in the committee room.
Senator Alexander. I want you to know that we were working
yesterday in the Senate--and I am sure that Senator Dodd is all
for this--we were working yesterday in the Senate on an anti-
piracy bill so that when your records or your movies play, you
get paid for it--and the scholarship fund might grow more.
Mr. Best. Oh, great. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. I am all for it. In fact, I have a bill--I
have an idea on that as well that I want to share with you.
Mr. Best. Go to work.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for that.
Now, Ms. Octave is from Worcester, MA--I had to learn to
say that later in my life. Senator Kennedy is a great admirer
of yours, and he asked me to especially say to you and to the
hearing today that he, like Senator Dodd, is very active in the
floor debate this afternoon, and he is caught there right now
and will not be able to be here to give you the kind of proper
introduction that Senator Dodd and I did for those from our
home States--but that is not because he did not want to. So you
are very welcomed. Thank you for coming, and maybe you could
introduce yourself to us and tell us your story.
Ms. Octave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
Dodd, members of the panel.
I want to thank you first of all for the opportunity to
offer my testimony. My name, as you know, is Winifred Octave. I
was born on the Island of St. Lucia in the West Indies. I
emigrated to the United States in 1979, and I started working
for Merrill Lynch and Company in New York and then in New
Jersey.
In 1994, I moved to Worcester, MA with my three kids, and I
worked for a law firm as a legal secretary until the year 2000,
when the company went out of business. At that time, I was
faced with some big problems. I did not have a job, and at the
same time, I was living in a condo, and the condo was up for
sale. I was told that I had to move out.
So I went to the unemployment office in the year 2002 and
applied for benefits and to look for a new job. At that time, I
was told that I did not have enough computer skills, so I asked
them what could they offer to me, and they gave me a listing of
schools that they could send me to. One of the schools was
Worcester Community Action Council; there was a computer
training program at that school.
I did not have a car, so I made the choice to go to that
school. At that time, I thought that was a godsend, because
when I went to Worcester Community Action Council, a lot of
things that I did not even know existed were right there.
First of all, I went into the training, and they taught me
computer skills, resume writing, and even a little bit about
clearing your credit, budgeting--a whole lot of stuff. It
started opening my eyes, you know, to a different world.
I found out they had a board of directors, and I wanted to
know about the board of directors, and they told me, so I got
interested and wanted to become a member. I became a member of
the board of directors, and I have been on the board of
directors from 2000.
I went to school for 12 weeks and learned all the computer
skills and all of those good things that I told you. Everyone
at Community Action Council was helpful--everyone. At the same
time, once I was at the school, I was looking for an apartment,
so they referred me to a lot of different agencies, and one of
the places I was referred to was the CDC. I went to apply for
an apartment over there, and they did not have any apartment at
the time, and I was about to move out. So they referred me to
Friendly House, and all they had at that time was a shelter for
me and my kids. It was kind of hard, but that was the only
thing they had, so at the time, I put my things in storage and
did not have anywhere to stay. But I stayed on the board and
kept learning everything that I could learn about it.
Then, the CDC developed a new home, and they had a lottery,
so I applied for the new home. I did not have any money at that
time, but I was saving with the budgeting I learned at the
school; I started putting a little something on the side. The
Worcester Community Action staff helped me, and when I applied,
I was selected to get the house.
Now I live in a two-family house. I own my own house with
my three kids, and I am very happy because of Worcester
Community Action Council.
Now I am a mouthpiece for Worcester Community Action
Council. I go around telling people; people come to me asking
me about the different services, because Worcester Community
Action Council has prevented me and my children from being
dependent on the State--that is one of the things. Right now, I
am very happy, and when I look back, I think that it was like a
husband that I did not have, because you need another hand, but
they came right at the same time to help me, and I am very
proud for all of those things.
Senator Dodd. That is a wonderful description.
Senator Alexander. Not all husbands are that helpful.
Senator Dodd. I know, yes. [Laughter.] It is going to
become a popular ``husband'' when you compare it to some of
those out there.
Ms. Octave. They have helped me so much and changed my
life. At the board, since I live in the neighborhood and I know
what the community and the neighborhood problems are, when I
sit at the board meetings, I share and I give little solutions
on how to maybe correct some of the problems in the community.
One of the things that I am working on now is--I live in
the Belmont Street area, and there is nothing for the young
kids in my neighborhood to do, so they hang out on the
streets--so we have invited agencies and all the neighbors in
the community to come in and talk so we can find out some ways
to have a youth center for the youth in the program. I am
working very hard to get that in the area.
I think that as a WCAC board member, I can help others like
I have helped myself very much. Because of the services I
received, I am self-sufficient, and I am very proud of WCAC.
Yesterday, my daughter said, ``Mommy, do you know what? I am so
proud of you that you are going to see Senator Kennedy and all
those big Senators. Maybe if you did not get laid off and WCAC
was not around, there is no way you would be going there.'' She
is so happy for that, and she said, ``I want to become a member
of the board of WCAC.'' She is only 13, but she sees how it has
helped me and changed my life, so she wants to be a member.
Another thing I am doing now--at Worcester Community
Connections, we have different little committees, and one of
the committees deals with DSS. I found out that they needed
foster parents in the Worcester area, so I signed up, I
completed an 8-week class with DSS, and I am waiting for my
first foster child.
I am speaking for the board of directors at WCAC, and I
want to thank you for the support of the Community Services
Block Grant and for making it possible for millions of families
like myself to have a better life. And once again, thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Saucier, Senator Judd Gregg is the chairman of our full
committee, and he is from New Hampshire.
Senator Dodd. You must have spent some time up there.
Senator Alexander. I did spend a little time. [Laughter.] I
even know that Mr. Saucier is from Berlin; is that right?
Mr. Saucier. Yes, and that is the correct pronunciation.
Senator Alexander. And not many people know how to say
Berlin.
We welcome you. Please introduce yourself. We look forward
to hearing what you have to say.
Mr. Saucier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator. I just
want to thank you for the honor of being here. I keep getting
the feeling that any time now, I will wake up, and I will be
back in my cubicle at work--it is like a dream to me to be
here.
I feel very strongly about giving my testimony about what
impact Community Action had in my community and in my life
personally.
I am from northern New Hampshire, from a small community,
and the community has always been largely dependent on one
industry. Until a couple of years ago, everything was going
fine. Everybody goes about their daily lives, and I was able to
have employment in the local paper mill, bring up a family;
everything was normal, I had two kids in college--and all of a
sudden, the bottom just dropped right out from under us.
The bill that I was working for filed for bankruptcy, and
we were almost 900 people who were out of work all of a sudden.
It happened very quickly--like 1 week you are at work, life is
normal, and a couple of weeks later, you are all standing in
line at the employment department, wondering what do we do
next, what is going to happen.
One day while I was at the employment department getting
some counseling as to how to prepare my resume and look for
work, I had an encounter with a person who worked for Community
Action. There were so many people there, I had to make an
appointment to meet with him. I was not quite sure what
Community Action programs actually did, because I was never
unemployed and never had anything to do with Community Action
programs.
I found out that no matter who you are, things can happen
very quickly, and sometimes you find yourself being in need of
some direction.
When I met with this Community Action employee, he started
asking me what plans I had for my life, what I had planned for
my future, what direction I wanted to take, and what I needed,
my immediate needs and my future needs, because he was telling
me that they had programs in place to help people who were in
need.
It is hard to explain what it is like to all of a sudden be
in a place where you need some public assistance, but it could
happen to anyone. I am here to testify to that.
Community Action helped me to figure out what I want to do
with my future, that I still did have a future, and that I was
not stuck or going downhill. They helped me get training, which
I needed to make myself more marketable in the job market. I
went to school for pretty close to a year and learned a new
career and new skills, and they also helped me to--they worked
with employers in the area as a liaison type to find us
employment after we were trained.
I am just one of hundreds of people in that little area
that has benefited from Community Action programs, and as I
experienced what I did, as we were all going through the same
experience, I can tell you that some of these programs
prevented us from losing hope; it helped get us through; it
gave us some direction--because you feel very vulnerable in a
place like that.
So I am very thankful for this program. I have seen the
good that it can do in my community, and I am just very
thankful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saucier may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Mr. Saucier for
being here.
This has been a terrific set of comments this afternoon. I
think we are coming toward the close of what we want to do. I
have one question that I would like to ask, and Senator Dodd
may have one or more, and then we will wrap up. You have been
very patient with your time.
If you have anything else you would like us to know or that
you want to say, if you can get it in right away in writing, we
would be glad to have it. Let me ask one question if I may.
Mr. Bradley, I would like to hear you say something about
simplifying the eligibility process for low-income families. We
have lots of programs. I know that CSBG helps coordinate all
these programs, but maybe there is something that we in the
Congress could do to look over this wide array of programs--for
example, I mentioned the 69 programs that we have counted that
help children prenatal to K through 8--and simplify the
eligibility programs so that customers of those programs could
make more sense out of them and find them easier to use.
