A Call to Action: Modernizing the Community Services Block Grant (Hearing, November 3, 2021)
Summary
Transcript of the hearing "A Call to Action: Modernizing the Community Services Block Grant" before the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services of the Committee on Education and Labor, November 3, 2021, Serial No. 117-33, with Chairwoman Suzanne Bonamici presiding via Zoom. Opening statements came from Ms. Bonamici and Ranking Member Rich Fulcher. Witnesses were David Bradley of the National Community Action Foundation, Clarence H. Carter of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, Katherine King Galian of Community Action and Sharon Scott-Chandler of Action for Boston Community Development. Additional submissions include letters from The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance and the National Religious Broadcasters.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“A Call to Action: Modernizing the Community Services Block Grant (Hearing, November 3, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-a-call-to-action-modernizing-the-communit-2aaf8a82eb/
, SHA-256 d9a250d1453f9582f0eeadfef4129ab01ff52669162bcb3808edc9c9d9d42d02.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A CALL TO ACTION: MODERNIZING THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CIVIL RIGHTS AND
HUMAN SERVICES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 3, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-029 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
LUCY McBATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas Vacancy
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Chairwoman
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Ranking
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut Member
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex
(ex officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 3, 2021................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights
and Human Services......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Fulcher, Hon. Rich, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights
and Human Services......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Bradley, David, Chief Executive Officer, National Community
Action Foundation.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Clarence H. Carter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of
Human Services............................................. 118
Prepared statement of.................................... 121
Katherine King Galian, Director of Family and Community
Resources, Community Action................................ 124
Prepared statement of.................................... 126-
Scott-Chandler, Sharon, JD, Executive VP and COO, Action for
Boston Community Development............................... 112
Prepared statement of.................................... 115
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Bonamici:
Statement for the record from the National Association
for State Community Services Programs.................. 237
Statement for the record from the Rural Community
Assistance Partnership................................. 240
Chairman Scott:
Letter dated November 3, 2021 from The Coalition Against
Religious Discrimination............................... 243
Ranking Member Fulcher:
Letter dated November 15, 2021 from the Institutional
Religious Freedom Alliance at The Center for Public
Justice................................................ 245
Letter dated November 16, 2021 from the National
Religious Broadcasters................................. 247
Letter dated November 3, 2021 from the Ethics and Public
Policy Center.......................................... 248
A CALL TO ACTION: MODERNIZING THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
----------
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. via
Zoom, Hon. Suzanne Bonamici (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Bonamaci, Adams, Hayes, Leger
Fernandez, Mrvan, Bowman, Scott (ex officio), Fulcher,
Thompson, McClain, Fitzgerald, Foxx (ex officio), Stefanik, and
Comer.
Staff present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Sheila
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Carrie Hughes,
Director of Health and Human Services; Ariel Jona, Policy
Associate; Andre Lindsay, Policy Associate; Max Moore, Staff
Assistant; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; Veronique
Pluviose, Staff Director; Jessica Schieder, Economic Policy
Advisor; Theresa Thompson, Professional Staff; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Cyrus Artz, Minority
Staff Director; Caitlin Burke, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Michael Davis, Minority Operations Assistant; Amy Raaf
Jones, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources
Policy; David Maestas, Minority Fellow; Hannah Matesic,
Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Eli
Mitchell, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg,
Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
Chairwoman Bonamici. The Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Human Services will come to order. Welcome everyone. I note
that a quorum is present. I also note for the Subcommittee that
Ms. Stefanik of New York and Mr. Comer of Kentucky are
permitted to participate in today's hearing with the
understanding that their questions will come only after all
Members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are
present have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on ``A
Call to Action: Modernizing the Community Services Block
Grant.'' This is an entirely remote hearing and as such the
Committee's hearing room is officially closed. All microphones
will be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary
background noise.
Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting
themselves when they are recognized to speak or when they wish
to seek recognition. If a Member or witness experiences
technical difficulty during the hearing please stay connected
on the platform, make sure you are muted, and use your phone to
immediately call the Committee's IT director whose number was
provided in advance. Should the Chair experience a technical
difficulty or need to step away or another majority Member is
hereby authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence.
To ensure that the Committee's five-minute rule is adhered
to, which sometimes is challenging, staff will be keeping track
of time using the Committee's digital timer which appears in
its own thumbnail picture. Members and witnesses are asked to
wrap up promptly once their time has expired.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) opening statements are
limited to the Chair and ranking Member. I recognize myself now
for the purpose of making an opening statement.
Today we're examining the role of the Community Services
Block Grant Program and our national and local efforts to
reduce poverty. Poverty in America is a persistent and complex
epidemic that directly, or indirectly affects everyone across
the country. Yet we know poverty can look very different from
one community to another.
On the important issues of hunger, homelessness, and
inadequate access to affordable healthcare each of our
communities grapple with unique circumstances when it comes to
supporting our fellow American in need. As policymakers we
might not always have the same views about the causes of, or
exact solutions to the many ways in which poverty manifests,
but I'm confident that we can agree that efforts to end poverty
are best led by those in the community who understand the
unique challenges they face.
In 1964, Congress first established its responsibility to
support locally driven anti-poverty initiatives by the
authorizing Community Action Programs, which led to what we now
know as Community Action Agencies, or CAAs. Today these
entities, made possible by the Community Services Block Grant,
form a network of more than 1,000 organizations that work in
nearly every county across the country to help individuals and
families find their path out of poverty.
Many CAAs are central pillars of their communities. They
administer programs like Head Start to provide quality early
childhood education to low-income children and to support their
families. Meals on Wheels to support seniors experiencing
hunger and isolation, and LIHEAP, the low-income home energy
assistance program that helps people keep their utilities on.
In the Fiscal Year 2019, CAAs helped nine million
individuals.
[Background noise.]
Chairwoman Bonamici. Mr. Mrvan can you mute. Thank you.
More than five million families secure economic stability and
meaningful employment, education, adequate housing and much
more.
In my home State of Oregon, CAAs were able to serve more
than 15,000 people who lack healthcare. 43,000 individuals who
reported having a disability, 21,000 senior citizens, 83,000
children living in poverty, and 8,200 veterans. To be clear,
eradicating the multi-generational consequences of concentrated
poverty is much greater than any one program.
Yet for people across the country CAAs continue to be a
reliable and essential source of assistance during times of
economic prosperity or downturn, and particularly during
national emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the
importance of CAAs, and the Community Services Block Grant
Program.
Last year at the start of the pandemic CAAs were among the
first to provide food and emergency support to those in need,
and now these entities are playing a key role in conducting
vaccine education and outreach and helping low-income families
access broadband and digital devices, distributing rental
assistance, and preventing households from losing water and
heating.
Despite consistent bipartisan support for the Community
Services Block Grant, Congress has not reauthorized this
program since 1998. That was when Google was founded, and John
Glenn was on the space shuttle Discovery. It's been a long
time. Yet over the past decade CAAs have had to do far more
with increasingly cheaper resources, even while they face
unique challenges providing critical services.
As we recover from this historic, global, health pandemic,
we have an opportunity, and I submit a responsibility, to renew
our bipartisan commitment to providing struggling Americans
with direct and meaningful support that will help them through
challenging times, and reportedly show them the path out of
poverty.
With the help of our witnesses, we will discussion
bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Representative G.
T. Thompson, Eddie McConnell, Elise Stefanik, Mark DeSaulnier
and James Palmer, and many other cosponsors to modernize and
reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant.
I thank each of my colleagues for joining in this
significant endeavor and appreciate that several of them are
joining this hearing today to highlight the importance of
updating the CSBG program. I also want to thank my staff Jack
Arriaga and the Committee staff on both sides of the aisle who
have worked so hard to get to this point today.
