U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–414 PDF 2004

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

(
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

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 S. BOND, Missouri

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

MARGUERITE SALLEE, Staff Director

GRACE A. REEF, Minority Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

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. WilsonCoker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Social Services .......... 81

(III)

(1)

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 threequarters 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.
2

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
3

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.
4

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 Subcommittee 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.
5

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 communitybased 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 lowincome 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
6

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?
7

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
8

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 con-
9

sistent 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
10

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 headover-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
11

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 faithbased 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
12

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.
13

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.
14

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
15

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 processoriented 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 startup 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
16

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 en-
17

gineered 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
18

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.
19

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
20

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.
21

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?’’
22

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 faithbased 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.
23

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,
24

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
25

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
26

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,
27

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.
28

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
29

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.]
30

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 neighborhoodbased 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.
31

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 ac-
32

countable 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
33

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, communitydirected 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
34

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
35

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 41⁄2 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.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71

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.
72

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 selfsufficiency 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 lowincome 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 estab-
73

lished 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 noncustodial 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 lowand 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 pur-
74

chase 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 computeraided 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.
75

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,
76

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.
77

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
78

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.
79

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.
80

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 muftifaceted. 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.
81

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) reauthorization 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 lowincome 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.]

Æ