Mr. Bradley. Yes, I would be happy to comment on that. That
is part of our legislative recommendations. Currently, the
Community Services Block Grant eligibility requirement is 125
percent, and what makes sense for us is that if you could allow
the States at their option to make CSBG-funded services
participants in any of the 40 or more categorical programs that
the CAPs operate, if you could allow the Governors the
discretion of lifting the CSBG eligibility requirements, it
would go a long way in what Senator Dodd has talked about for
years in terms of a seamless delivery system. You will have
some that will be 185 percent, let us say in WIC or something
like that; Head Start is--what is Head Start----
Senator Dodd. One hundred percent.
Mr. Bradley [continuing]. One hundred percent. But if you
just allowed for our one program the Governor the option of
lifting CSBG, I think it would go a long way in addressing the
needs of the families in other programs who come to that
community action agency.
So I do not think it would result in other committee
jurisdiction and would go a long way in improving lives of low-
income families, and that would actually make the Community
Services Block Grant even more effective. So it is something
that we strongly agree with.
Senator Alexander. Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. That is a good point. First of all, David,
thank you immensely. This is one of my great heroes, this guy;
this program exists because of this man and a variety of
others.
Mr. Bradley. And this man.
Senator Dodd. Well, I know, but you are the genius that
came up with this idea, and that is a terrific idea, because we
have often talked about it. People talk about the Head Start
family, the WIC family--they are usually all the same family in
many cases. They are not in pigeonholes. So by allowing
Governors the flexibility to set those standard,s you can begin
to deal with the whole problem. The family that has a WIC
problem has a Head Start problem, and so forth. Instead of
jumping them around like that, it makes a lot more sense. So I
am very supportive of that notion and I am confident the
chairman will take a look at it as well.
I would like to know two quick things, David. One, how
could we improve both Federal and State performance monitoring
of these funds in providing technical assistance? This is the
question that obviously we are going to get, and particularly
as we run these large deficits, the ability to fund as much as
we might like, and it is going to be very, very important that
we get as high a performance level as we can. I wonder if you
had any thoughts on that.
And second, just to confirm, because just for the record--
and I think I know the answer to this, but I would like you to
confirm it for me--the administrative costs under CSBG are
really very good. I think it is around 7 to 12 percent is the
administrative cost, which is much better than we get out of a
lot of agency levels in terms of so much of that money being
absorbed in administrative costs. Here, you have been very
effective in keeping those costs down, and I wonder if you
might address those two points.
Mr. Bradley. In terms of the second point first, you are
absolutely right. The total administrative cost of an agency is
between 7, 8, up to 15, 16 percent. In 1995 and 1996, there was
pretty heavy debate in Congress about the role of government,
and a lot of programs were on the chopping block, including the
Community Services Block Grant.
So we rolled the dice and had a meeting with Speaker
Gingrich on March 6, 1996 to talk to him about the Great
Society and the centerpiece of the War on Poverty, this thing
called community action. A number of Republican Members went in
on that meeting. I knew these Members, and I had researched
what their administrative cost was for community action
agencies, but I wouldn't ask Phil McKain, for instance, for his
administrative cost--he might tell me 7 percent--but I would
ask the State. I would say you tell me what the State says
their administrative cost is.
So I was able to tell Speaker Gingrich: Your State tells me
the average administrative cost is such-and-such. And they
believed the State. On that experience, I did not find a State
anywhere in the country where the average community action
agency's administrative cost was over 15 percent.
Senator Dodd. That is great.
Mr. Bradley. Second, in terms of your first point, I think
we need three types of amendments to CSBG. One is amendments to
clarify and strengthen the purpose, similar to what Donald
Rumsfeld talked about--the local, family, individuals,
partnerships, local community. That is very important. Second,
I am all for excellence in all levels of this, and there are
specific things that we can do to make the State and the
Federal partners more responsive to ensure that money goes out
on time, to advance money rather than reimbursement, which is
just critical to the program; to ensure that State plans and
audits are actually read; to ensure that money is being spent
the way it should; and then, finally--and Senator Dodd, you
have been involved in this program for a long time, and you
have really invested a lot of leadership in this program--in
1998, we redid the training and technical assistance category
in CSBG. It is about $11 million--$11 million, that is it--and
Senator Dodd and others on the committee were very, very
helpful in that. I think we have got to fine-tune that, because
if a community action agency is in trouble--and some are; it is
not a perfect system--but what I am finding out now is that it
is easy to avoid dealing with fixing the problems. It may be
easier to say that they are not performing, and let us close
them down. But if there is any criminality, if it is a
fundamental management problem, or something like that, that
institution is worth fighting to save. And I think we have to
make our Federal and State partners more willing to put in
resources to help turn that agency around.
One final quick story. Lee Hamilton called me in 1996,
former Congressman Hamilton, and he said, ``Bradley, I heard
you are the guy I have got to talk to on Community Action. My
agency is $1.4 million in debt. I need you to help me save the
agency.''
So I went out there and spent a couple hours with him. It
was not $1.4 million in debt; it was $2.4 million in debt, and
it was messed up. It was messed up not because of criminality
but because they never cut back when other funding was cut
back, and they continued to do in the community.
We spent 14 months putting in resources at our initiation,
and it is an absolutely stellar community action agency. We
have done this around the country. We need help on refocusing
our training and technical assistance dollars to meet the
strengthening requirements in this program.
Senator Alexander. Those are good suggestions.
Senator Dodd. Finally, let me just say to Mr. McKain, but
also to the three of you who have come here, I am so impressed,
first of all that you are willing to be here. And let me
specifically, if I can, Pastor Best, address my remarks to Ms.
Octave and to you, Mr. Saucier. It is not easy to come before a
public forum and talk about the difficulties in one's life, and
I want you to know how deeply proud I am of both of you that
you are willing to come to a public forum to talk about what
you went through--because you are certainly not alone in this,
as you point out, Mr. Saucier, and you, Ms. Octave. You
represent literally thousands and thousands of people who have
been, who are, or who will be in similar circumstances, and you
become a source of inspiration for them.
I do not know how many will hear what you have had to say
today, but to those out there who wonder if there is any hope,
who wonder if it makes any difference at all, is worth trying
or reaching out to people, you have probably saved a lot of
lives just by being here and just by sharing your stories.
So I thank you immensely for coming and sharing your
observations, not just about an agency or a government program,
but about what can happen. As you, Mr. Saucier, said so
eloquently, this can happen to anybody, and in fact, it usually
does. It is not if you get in trouble, but when you do, and
everybody does. So the fact that you have been willing to come
to a Senate hearing and to share what happened to you in your
life through no fault of your own, and how much a well-run
program can make a different in your live is really eloquent.
And you, Ms. Octave, are an inspiration. Did I hear you say
you are going to become a foster parent?
Ms. Octave. Yes, I am.
Senator Dodd. That is one lucky child. I do not know who
you are going to have as a child, but they are very lucky.
Ms. Octave. I forgot to tell you one thing. I have a 21-
year-old son, and I have to mention him. He served 2 months in
Iraq, and now he is in Okinawa, Japan. So I wanted to let you
all know.
Senator Dodd. Thank him very much for us as well.
Senator Alexander. I am glad you told us.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, thank you; good hearing.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Thanks to each of you for coming. It is time for us to go
vote, I am informed.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Senator Alexander. So the committee hearing is adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Wade F. Horn
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the President's plan to
reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act programs.
Community Services programs help individuals and families attain and
retain self-sufficiency. They provide flexibility to meet the unique
needs of individual communities and work in concert with other programs
and multiple funding streams emphasizing Federal, State, and local
public and private partnerships.
The Administration strongly supports the concept of community-based
solutions to issues related to individuals in poverty and
reauthorization of the CSBG Act. Our reauthorization proposal includes
important recommendations the Administration believes will
significantly improve the delivery of service under the Community
Services authority within the existing community-based framework.
Before I discuss the details of our reauthorization proposal, I
would like to briefly describe the programs currently funded under the
Community Services Block Grant Act.
BACKGROUND
CSBG is designed to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that
fight its causes, especially unemployment, inadequate housing, and lack
of education opportunity. Services are administered in localities
across the country primarily by entities called Community Action
Agencies or CAAs, in coordination with other neighborhood-based
entities. A network of 1,100 Community Action Agencies delivers a broad
array of programs and services tailored to low-income Americans in each
community.
The CSBG program is uniquely designed to foster integrated problem
solving. To focus and concentrate resources on those areas where action
is most critical, CAAs conduct community needs assessments. The
assessments direct how local agencies mobilize and allocate resources
to plan, develop and integrate programs to meet community needs.