Our bill, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization
Act of 2021 will be reauthorized CSBG for 10 years, the longest
period in its history, and make long overdue improvements to
the program, including strengthening funding for Community
Action Agencies, expanding access to their services, and
streamlining cooperation between the Federal Government,
states, and local entities.
Poverty is not inevitable in this country. Today I am
hopeful that we can find common ground and discuss the shared
policy goals, we must realize to help those in need, and to
help them improve their lives.
I want to thank our witnesses again, and I now yield to the
Ranking Member Mr. Fulcher for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]
Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services
Today, we are examining the role of the Community Services Block
Grant program in our national and local efforts to reduce poverty.
Poverty in America is a persistent and complex epidemic that
directly or indirectly affects everyone across the country. Yet, we
know poverty can look very different from one community to another. On
the important issues of hunger, homelessness, and inadequate access to
affordable health care, each of our communities grapple with unique
circumstances when it comes to supporting our fellow Americans in need.
As policymakers, we may not always have the same views about the
causes of, or exact solutions to, the many ways in which poverty
manifests. But I'm confident we can agree that efforts to end poverty
are best led by those in the community who understand the unique
challenges they face.
In 1964, Congress first established its responsibility to support
locally driven anti-poverty initiatives by authorizing Community Action
Programs, which led to what we now know as Community Action Agencies,
or C-A-As. Today, these entities-made possible by the Community
Services Block Grant-form a network of more than 1,000 organizations
that work in nearly every county across the country to help individuals
and families find their path out of poverty.
Many C-A-As are central pillars of their communities. They
administer programs like Head Start to provide quality early childhood
education for low-income children and support their families, Meals on
Wheels to support seniors experiencing hunger and isolation, and
LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps people
keep their utilities on.
In the Fiscal Year 2019, C-A-As helped more than nine million
individuals, including nearly five million families, secure economic
stability, meaningful employment and education, adequate housing, and
much more.
In my home State of Oregon, C-A-As were able to serve more than
14,000 people who lacked healthcare, 43,000 individuals who reported
having a disability, 21,000 senior citizens, 83,000 children living in
poverty, and 8,200 veterans.
To be clear, eradicating the multigenerational consequences of
concentrated poverty is much greater than any one program. Yet, for
people across the country, C-A-As continue to be a reliable and
essential source of assistance during times of economic prosperity or
downturn, and particularly during national emergencies.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of C-A-As and
the Community Services Block Grant program. Last year, at the start of
the pandemic, C-A-As were among the first to provide food and emergency
support to those in need. And now, these entities are playing a key
role in conducting vaccine education and outreach, helping low-income
families access broadband and digital devices, distributing rental
assistance, and preventing households from losing water and heating.
Despite consistent bipartisan support for the Community Services
Block Grant, Congress has not reauthorized the program since 1998, that
was when Google was founded and John Glenn was on the space shuttle
Discovery. It's been a long time. Over the past few decades, C-A-As
have had to do far more with increasingly fewer resources-even while
they face unique challenges to providing critical services.
As we recover from a historic global health pandemic, we have an
opportunity and a responsibility to renew our bipartisan commitment to
providing struggling Americans with direct and meaningful support that
will help them through challenging times and importantly show them a
path out of poverty
With the help of our witnesses, we will discuss bipartisan
legislation that I have introduced with Representatives Glenn ``GT''
Thompson, Betty McCollum, Elise Stefanik, Mark DeSaulnier, and James
Comer, and many other cosponsors, to modernize and reauthorize the
Community Services Block Grant. I thank each of my colleagues for
joining in this significant endeavor and appreciate that several of
them are joining this hearing today to highlight the importance of
updating the CSBG program. I also want to thank my staff, Jack Arriaga,
and the committee staff on both sides of aisle who have worked so hard
to get this point today.