Along with the block grant, the CSBG Act provides the Secretary
with discretionary authority to use up to nine percent of the Community
Services Block Grant funds to support employment or community
development activities. We have used this authority to support funding
for the Urban and Rural Community Economic Development program (URCED)
and the Rural Community Facilities program (RCF).
The URCED funds competitive grants to locally-initiated, private,
non-profit community organizations called Community Development
Corporations, or CDCs, for projects that create employment, training
and business opportunities for low-income residents. This program
allows for a multifaceted approach to addressing poverty in communities
through projects that support individual and commercial development in
economically distressed communities.
The Rural Community Facilities program provides grant assistance to
State and local government agencies, and private, non-profit entities
to help low-income communities develop affordable, safe water, and
waste water treatment facilities. Activities supported by this grant
facilitate the development and management of water and utility
facilities in rural areas.
The CSBG Act provides additional funding for two other
discretionary programs--the Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFN)
and the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP). The Community Food and
Nutrition Program provides funding to States, tribes and territories,
and public and private non-profit agencies to administer community-
based, statewide, and national programs that identify, coordinate and
disseminate food and nutrition resources. The National Youth Sports
Program provides physical and educational development for low-income
youth in communities across the nation. Funding under this authority
has been awarded to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
since the program's inception in 1968. NCAA operates this grant through
its collegiate network to serve approximately 80,000 youth, ages 10
through 16, at 200 colleges in 46 States.
In fiscal year 2003, $704.2 million was appropriated for Community
Services Act Programs. The preponderance of these funds ($645.8
million) were provided for the block grant; $27 million for Community
Economic Development; $7.2 million for Rural Community Facilities,
$16.9 million for National Youth Sports; and, $7.3 million for
Community Food and Nutrition.
I would like to turn to our proposal for addressing reauthorization
of the programs supported by these funds.
REAUTHORIZATION
The cornerstone of our reauthorization proposal is to strengthen
accountability of CSBG to ensure that this significant source of
support for low-income families and communities is being administered
as effectively as possible.
Community Action Agencies provide services in 96 percent of the
counties in the nation and have nearly four decades of experience in
addressing the problems of low-income individuals and families. They
were designated to provide an array of social services to communities
through direct Federal-to-local funding in the original War on Poverty
legislation of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act. More recently, the
CSBG redirected Federal funding for these programs through the State
human services agencies for administrative oversight and technical
assistance. After administrative expenses, the States pass no less than
90 percent of the Federal grant to the local CAAs, many of which remain
unchanged since 1964. Annual awards are not open to competition.
In very rare occurrences, States have designated CAAs as deficient
and terminated funding to the entity, but such cases have occurred
infrequently. The current law does not provide a consistent means to
require minimum standards of performance by CAAs in order to receive
funding. As a result, the authority for the same local agencies to
provide services and continue to receive funding in these impoverished
communities has essentially been unchallenged, and subject to very
little monitoring and evaluation.
We believe that the lack of competition in given communities has
led in some cases to a static environment which could be stimulated by
bringing new organizations as a part of this network. To address this
concern, the President's 2004 reauthorization proposal calls for the
development of, and adherence to national outcome measures for agencies
funded under the CSBG, and the design of a means to review, monitor,
and remove local organizations that are not providing adequate services
to the community.
This builds on the 1998 reauthorization of CSBG which provided
requirements aimed at strengthening accountability. The 1998
reauthorization mandated that States be accountable for performance of
their CSBG programs through a performance measures system by fiscal
year 2001. States could design their own system, or replicate the
Secretary's model program, the Results Oriented Management and
Accountability (ROMA) or an alternative system for measuring
performance and results.
Under the Act, Community Action Agencies were not required to
report on an established set of national measures. It was argued then
that because the CAAs are charged with addressing the particular anti-
poverty needs of their respective service areas, that requiring and
applying the same measures across-the-board would be difficult to
achieve. As a result, States allowed their Community Action Agencies
participating in performance evaluation to identify, collect and report
outcome information related to goals their local programs identified.
This lack of consistency in management has not allowed for much insight
into the performance by individual CAAs, nor has it provided a means to
ensure a minimum standard of performance for all CAAs.
Therefore, the reauthorization initiative for fiscal year 2004
proposes to take the next step toward increased accountability in the
Community Services Block Grant by streamlining the performance outcomes
tool to require that all Community Action Agencies in the States
participate in a uniform, results-focused system.
We are looking to use the ROMA foundation as the basis for
establishing the national outcome measures. Specifically, the
Administration is collaborating with State CSBG authorities and local
entities to identify 10-12 national performance indicators for the CSBG
program. Most of the outcome measures being considered are those for
which data are now being collected by a majority of the States and
eligible entities through ROMA. As I indicated, ROMA has been a bottom-
up, mostly voluntary process over the past nine years. By building this
system into the statute, more consistent data can be collected and
program outcomes evaluated to ensure that CSBG is effectively serving
at-risk individuals and communities.
Organizations, including those historically designated as Community
Action Agencies, that are not found to be performing at an acceptable
level could lose their designation as a service provider for CSBG if
acceptable corrections are not made. A State-run competition would be
held to designate a new CAA to replace the agency that fails to meet
acceptable standards. Faith-based organizations, as well as other non-
governmental community organizations, would be eligible to apply for
funding under the proposed revised authority.
Our objective is to have consistently applied outcome measures to
ensure that all agencies administering CSBG can assess their program
effectiveness, and are accountable for the services supported by the
program. Once enacted, we will be better equipped to ensure that CSBG
funding is made to local community organizations that are effective in
achieving the purposes of the Act.
Similar changes are proposed for the Urban and Rural Community
Economic Development (URCED) Program. URCED grants are made on a
competitive basis to Community Development Corporations (CDCs) for job
creation, job training, and economic development projects. CDCs must
have private, non-profit status as certified by the Internal Revenue
Service. In most years, organizations that receive these funds come
from the same group of applicants. While most activities under URCED
have been successful, some grantees have had difficulty implementing
their projects in their communities, which we have documented in our
Annual Reports to Congress. The current statute does not authorize
significant monitoring to assist those grantees experiencing
difficulty, or a way to consider applicants for grants under this
program that have had repeated difficulty in implementing their
projects.
In the fiscal year 2004 reauthorization, the Administration
proposes to strengthen the capability of this program by increasing
accountability and monitoring, and expanding the pool of applicants by
re-defining entities eligible to receive funding to embrace other
private, faith-based and community-based organizations. The
Administration is recommending reauthorization for this program because
we believe the premise of providing economic development to under-
developed neighborhoods and communities where low-income individuals
live is an important element in addressing the issue of poverty. We
believe by refocusing this program, and by casting a broader net, we
can make this program work better for low-income communities and
individuals.
Finally, we are not recommending reauthorization of the remaining
CSBG Act discretionary programs. These programs largely duplicate the
functions of other programs or provide services that can be addressed
as a State or community finds necessary through the flexibility
provided under other funding mechanism like CSBG, SSBG or in some
cases, TANF.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Agriculture's Rural Development programs provide services similar to
those under the Rural Community Facilities program and USDA's Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) provides comprehensive support to communities
to increase food security and reduce hunger through various programs,
including programs similar to the CFN program.
In summary, the proposals I've outlined for reauthorization of the
programs under the Community Services Block Grant Act reflect the
lessons learned over the past 40 years. The issues attendant to poverty
have changed significantly since the 1960s. There are new interventions
such as family strengthening initiatives and asset accumulation
strategies. There are developments that the public sector has made in
addressing problems facing communities, such as the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency to help our nation's communities more
comprehensively address their water, wastewater and facilities issues.
There is also a growing understanding of the importance of the private
sector and the faith community as invaluable allies with government in
the strategy to address the issues of poverty in the 21st Century.
CONCLUSION
The Administration believes the programs authorized by the
Community Services Block Grant Act, and the State and local community
organizations that administer these funds, are vital to achieving the
objective of sustainable communities and individuals. But the objective
cannot be achieved if we maintain the status quo. This proposal puts
forth the framework for a 21st Century model of addressing poverty that
understands today's issues, requires uniform accountability to
facilitate quality, supports competition to enable different ways of
approaching the problem, and makes certain that the programs supported
by funds under the Community Services Block Grant Act provide the
highest quality of service.
We look forward to working with the committee as it pursues
reauthorization legislation for the CSBG program. I would be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of David A. Bradley
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dodd and Members of the Committee and
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant.
At the outset, it is important to remind the Subcommittee that
although Community Action Agencies have been identifying and meeting
low-income community needs for almost 39 years, the Community Services
Block Grant is just now approaching its twenty-second year.
CSBG was created by Congress in 1981. From the beginning, it was
seen as a program that combined the desire by a President and some in
Congress to shift authority and responsibility for programs to the
States while at the same time recognizing an equally strong desire by
the Congress to maintain a funding stream to the nation's Community
Action Agency network.
Congress recognized that the purpose and goals of a Community
Services Block Grant program are different than the more specific
purposes of the services and investments authorized, for example, the
Social Services Block Grant or the Community Development Block Grant.
The primary goal of the CSBG Act is to maintain the capability of the
local Community Action Agencies to plan, mobilize and coordinate
locally appropriate approaches to reducing poverty. The States are
required to use 90 percent of their grant for this purpose. The
Community Action Agencies are charged with addressing several specific
causes of poverty and with using certain strategies to do so. These
strategies are not required by other Federal programs for their
delivery systems: they include the integration of multiple programs and
services, prioritizing achievement of self sufficiency, and attacking
local, and by extension national, causes of poverty, from community
infrastructure and poor services to the mobilization of groups of
residents to make social changes.
Community Action Agencies are intended to be stable, accountable,
community-directed institutions, not projects, not single-purpose
groups, not temporary, ad hoc organizations.
The unique characteristics of CSBG-funded Community Action Agencies
are worth repeating:
1. GOVERNANCE--Community Action Agencies (CAAs) are required to
have a tripartite governing board consisting of equal parts of private
sector, public sector, and low-income representatives of the community
being served. This structure brings together leaders from each of these
sectors to collaborate on responses tailored to local needs.
2. INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS--CSBG funds give CAAs the flexibility to
design programs that address needs specific to individuals and the
local community.
3. COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS--CAAs use CSBG dollars to coordinate
multiple programs. CAAs provide services that address the full range of
family needs--from Head Start and family literacy, to child care and
after-school programs, to youth and adult employment and training, to
permanent housing and job placement, to asset building and budget
counseling, to services for seniors and the frail elderly. Integrated
service delivery is tailored to individual circumstances.
By investing in the Community Services Block Grant, Congress has
repeatedly confirmed that the unique characteristics of Community
Action Agencies warranted continuing Federal support. It now funds more
than 1,100 agencies to maintain the leadership and capability for
creating, coordinating and delivering comprehensive programs and
services to almost a quarter of all people living in poverty.
Attached is a summary of the fiscal year 2001 funding and client
data, showing that this is a nearly $9 billion system serving:
98 percent of U.S. counties;
As many as 24 percent of persons in poverty; and
More than 13 million low-income who were members of about
4 million families.
Of these, over 1.7 million were ``working poor'' families
who relied on wages or unemployment insurance.
It is worth noting that these data are collected by the voluntary
Information System designed by task forces of State and CAA managers
using the Federal support mandated first in 1990 and later reinforced
by provisions of the 1998 Human Services Reauthorization Act. It is
implemented and analyzed by the National Association of State Community
Services Programs, our State counterparts, working in close
collaboration with our local, State and national CAA associations. (The
very detailed state-by-state full report is available at
www.nascsp.org.)
In these reports, you will easily discern how poverty has changed
since the beginning of Community Action in 1964; children and their
families are more likely to endure periods in poverty than the elderly.
They make up the majority of CAA clients. Workers' families make up a
far larger share of the poor, and, accordingly, CAAs' biggest single
group of participants is now the working poor and their families. Just
about one quarter of Americans in poverty came to a CAA in 2001. Of
these, nearly half relied on, or had lately been relying, on wages.
We surveyed the CAAs in preparation for this hearing. In every part
of the country, rural or urban, they told us their biggest need was for
more resources and tools to support low-wage workers whose incomes are
inadequate, who have few or no benefits, and whose employment is
insecure. They also told us the biggest single problem in their
communities is the cost of housing.
But does the Community Action method work in general, and do
today's CAAs in particular, make it work? First I have to point out
CAAs beat its GPRA targets every year since 1999; these are set by the
Administration on Children and Families. A table showing our results is
attached. As you look at it, you might take note that the government
raises the target by 1 percent each year regardless of the funding
level of the programs. Fortunately, Community Action surpassed the
expectations even before CSBG was increased to $650 million. Many other
programs which are not being singled out for changes or reductions
today did not do as well, so we do question the way HHS selectively
uses its performance measurement system.
Mr. Chairman, Community Action is truly a work in progress. Since
its beginning in 1964 through the creation of the Block Grant in 1981
and up to today, every reauthorization that this Committee has worked
on has strengthened, improved, and focused the program. In 1998, we
requested, and Congress provided, a mandate to develop better
accountability and modern management tools for the local agencies.
CAAs are very proud of that new system--Results Oriented Management
Assessment (ROMA) that CAAs are pioneering locally. This system is
capturing the outcomes of more than 200 program combinations invested
in more than 4 million families and their com to get together and
create a voluntary results-oriented management assessment system. We
call it ROMA. Not yet 4 years later, it's a work that has been
successful beyond all expectations. Harvard University's Kennedy School
of Government made ROMA a 2002 nominee for the prestigious innovations
in Government Award; in August 2001 the White House office of Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives pointed out that CSBG stood almost
alone as an HHS program with outcomes measured.
Tracking results has had a significant management effect. CAAs are
86 percent private non-profit organizations, and the rest are tribes
and local government organizations. All such entities struggle with
limited management capital and training to keep management tools and
information systems up to date. ROMA has brought new systems and
healthy debate about new systems.
I have provided an outline of the steps to getting results
measurement in place because we are proud of the process. It brought
together in each of 50 States a total of 1,105 agencies, their State
mangers, associations, as well as uncounted Federal officials and
management experts to agree on ways to measure participation outcomes
for participants of about 400 programs coordinated with each other.
Some programs, like Head Start, have their own very extensive measures
that are reported separately to the Head Start Bureau. Nothing like
this has ever been tried; you need only read the material from the many
organizations that support the ``independent sector'' or the ``third
sector''--meaning private nonprofit organizations--to see how many
kinds of organizations are struggling with challenges that are similar
but involve far fewer goals and programs.
The reason for ROMA is not really to generate reports to Congress;
the reason is to give the program managers at the local level the
information they need to be more effective. Soon, good national
reporting will emerge; now you have collections of complicated State
reports. In this short period, CAAs have picked measures, tracked many
participants' results for one or more years, written reports, changed
programs, changed measures, and tried again. (We are all cheering each
other on by recalling that ``ROMA was not built in a day''.)
The next step is to agree on a few national measures everyone will
report on; a draft is circulating and we're having ongoing debates
about what to include. When the measures capture the kinds of programs
that will be described by my fellow witnesses today, we'll have a
selection that allows Congress to see a small slice of the Community
Action performance. It's astonishing to us that the Administration has
suddenly proposed to federalize this undertaking, to impose measures on
the network, and to turn this potential management tool into a punitive
exercise instead of allowing managers to create useful information and
feedback loops in the expectation of strengthening their work.
This comes from an agency which has no universal standard for
States to use for managing or auditing local funding, which has failed
to make timely grants when requested by States themselves for local and
State agency management support or technical assistance. Further, no
such Federal testing is suggested for any other local network or group
of nonprofits. If, in fact, the Congress legislated the proposal before
you, and agencies failed the Federal test, whatever it might be, what
other kind of private nonprofit would have also been measured and
tested in the same way so that a ``replacement `` would be demonstrably
better? (ROMA by the way is not about fiscal systems and performance;
the normal independent audit practices and OMB standards govern those
operations. At issue is the quality of program operations.)
In short, we ask your continued confidence in the process you
created 4\1/2\ years ago. We think the unique ROMA process is working
and that it would be a big mistake to hand it to the Federal Agency to
dictate measures and reports as proposed.
In fact, our belief in the power of performance measures is so
strong that we want Congress to insist that the management by States
and Federal Agencies also be measured. Our proposals for the elements
to be measured include getting funding out on time, coordinating HHS
and State poverty reduction programs internally with CSBG programs, and
meeting basic financial standards.
Of course our work can be even better. We have specific
recommendations for the Committee to consider during the
reauthorization of CSBG. Generally they are:
1. Amendments ensuring that the three fundamental purposes of CSBG
are clearly stated and distinguished from public policies of
contemporary concern to Congress.
By this we mean that the goals of reducing poverty for individuals,
of building community assets that reduce poverty conditions, and of
maintaining CAA leadership that represents the communities served are
restated for a new generation. Other important initiatives to meet this
decade's needs, such as TANF transition and literacy enhancement,
should be given prominence in a new category of Programs of Emphasis.
2. Amendments ensuring that the Community Services system has 21st
Century management and accountability systems at the Federal and State
levels, as well as at the community level.
By this we mean the adoption of common financial monitoring tools
by all States so the standards applicable to private nonprofit
recipients of Federal grants are universally understood and applied. We
also propose that HHS be held to high standard for its' own efficiency,
openness and oversight responsibilities regarding State management of
the block grant.
3. An amendment providing flexibility in determining CSBG
eligibility so that participants in CAA programs that support low-wage
workers' efforts to become economically self-sufficient are not
disqualified from the programs as soon as they begin working in entry-
level jobs.
We have attached a description of changes in each of the three
categories. Legislative language and a more detailed explanation will
follow.