Our bill, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of
2021, will reauthorize CSBG for 10 years-the longest period in its
history-and make long-overdue improvements to the program, including:
Strengthening funding for Community Action Agencies,
Expanding access to their services; and
Streamlining collaboration between the Federal Government,
states, and local entities.
Poverty is not inevitable in this country. Today, I am hopeful we
can find common ground and discuss the shared policy goals we must
realize to help those in need improve their lives.
I want to thank our witnesses, again, and I now yield to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Fulcher, for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. For decades the
Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG Program has empowered
civil institutions and local governments to serve low-income
individuals and communities. Congress has not reauthorized the
CSBG since 1998, and I think it's safe to say that our economy
has changed tremendously over the past two decades to warrant a
closer look at the program.
We have an opportunity before us today to examine areas of
the CSBG Program that need to be reformed. We need to consider
ways to strengthen it. It's our job to make sure this program
operates as effectively as possible.
In addition to adding a greater accountability in low-
income community Members and taxpayers, we should look for ways
to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, encourage innovation and
ensure policymakers have essential information about how the
program meets the needs of low-income Americans, helping them
to move forward to stability, opportunity, and self-reliance.
We should not be content to have vulnerable, low-income,
and impoverished Americans remain locked in their current
economic position, neither should we be content to leave
Federal programs as is simply because it's easier than
improving them. Our programs to help those in need, including
CSBG should all be focused on helping to raise individuals out
of poverty, and move them into the workforce.
One important way we can transform these programs is
through a greater focus on outcomes. We need measurable
outcomes from our Federal safety net programs. Our safety net
exists to assist those who are most in need, but reforms need
to be made to ensure they work for the people they are intended
to serve.
A greater emphasis on program performance will ensure that
Federal anti-poverty programs are successfully helping
individuals move out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency.
Last, as we re-examine CSBG and other social safety net
programs, we must protect faith-based providers. Faith-based
organizations and charitable non-profits have been a backbone
of our country's efforts to serve those in poverty since our
Nation's founding.
Faith-based organizations provide greatly needed material
resource to low-income Americans, but they are also uniquely
position to provide relational capital and spiritual support to
them as well. Helping individuals out of poverty requires more
than just material aid.
Faith-based organizations work tirelessly every day to
serve Americans living in poverty and support their general
well-being. Undermining the right of faith-based organizations
to operate in accord with their conscience, harms the tradition
of charity that strengthens our communities.
Faith-based providers should be able to participate in
government programs without having to change how they live out
their faith. With all showing due respect for one another, we
must protect the rights of religious organizations to hire
employees in accordance with their faith. There are more than
19,000 religious organizations that participate in the CSBG
Program.
Their absence would create an enormous service gap. It's
our responsibility to make our Nation's anti-poverty programs
the best they can be, but we can do this by encouraging
modernization and innovation as well as transparency and
accountability. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today on how we can transform this program into one that helps
impoverished Americans achieve. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulcher follows:]
Statement of Hon. Rich Fulcher, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services
For decades the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program has
empowered civil institutions and local governments to serve low-income
individuals and communities.
Congress has not reauthorized the CSBG since 1998, and I think it's
safe to say that our economy has changed tremendously over the past two
decades to warrant a closer look at the program. We have an opportunity
before us today to examine areas of the CSBG program that need to be
reformed and we need to consider ways to strengthen it.
It is our job to make sure this program operates as effectively as
possible. In addition to adding greater accountability to low-income
community members and taxpayers, we should look for ways to reduce
unnecessary bureaucracy, encourage innovation, and ensure policymakers
have essential information about how the program meets the needs of
low-income Americans, helping them to move toward stability,
opportunity, and self-reliance.
We should not be content to have vulnerable, low-income, and
impoverished Americans remain locked in their current economic
position. Neither should we be content to leave Federal programs 'as
is' simply because it is easier than improving them. Our programs to
help those in need--including CSBG--should all be focused on helping to
raise individuals out of poverty and move them into the workforce.