The deep cut the administration has proposed for fiscal year 2004
would devastate CAAs' ability to marshal resources just as Federal
programs contract along with the economy. When Congress provided an
increase in CSBG appropriations, the CAAs raised proportionately more
non-Federal resources. We have attached a table comparing the
leveraging power of CSBG before and after the increase, by showing the
size of all types of funding, other than Federal grants, as a
multiplier for the CSBG funds in each year. It shows CSBG increases had
a disproportionate leveraging effect, in that the rate of growth in
non-Federal funds, not just the level, increased as CSBG funded
significant resource mobilization activities. Further, it shows that
each CSBG dollar leveraged more State, local and private funding in
fiscal year 2001 than 5 years earlier.
The elimination of the Community Food and Nutrition and Rural
Facilities Programs are also surprising; no other programs perform the
same functions nor are funds expected to be increased in the
Departments named in the Assistant Secretary's testimony. We will be
providing the Committee with additional information on these programs
that are critically important to our network.
We are grateful once again that a strong bipartisan majority of
this Committee and the Congress appear ready to reauthorize these two
critical programs. We look forward to working with you to achieve this
result.
Prepared Statement of Phillip McKain
Good afternoon, my name is Phillip McKain. I am the President and
CEO of CTE, The Community Action Agency for the Communities of
Stamford, Greenwich and Darien, Connecticut. I am also the President of
the Connecticut Association for Community Action, the State association
for the 12 Community Action Agencies of Connecticut. These 12 agencies
serve all 169 towns and cities in the State.
For 2002, our agencies reported serving over 254,000 clients. Our
clients include young children, the disabled, the elderly and poor and
working poor individuals. Of those for whom information was available,
the following outcomes were reported:
90 percent of families demonstrated an increase in skills
and were strengthened through counseling, classes and other support
services.
88 percent reduced or eliminated an emergency need, such
as food, shelter, or home heating utility payments.
69 percent eliminated or reduced barriers to employment
and self-sufficiency.
14,924 children and youth participated in services that
supported their growth and development, such as Head Start, school
readiness, and at-risk youth programs.
In particular, new asset-development strategies are helping low-
income working people stay off of welfare and move toward self-
sufficiency:
62 percent demonstrated an increased ability to manage
income to achieve self-sufficiency through various financial literacy
programs.
55 percent increased their earned income from the previous
year.
11 CAAs operate Individual Development Account programs.
This long-term program will eventually help 230 clients purchase their
first home, attend college or capitalize a small business.
Beyond these examples of the impact CSBG funding has made on the
lives of individuals and families, I am also here today to testify on
the value of CSBG in Connecticut in bringing about change in State
Government and in local communities to address the needs of working
low-income families and communities.
On the State level the 12 CSBG funded Community Action Agencies
have partnered with the Connecticut Department of Social Services and
Infoline, a United Way funded statewide information and referral
system, to change the social service delivery system for DSS Human
Services Infrastructure. For years Connecticut State Government's
social services system was fragmented, creating confusion and
duplication for Connecticut low-income families. In an effort to change
this system, the CAAs met with the Commissioner of Social Services for
the State and the Governor's Office of Policy and Management. We
proposed a new service delivery system to create an automated ``one
stop'' approach to human service delivery which will streamline and
integrate intake and assessment procedure, State and Federal program
eligibility screening, information and referral, and client outcome
measurements for Connecticut's low-income residents. ``Connecticut CAA
Self-Sufficiency Centers'' will build upon our existing Results
Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) system and software being
implemented through the State association.
In a letter dated June 30, 2003 to Connecticut's Senator Dodd
regarding this innovative partnership and the value of CSBG, the
Commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Social Services, Patricia
Wilson-Coker, stated that, ``this management innovation is so
impressive that I am using the Connecticut Community Action Network and
the ROMA model as a new paradigm to support Connecticut's Human Service
Infrastructure.'' I am submitting the Commissioner's letter for
inclusion in the Committee's record. As a prelude to this new system,
the DSS recently turned to the Community Action Network to provide
assistance to disabled clients who needed help in completing DSS
applications and locating needed services. This would not have been
possible without the core funding that CSBG provides.
The Self-Sufficiency One Stop is not a program. It is not a
``silo.'' It is a ``funnel'' that will guide clients through the
complex service system and be a more effective approach to providing
service. It will ensure the most cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars
and provide better customer service. Additionally, Self-Sufficiency
Centers will:
Create a more cost-efficient service delivery system and
eliminate duplicative efforts in intake, referrals, and assessment.
Provide low-income people a ``one-stop'' system of
comprehensive intake and assessment services that will improve client
outcomes, and
Provide better client outcome data reports that cuts
across State and federally funded programs and demonstrate the value of
integrating diverse funding streams at the local level.
The Connecticut Community Action network has utilized CSBG funding
to provide leadership in identifying and solving needs that improve the
life chances of low-income working families.
In Stamford, a high cost-of-living, affluent community
with pockets of extreme poverty, the Community Action Agency was asked
to form an Affordable Housing Collaborative to help put affordable
housing on the policy-making agenda for the city. We mobilized business
leaders, labor representatives, faith leaders, non-profit and private
housing developers, public officials, and community advocates, to put
housing on the agenda of the city government. At our prompting, the
Mayor established a Task Force which recommended zoning regulation
changes to facilitate the production of affordable housing. Stamford
now has incentives and regulations that will produce affordable units
for low- to moderate-income workers who are the lifeblood of a
sustainable community.
The Community Renewal Team leveraged private and public
donors to create a Homeowner Assistance Center in Hartford. This center
provides holistic services to help low-income working people purchase
and rehabilitate houses, enhance their financial literacy skills, and
improve their likelihood of long-term ownership, thereby stabilizing
neighborhoods.
The Human Resources Agency of New Britain's supports the
East Side Community Action neighborhood group. This association has
organized community residents to form five block watches; petitioned
the city to remove blighted buildings; organized ongoing meetings with
city officials to improve neighborhoods through crime reduction and the
availability of services such as grocery stores; and successfully
worked with the New Britain Common Council to pass a resolution
establishing the East Side as a Neighborhood Revitalization Zone (NRZ).
The Bristol Community Organization uses CSBG funds to
provide comprehensive services for elderly clients, including
transportation, that keeps them living independently and out of
expensive nursing homes.
These are but a sampling of the many economic development and
community improvement efforts going on in Connecticut through the work
of Community Action Agencies and CSBG funding.
The State of Connecticut turned to CAAs because we had a system
supported by a flexible and non-categorical funding base that can
respond to statewide issues. Local communities turn to CAAs because we
have the history of trust, commitment to the poor, and community
partnership to bring about community change. Individuals and families
turn to CAAs because they know that they can get a hand up to improve
and change their life chances. The Community Services Block grant is
that one unique Federal funding mechanism that has made these changes
happen.
I urge your continued support and the reauthorization of the
Community Service Block Grant. Thank you for allowing me to speak to
you today.
APPENDIX IX TO E. PHILLIP MCKAIN'S TESTIMONY
Innovative Strategies to Support People Moving Toward Self-Sufficiency
Individual Development Accounts: Eleven CT CAAs operate
IDA programs. The Federal IDA program provides no funds for case
management, yet because of CSBG, our agencies can integrate IDA
services into our existing case management structure. This long-term
program will help 230 clients purchase their first home, attend college
or capitalize a small business. To date, eight (8) have used their
savings towards post-secondary education, eight (8) towards small
businesses capitalization, and twelve (12) towards home ownership.
Support for Low-Income Working People: Our agencies are
adding programs and supports to help people manage their income better,
to reduce debt, repair credit and save money.
1,834 of 2,954 clients or 62 percent Demonstrated
Increased Ability to Manage Income to Achieve Self-Sufficiency through
various financial literacy programs.
Four agencies operated Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
Centers that helped low-income working families and individuals file
their taxes and apply for Earned Income and Child Tax Credits. Over $1
million in refunds were provided through these efforts.
Non-Custodial Fathers: A number of our agencies provide
support to help non-custodial fathers get back on their feet,
reintegrate with their families and begin providing child support. A
program at Action for Bridgeport Community Development, works with a
sheet-metal union to provide job training and better employment
opportunities. By increasing income fathers are better able to pay
child support and maintain relationships with their children. They also
receive assistance on resolving legal issues, parenting skills and
establishing relationships with their children.
Strategies That Are Improving Low-Income Communities and Supporting
Economic Development
Community Renewal Team: CRT developed the Homeownership
Assistance Center with private and public dollars. The Center
establishes a one-stop housing resource center that will provide a
comprehensive set of homeowner services to low- and moderate-income
households. The program joins homeownership, weatherization, and energy
efficiency services to Hartford families and individuals. It emphasizes
asset building by encouraging low- and moderate-income households to
purchase new homes or rehabilitate currently owned ones, and also
provides financial literacy counseling, mortgage application
assistance, home improvement assistance, assistance with dealing with
contractors, post-improvement audits, social service intakes to
determine eligibility for other social service programs. In addition to
funding from the Ford Foundation, CRT has established partnerships with
Fannie Mae, Northeast Utilities, the Housing Education Resource Center,
the City of Hartford, and the Connecticut Housing Finance Association.
This collaborative approach allows the Center to provide numerous
services to its clients that CRT is unable to provide on its own.
New Opportunities in Waterbury uses CSBG funds to support
five neighborhood centers, a transitional housing program, and three
youth centers. The Neighborhood Youth Center in the Brooklyn
Neighborhood of Waterbury provides activities (educational and
recreational) and family support (case management) to at-risk youth. By
engaging youth in after-school hours and during school breaks, the
program hopes to minimize their exposure to crime and drug related
influences.
Human Resources Agency of New Britain uses CSBG funds to
provide coordinated, comprehensive services, maintain over 35 community
partnerships, and leverage funding for community improvement efforts.
One such partnership is with East Side Community Action, a neighborhood
group of East Side residents of New Britain. Over 3000 East Side
families were contacted and they identified a range of problems to
address: Housing, Public Safety and Economic Development. The
committees are working on reducing or eliminating many problems
including blighted housing, crime, and the absence of a grocery store
on the East Side. Some of East Side Community Action's accomplishments
are:
Public Safety Committee members have formed five Block
Watches and a task force investigating the proposed Power Plant.
The Housing Committee has sent letters to the owners of
blighted housing and is following up with phone calls.
City employees from various departments have attended
committee meetings to talk with residents and answer their questions on
a number of topics. As a result, East Side residents readily call the
city to address problems in their neighborhoods such as drug dealing,
speeding cars, the need for stop signs, problems with trash removal,
and blighted housing.
In April 2002, the New Britain Common Council passed a
resolution establishing the East Side as a Neighborhood Revitalization
Zone (NRZ).
The Bristol Community Organization uses CSBG funds to
provide comprehensive services for elderly clients, including
transportation, that keeps them living independently and out of
expensive nursing homes.
Prepared Statement of Michael Saucier
I was employed by the local paper mill for 28 years, and for 23 of
those years, operated a sheet metal shop.
When it became apparent that the rumors were true, and the mill was
going to close, I was in a dilemma, not knowing where I could turn to.
I had never been unemployed in my life!
I then went to the NH Works Office for employment counseling and
sat down with Paul Lozier; who works for Tri-County Community Action's
Workforce Investment Program. Paul conducted a general testing of my
abilities and advised me that there were programs in the works, i.e.,
training programs with instructors and employment programs with local
businesses. He said that if I were interested, he would sign me up at
no cost to myself.
In the meantime, I started looking for employment had several
interviews in northern Massachusetts, etc. During this time, my wife
and I discussed the situation and decided that we were not prepared to
make ;such a drastic move as we had two children attending New
Hampshire colleges and we both had extended family in Berlin.
I worked with Tri-County CAP to determine the training that would
provide skills that matched my aptitude, interests and local employment
opportunities. I responded positively and been training at a local
college and enrolled in a computer-aided drafting course, which led to
my current, full-time employment as a professional with Isaacson's
Structural Steel, Inc.
Isaacson's Structural Steel: worked with Tri-County CAP from the
beginning of the crisis to develop positions and training that would
benefit laid-off workers, their local businesses and the community as a
whole. Tri-County CAP and Isaacson's are remarkable partners and I was
happy to work with both of them.
Prepared Statement of Winifred Octave
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for
giving me the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Winifred Octave. I was born in St. Lucia, West Indies
and immigrated to the United States permanently in 1979. I've been a
U.S. citizen for more than 10 years. I worked for Merrill Lynch in New
York for 15 years as a Settlement Specialist before moving to Worcester
Massachusetts in 1994. I worked as a legal secretary for a Worcester
law firm until they went out of business in 2000, and I was laid off.
I am a single parent with three children. My 21-year-old son served
for two months in Iraq and is now in Japan, on his way to the
Philippines. I have a 13-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son.
When the law firm laid me off in 2000 I went to the unemployment
office to apply for benefits and to find out what was available. Since
I didn't have good computer skills, I knew I needed more training. One
of the places that was suggested to me was the Worcester Community
Action Council. Since I didn't have a car, and WCAC was easy to get to,
I picked WCAC. I honestly believe God helped me make that choice.
I went to ``school'' at WCAC for 12 weeks. I learned new computer
skills. I got to practice interviewing for a job with people who came
from companies in Worcester. I learned to write a resume. I also
learned about credit and budgeting and other useful information from
the teachers and other WCAC staff. Everyone was very helpful. After I
finished the course, I received help in getting a job. I've been with
this employer since I left the class in 2000.
WCAC helped me in many other ways. I qualified for fuel assistance.
I joined Worcester Community Connections, a parent empowerment program
that is housed at WCAC. Because I got involved in Community
Connections, I learned about home ownership opportunities for families
like mine. I applied to a community development corporation (with help
from WCAC staff) and I was selected to buy a two family home where I
now live with my children. The house has been weatherized by WCAC.
Also, I learned about the need for foster parents in our community. So
I signed up with the Department of Social Services to become a foster
parent. I attended 8 weeks of classes and learned First Aid and other
important skills. I'm now waiting for my first foster child.
When I was still in the training program, I heard about the WCAC
board of directors and how to become a member. I wanted to do that.
Since 2001, I have been a representative of the low-income sector and I
report to the board on what is happening in my neighborhood and with
Community Connections. I've learned a lot about Worcester since joining
the board and also the towns where WCAC provides services. I learn
about programs and funding and we talk about issues that affect the
agency and low income working families like mine. Many of the board
members are business people and elected officials (or their
representatives). Those board members want to help people but they
don't know what it's like to go through problems in the community. I do
and so do the other low-income representatives on the board. We live in
the neighborhoods and know what kinds of problems people like us are
having. At board meetings I can talk about what the needs are. For
example, I've talked about the kids in my neighborhood who have nothing
to do. So some of the neighbors and agencies are meeting to try and
start a youth center in our neighborhood. Talking about this at board
meetings is a way to keep other people informed about what is going on.
I tell everybody about WCAC. I have sent so many people to the WCAC
office for services. I want to help ``give people a better life.'' I
think by volunteering and by being a WCAC Board member, I can help
others like I was helped. Because of the services I received at WCAC, I
am self-sufficient. That makes me feel very proud. And my daughter is
so proud that I am able to be here today with all of you.
Speaking for the WCAC Board of Directors and staff, I want to thank
you for your support of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and
for making it possible for millions of families like mine to have a
better life.
Prepared Statement of Patsy C. Lewis
It is an honor to offer testimony on behalf of the re-authorization
of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). We appreciate this
opportunity to provide information on how CSBG assists thousands of
families in our community and by sharing our experience, represent the
importance of CSBG funding to community action agencies across the
country.
Worcester, the second largest city in Massachusetts, has changed
over the past fifty years from an industrial city to one known more for
educational institutions, services and health care. Worcester has
strong neighborhoods, with active resident groups in all parts of the
city. The economy was strong in the 1990's, but problems continued for
low-income neighborhoods and residents. This has been particularly true
for those with limited education, limited English language skills, and
limited work histories. Now, unemployment is rising, affordable housing
is difficult to locate and there are fewer opportunities for upward
mobility. The Worcester Community Action Council, in partnership with
the public and private sector, continues to find those opportunities.
GOVERNANCE
Incorporated in 1965, the mission of the Worcester Community Action
Council, Inc. is ``to stimulate change in the fundamental causes of
poverty and to create and provide opportunities for economic self-
sufficiency through services, partnerships and advocacy.''
WCAC has a 21 member Board of Directors with seven members from
each of sectors: public, private and low-income. The board currently
includes representatives of utility companies, professional services
(finance and legal), elected officials (or their designees) and
representatives of low-income neighborhoods and organizations. The
board meets bi-monthly and reviews the program and financial reports,
hears neighborhood concerns and news and discusses important issues. In
2002, the board developed a three year Strategic Plan that emphasizes
economic self-sufficiency and set measurable goals in the areas of:
affordable housing; increasing youth and adult education services;
encouraging the development of healthy children and families; and
finally, increasing our own capacity as an organization to deliver
these high quality services and programs.
The Worcester Community Action Council offers 20 programs and
services around three themes: Education, Family Support and Energy.
Community Services Block Grant is the ``franchise,'' the funds that
make all of our work possible. Every dollar from CSBG leverages
approximately $20 in other grants and contributions that are used to
serve more than 11,000 households in Central and Southern Worcester
County.
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
The main office of the Worcester Community Action Council is
located in downtown Worcester, MA, across from the Worcester City Hall.