One important way we can transform these programs is through a
greater focus on outcomes. We need measurable outcomes from our Federal
safety net programs.
Our safety net exists to assist those who are most in need, but
reforms need to be made to ensure they work for the people they are
intended to serve. A greater emphasis on program performance will
ensure that Federal anti-poverty programs are successfully helping
individuals move out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency.
Last, as we re-examine CSBG and other social safety net programs,
we must protect faith-based providers.
Faith-based organizations and charitable non-profits have been a
backbone of our country's efforts to serve those in poverty since our
Nation's founding.
Faith-based organizations provide greatly needed material resources
to low-income Americans, but they are also uniquely positioned to
provide relational capital and spiritual support to them as well.
Helping individuals out of poverty requires more than just material
aid. Faith-based organizations work tirelessly every day to serve
Americans living in poverty and support their general well-being.
Undermining the right of faith-based organizations to operate in
accord with their conscience harms the tradition of charity that
strengthens our communities. Faith-based providers should be able to
participate in government programs without having to change how they
live out their faith, with all showing due respect for one another. We
must protect the rights of religious organizations to hire employees in
accordance with their faith.
There are more than 19,000 religious organizations that participate
in the CSBG program. Their absence would create an enormous service
gap.
It is our responsibility to make our Nation's anti-poverty programs
the best they can be. We can do this by encouraging modernization and
innovation, as well as transparency and accountability.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on how we can
transform this program into one that helps impoverished Americans
achieve.
______
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher. And
without objection all other Members who wish to insert written
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5
p.m. on November 17, 2021.
I will now introduce the witnesses. David Bradley is the
Chief Executive Officer of the National Community Action
Foundation, which has for more than 40 years represented the
funding and policy interests of the Nation's 1,000 community
action agencies before Congress and the executive branch, and
we're fortunate to have him with us today.
Sharon Scott-Chandler is the Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer of Action for Boston Community
Development, Inc. Where she oversees ABCD's wide array of human
services programs.
Clarence H. Carter is a Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Human Services, having previously served as the
Director of the Office of Family Assistance and Acting Director
of the Office of Community Services within the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services from May 2017 through January
2021.
And finally, Katherine King Galian is the Director of
Family and Community Resources at Community Action in
Washington County, Oregon, where she oversees a range of
programs, helping low-income families and individuals of
Washington County prevent and end crises, and move toward
stability and economic security.
To the witnesses we appreciate you for participating today,
and we look forward to your testimony. Your written statements
will appear in full in the hearing record. You're asked to
limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary. Then after
your presentations we will move to Member questions.
The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide
accurate information to the Subcommittee, and therefore we will
proceed with their testimony. I will first recognize David
Bradley. Mr. Bradley you are recognized for five minutes for
your testimony. You need to unmute David.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID BRADLEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL COMMUNITY ACTION FOUNDATION
Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Chair Bonamici and Ranking Member
Fulcher, also Full Committee Chair Scott and Ranking Member Dr.
Foxx. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the
Community Services Block Grant, and this important legislation.
This is the first hearing on the Community Services Block
Grant in about 18 years. It is a very important hearing for the
program to update you on progress made, but also to re-enforce
and recommend I think adjustments that we need to make in our
current legislation.
Let me put into context the reason we have a Community
Services Block Grant in 1981. It was created. I was involved
with creating that program, and there was a recognition,
bipartisan recognition in Congress, including by the Education
and Labor Committee that is now the Senate HELP Committee, that
a national network of community action agencies, anti-poverty
agencies, primarily private non-profit was of value in
assisting the poor and delivering opportunity and hope.
We could not, and there was not a consensus, a majority
consensus, to save a Federal local relationship which existed
up from 1964 to 1981, but there was interest in a Community
Services Block Grant support for community action agencies.