The office area is a central location for several of our major programs
including Fuel Assistance, Weatherization, Youth Education (GED, high
school student support, Americorps/Cityworks, the Computer Technology
Center/ComputeRise, ESOL, The Community Mediation Center, The Consumer
Council of Worcester County and Worcester Community Connections. Other
programs, including Head Start/Early Head Start and Healthy Families
are located at various sites throughout Southern Worcester County. We
have more than 130 full time employees who work for these and other
services. Several of our employees are ``graduates'' of our own
education and training programs.
FUNDING
WCAC has a diversified funding base, with approximately 90% of the
2002-03 revenue of $12 million originating with federal sources.
Another 5% comes from state funds and the remaining 5% reflects United
Way, corporate and foundation support.
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) is the ``core'' funding for
WCAC and our most important source of support. CSBG is used to leverage
other public and private funds ($20 for each $1 from CSBG), ``pilot''
new programs, support important services that are not funded (or are
under-funded) and support community services beyond the Worcester
Community Action Council. Here are some examples:
Three years ago WCAC piloted a 12 week Energy Auditors' Training
program to prepare low-income and unemployed residents for positions in
utility companies and/or energy conservation programs. CSBG was the
funding source for developing the curriculum and supporting staff. Of
our first class of four, three graduates immediately found employment
in energy related fields. Two months ago one of the graduates of our
second class responded to our ad for an auditor. She just started to
work for WCAC as an Energy Auditor and she will be an excellent
addition to the staff and the Energy field. CSBG made her employment
possible.
In collaboration with four other Massachusetts Community Action
agencies, WCAC received a grant from the Office of Community Services
to start an Individual Development Account (IDA) project to assist 25
low-income families save toward home ownership. The coordinator for the
project is paid from CSBG and the money raised from federal and private
sources goes toward the matched savings accounts.
United Way of Central Massachusetts provides limited support for a
very successful, open entry, open exit GED preparation program, Project
Excel. Thirty-five to 40 young adults participate every year in
academic classes, workshops and computer training. The United Way
support has gradually decreased in recent years, but because of the
importance of this program (and the outcomes), CSBG is used to keep the
support at an adequate level.
WCAC does not use the entire CSBG allocation for ``in-house''
programs. We provide CSBG funds to the Main South Community Development
Corporation and the South Worcester Neighborhood Center to provide
housing opportunities for low-income families, We provide CSBG funds to
the Worcester County Food Bank to support food distribution to families
in need.
For several years WCAC operated Customer Service/Computer Training
program for low income and unemployed residents. The program, funded
initially by JTPA and then WIA combined classroom instruction with
internships in local companies, life skills workshops and job search
activities. The program received national attention. One of the private
sector companies we worked with, National Grid/Massachusetts Electric,
was selected as one of the country's 100 best employers for their
Welfare to Work employment record. Public funding gradually decreased
and WCAC kept the program going until 2001 with CSBG support. There are
hundreds of former welfare recipients now working in Central
Massachusetts because of this particular program. And because of CSBG.
Other federal funding for WCAC originates with LIHEAP, the Dept. of
Energy/Weatherization Assistance Program, Head Start/Early Head Start,
Americorps, and the Dept. of Education. State funding includes: The
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Children's Trust Fund,
Local funders include: the City of Worcester, the Worcester Public
Schools, United Way of Central Massachusetts and corporate and local
foundations.
This summary is a sample of our work and of our collaborations in
the community. We reach into neighborhoods, into churches, into schools
and into homes. We do not see ourselves as providing ``safety nets'' so
much as providing ``ladders'' out of poverty and ``doors'' to self-
sufficiency. We recognize our responsibility for accountability and
efficiency, and our board of directors understands their special
responsibility as ``stewards of the public trust.'' WCAC, along with
the other community action agencies across the country, contribute to
the quality of life in the community and ensure a brighter future for
low-income families. That contribution is made possible by The
Community Services Block Grant.
Again, thank you for allowing us to represent community action and
to testify on behalf of the Community Services Block Grant.
Statement of the National Association for State Community Services
Programs
The National Association for State Community Services Programs
(NASCSP) thanks this committee for its continued support of the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and seeks a successful
reauthorization of the CSBG this year. NASCSP is the national
association that represents state administrators of the Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) and state directors of the Department of
Energy's Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program. The members of
our organization see firsthand the results of CSBG funding in promoting
self-sufficiency in communities across the nation. The following
testimony is the result of discussion and debate among our members and
leadership and reflects the extensive experience of this group.
One new feature within the proposed reauthorization is the addition
of state performance measures. Local accountability has given the CSBG
network the ability to provide clear data such as the service
statistics listed below. NASCSP supports the expansion of this local
accountability to states. Our membership agrees that states should be
held accountable for the monitoring and evaluation of grantees and for
uniform high standards of grant administration at the state level.
However, our members and leadership feel strongly that these measures
should be defined by the stakeholders and should use existing
structures rather than duplicating efforts already underway.
Specifically, NASCSP makes two recommends:
Due to the block grant nature of the CSBG, each state does
currently conduct its own programmatic and fiscal monitoring of its
eligible entities. The systems that are in place are in accordance with
the statutory requirements of the 1995 reauthorization and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars. For instance, New York, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Minnesota, require annual audits of eligible entities,
monthly financial status reports, require annual outcome reports, and
conduct grantee reviews and assessments for contract compliance. In
addition to the statute required monitoring, the state of Tennessee and
many other states, conduct annual, risk assessments of eligible
entities and may do more monitoring or provide technical assistance
based on findings. States take the monitoring, on going technical
assistance and capacity building of their grantee network seriously, as
it serves as an effective means of program management. When states do
have negative findings, they designate a grantee as ``at risk'' and
provide ample technical assistance as the grantee attempts to become
compliant. In many instances due to the rigor of the technical
assistance provided grantees are then able to become compliant and
stable for the time being and eventually flourish.
As noted above, currently a variety of approaches are utilized by
states when monitoring. A greater uniformity of approach could be
achieved by guidance from the federal Office of Community Services
based on recommendations by a task force of the stakeholders
representing the best practices. NASCSP would recommend that the
legislation require the Secretary of HHS provide monitoring guidance
specifically addressing the fiscal and organizational structure of
eligible entities. In addition, there would need to be T&TA funds made
available to help train state staff on how to use such guidance.
The OCS Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF) initially had
the mission of creating accountability for all three partners-Community
Action Agencies, state CSBG offices and the federal Office of Community
Services. To date, the MATF has led a successful and well-acknowledged
effort of creating performance standards, Results Oriented Management
and Accountability (ROMA), for Community Action Agencies (CAAs). Our
discussions regarding state performance measures have revealed that the
MATF has not yet completed its work regarding performance measures for
the other partners. In an effort to respect this process and finish the
MATF's work, we recommend requiring the Secretary of HHS to utilize a
task force of the stakeholders, including adequate representation from
the state CSBG offices, CAAs and the other national partners (possibly
the OCS MATF) to create performance outcomes or standards for states.
This task force would create performance outcomes or standards for
states that would fall in line with current ROMA practices. The task
force would address issues regarding die timely distribution of funds,
the monitoring of eligible entities, provision of training and
technical. assistance, coordination of programs, building the capacity
of the network, and so on. We would recommend that the task force be
given 12 months to create performance outcomes or standards for states.
BACKGROUND
The states believe the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) is a
unique block grant that has successfully devolved decision making to
the local level. Federally funded with oversight at the state level,
the CSBG has maintained a local network of over 1,110 agencies that
coordinate over $8.5 billion in federal, state, local and private
resources each year. Operating in more than 96 percent of counties in
the nation and serving more than 13 million low-income persons, local
agencies, known as Community Action Agencies (CAAs), provide services
based on the characteristics of poverty in their communities. For one
town, this might mean providing job placement and retention services;
for another, developing affordable housing; in rural areas, it might
mean providing access to health services or developing a rural
transportation system.
Since its inception, the CSBG has shown how partnerships between
states and local agencies benefit citizens in each state. We believe it
should be viewed as a model of how the federal government can best
promote self-sufficiency for low-income persons in a flexible,
decentralized, non-bureaucratic and highly accountable way.
Long before the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant, the CSBG set the standard for private-
public partnerships that could work to the betterment of local
communities and low-income residents. The approach is family oriented,
while promoting economic development and individual self-sufficiency.
The CSBG relies on an existing and experienced community-based service
delivery system of CAAs and other non-profit organizations to produce
results for its clients.
MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES NETWORK
LEVERAGING CAPACITY: For every CSBG dollar they receive, CAAs
leverage over $4.00 in nonfederal resources (state, local, and private)
to coordinate efforts that improve the self-sufficiency of low-income
persons and lead to the development of thriving communities.
VOLUNTEER MOBILIZATION: CAAs mobilize volunteers in large numbers--
In FY 2001, the most recent year for which data are available, the CAAs
elicited more than 32 million hours of volunteer efforts, the
equivalent of nearly 15,400 full-time employees. Using just the minimum
wage, these volunteer hours are valued at nearly $165 million.
LOCALLY DIRECTED: Tri-partite boards of directors guide CAAs. These
boards consist of one-third elected officials, one-third low-income
persons and one-third representatives from the private sector. The
boards are responsible for establishing policy and approving business
plans of the local agencies. Since these boards represent a cross-
section of the local community, they guarantee that CAAs will be
responsive to the needs of their community.
ADAPTABILITY: CAAs provide a flexible local presence that governors
have mobilized to deal with emerging poverty issues.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Federal and state emergency personnel utilize
CAAs as a frontline resource to deal with emergency situations such as
floods, hurricanes and economic downturns. Individual citizens turn to
the CAA to help deal with individual family hardships, such as house
fires or other emergencies.
ACCOUNTABLE: The federal Office of Community Services, state CSBG
offices and CAAs have worked closely to develop a results-oriented
management and accountability (ROMA) system. Through this system,
individual agencies determine local priorities within six common
national goals for CSBG and report on the outcomes that they achieved
in their communities. As of FY 2001, all states and all CAAs are
reporting on their outcomes.
The statutory goal of the CSBG is to ameliorate the effects of
poverty while at the same time working within the community to
eliminate the causes of poverty. The primary goal of every CAA is self-
sufficiency for its clients. Helping families become self-sufficient is
a long-term process that requires multiple resources. This is why the
partnership of federal, state, local and private enterprise has been so
vital to the successes of the CAAs.
WHO DOES THE CSBG SERVE?
National data compiled by NASCSP shove that the CSBG serves a broad
segment of low-income persons, particularly those who are not being
reached by other programs and are not being served by welfare programs.
Based on the most recently reported data, from fiscal year 2001:
70 percent have incomes at or below the poverty level; 50 percent
have incomes below 75 percent of the poverty guidelines. In 2001, the
poverty level for a family of three was $14,630.
Only 49 percent of adults have a high school diploma or equivalency
certificate.
41 percent of all client families are ``working poor'' and have
wages or unemployment benefits as income.
24 percent depend on pensions and Social Security and are therefore
poor, former workers.
Only 12 percent receive cash assistance from TANF.
Nearly 60 percent of families assisted have children under 18 years
of age.
WHAT DO LOCAL CSBG AGENCIES DO?
Since Community Action Agencies operate in rural areas as well as
in urban areas, it is difficult to describe a typical Community Action
Agency. However, one thing that is common to all is the goal of self-
sufficiency for all of their clients. Reaching this goal may mean
providing daycare for a struggling single mother as she completes her
General Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate, moves through a
community college course and finally is on her own supporting her
family without federal assistance. It may mean assisting a recovering
substance abuser as he seeks employment. Many of the Community Action
Agencies' clients are persons who are experiencing a one-time
emergency. Others have lives of chaos brought about by many overlapping
forces a divorce, sudden death of a wage earner, illness, lack of a
high school education, closing of a local factory or the loss of family
farms.
CAAS provide access to a variety of opportunities for their
clients. Although they are not identical, most will provide some if not
all of the services listed: employment and training programs;
individual development accounts; transportation and child care for low-
income workers; senior services; micro-business development help for
low-income entrepreneurs; a variety of crisis and emergency safety net
services; family development programs; nutrition programs; energy
assistance programs; local community and economic development projects;
housing and weatherization services; and Head Start.
CSBG funds many of these services directly. Even more importantly,
CSBG is the core funding which holds together a local delivery system
able to respond effectively and efficiently, without a lot of red tape,
to the needs of individual low-income housebolds as well as to broader
community needs. Without the CSBG, local agencies would not have the
capacity to work in their communities developing local funding, private
donations and volunteer services and running programs of far greater
size and value than the actual CSBG dollars they receive.
CAAs manage a host of other federal, suite and local programs which
make it possible to provide a one-stop location for persons whose
problems are usually mufti-faceted. Sixty (60) percent of the CAAs
manage the Head Start program in their community. Using their unique
position in the community, CAAs recruit additional volunteers, bring in
local school department personnel, tap into religious groups for
additional help, coordinate child care and bring needed health care
services to Head Start centers. In many states they also manage the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), raising additional
funds from utilities for this vital program. CAAs may also administer
the Weatherization Assistance Program and are able to mobilize funds
for additional work on residences, not directly related to energy
savings, that may keep a low-income elderly couple in their home. CAAs
also coordinate the Weatherization Assistance Program with the
Community Development Block Grant program to stretch federal dollars
and provide a greater return for tax dollars invested. They administer
the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program as well as job
training programs, substance abuse programs, transportation programs,
domestic violence and homeless shelters and food pantries.
EXAMPLES OF CSBG AT WORK
Since 1994, CSBG has implemented Results-Oriented Management and
Accountability practices whereby the effectiveness of programs is
captured through the use of goals and outcomes measures. Below you will
find some of the network's first nationally aggregated outcomes
achieved by individuals, families and communities as a result of their
participation in innovative CSBG programs during FY 2001:
42 states reported 70,360 participants gained employment with the
help of community action.
24 states reported 17,426 participants retained employment for 90
days or more.
28 states reported 32,603 households experienced an increase in
income from employment, tax benefits or child support secured with the
assistance of community action.
23 states reported 12,662 families continued to move from
homelessness to transitional housing.
26 states reported 33,795 families moved from substandard to safe,
stable housing.
16 states reported 1,861 families achieved home ownership as a
result of community action assistance.
32 states reported 22,903 participants achieved literacy or a GED.
22 states reported 12,846 participants achieved post secondary
degree or vocational education certificate.
28 states reported 506,545 new service ``opportunities'' were
created for low-income families as a result of community action work or
advocacy, including affordable and expanded public and private
transportation, medical care, child care and development, new community
centers, youth programs, increased business opportunity, food, and
retail shopping in low-income neighborhoods.
All the above considered, NASCSP urges this committee to
reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant. The program touches
nearly a quarter of all those living in poverty and another million of
the near-poor. The CSBG is an anti-poverty program that is uniquely
accountable for results and one that leverages substantial financial
resources and volunteer commitment. The program flexibility, the
locally selected and representative boards of directors, and the unique
ability of CSBG agencies to provide linkages as a core function of
service make the Community Services Block Grant a model public-private
partnership.
______
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Commissioner,
June 30, 2003.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Dodd: I understand the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions is considering the Community Services
Block Grant (CSBG) re-authorization and may be reviewing not only the
performance of community action agencies, but also the effectiveness of
local efforts to measure performance and document success.
I wanted to take this opportunity to share some information on the
success of our community action efforts here in Connecticut with regard
to the implementation of the national Results Oriented Management
Assessment (ROMA) system. In short, this management innovation is so
impressive that I am using the Connecticut Community Action Network and
the ROMA model as a new paradigm to support Connecticut's Human
Services Infrastructure (HSI).
I plan to explore expanding ROMA applications in my own Department
and related human service contracts. At present, we have initiated a
planning process for the development of the HSI system with CSBG
agencies introducing ROMA concepts to other key partners across the
state.
I hope the CSBG re-authorization will ensure at least two things:
the continuation of ROMA and protection of core funding for community
action networks. The continuation of the ROMA system, which the states
and community action agencies nationwide painstakingly developed,
tested, revised and implemented with CSBG support from HHS, is critical
to measuring our success in serving Connecticut's low-income families.
It is sufficiently adaptable to meet our needs in Connecticut and
sufficiently rigorous to lead to documentable program improvement.
Second, the Community Services Block Grant should be reaffirmed and
protected as the core funding for local community action networks. Our
community action partners use CSBG funds in remarkable ways to leverage
additional resources and develop innovative approaches to building the
assets of low-income people and their communities.
In Connecticut, our measured results for 2002 show: more than
254,000 low-income residents served; eighty-eight percent (88%) reduced
or eliminated an emergency need (such as for food, shelter, heating
assistance); sixty nine percent (69%) demonstrated an increased ability
to manage income and purchase assets to achieve self-sufficiency;
ninety percent (90%) of families demonstrated an increase in skills
through counseling, classes and other support services; and
approximately 15,000 children and youth received services to support
their healthy growth and development through programs like Head Start
and School Readiness.
I share these results with you to demonstrate the dramatic impact
ROMA implementation has had in Connecticut. We can now clearly describe
and document the impact the investment of Community Services Block
Grant funding has in our state and the progress we are making toward
the six national CSBG goals.
Through the allocation of CSBG Discretionary funding, my agency has
supported full ROMA implementation and the installation of a Management
Information System that will connect all twelve of Connecticut's
Community Action Agencies together in a single database and automate
the collection of data.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to document the impact and
importance of continued CSBG funding to the state of Connecticut.
Should you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Best regards,
Patricia A. Wilson-Coker,
Commissioner.
[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]