Since then, since 1981, bipartisan support, growing
recognition of the value of this network has grown steadily
over the years, and today community action agencies are very
much a vital part of our communities, and of our response to
the needs of low-income families and individuals, and as I said
communities.
CSBG, when it was created, recognized, and supported a
community action agency network that has some commonalities.
One is every community action agency, private and non-profit
has a tri-partite board with low-income participation, local
elected officials, and a broad array of partners from the
community, including faith-based.
Second, is that the Community Services Block Grant enabled
our agencies to be comprehensive, flexible, responsive, and
coupled with the needs assessment that everyone, every agency
is required to do, really directive on services and assistance
needed to make the largest impact in their community.
And with our public-private partnerships, and with the
money that the community services funding, the Community
Services Block Grant leverages, we're able to stretch that
Federal investment far beyond just the dollars put in the
Community Services Block Grant.
So that recognition was there in 1981 and has continued to
grow. And this national network of community action agencies
that are united and supported by the Community Services Block
Grant, having that network enabled for instance, Governor
DeWine to allocate 554 million dollars on rental and mortgage
assistance, combining programs, to the Community Action
Network, because it was in place, all with the similar mission.
He used them. He turned to them because he knew that they
had the accountability, they had the knowledge, they had the
familiarity with the problems and the needs of low-income
communities. So, it funds a national network of community
action agencies, and each of these community action agencies,
as I said, has a tri-partite board, they do quality needs
assessment, they deliver and provide assistance from almost
cradle to grave throughout the community.
They have incredible partnerships. Congressman Fulcher I
looked in Idaho our agency's relationship with faith-based in
your district--over 100 partnerships. So, these partnerships,
public-private partnerships, familiarity with other non-profits
with local government officials has been very, very strong. So,
I'm running over time, but I'd like at some point to be able to
tell you about the good things in this bill and how it reflects
I think where the program should go.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Bradley
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. I'm sure there
will be time in the questions. Next, I recognize Sharon Scott-
Chandler for five minutes for your testimony, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SHARON SCOTT-CHANDLER, JD, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ACTION FOR BOSTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Good morning. My name is Sharon Scott-
Chandler, and I'm the Executive Vice President Chief Operating
Officer at Action for Boston Community Development, ABCD. To
Subcommittee Chairwoman Bonamici and Ranking Member Fulcher,
Full Committee Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Dr. Foxx and
the rest of the Committee Members, thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of ABCD and our
sister community action agencies across the country.
Thank you also to the Chairwoman and Representative
Thompson and others for introducing this critical legislation
to reauthorize and modernize the Community Services Block
Grant. Community action agencies which reach nearly every
community in the United States is the quiet, but effectively,
highly effective tools for which local residents work together
to provide increased opportunity for their low-income
neighbors.
My organization, ABCD, is the largest private, non-profit
community action agency in New England. We serve over 100,000
low-income residents in the greater Boston area each year,
helping them to move from poverty to stability, and from
stability to success.
The Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG is at the core
of this success. Its provisions ensure local leadership and a
clear focus on self-determination and economic opportunity. Its
flexible structure promotes innovation and leveraging of other
resources, both public and private, allowing each community to
develop unique solutions to fit local needs.
It also ensures a high level of accountability for each
community action agency through outcomes-based performance
measurement and reporting. CSBG has been the backbone for ABCD
for almost 60 years, leveraging critical resources, low-income
households across greater Boston. Let me offer a few examples.
CSBG funding supports our 12 neighborhood service centers
and a core of community-based programs. These are resources on
the ground in each community where families in crisis can
access through one door a comprehensive set of programs that
take people out of poverty.
Our centers operate food pantries, assist clients applying
for SNAP and LIHEAP. We keep elders safe, healthy, and engaged.
We facilitate workshops on computer literacy, we manage the
volunteer income tax program. CSBG also supports ABCD's
workforce development programs, and our childcare voucher
management system, housing services, Head Start and youth
programming. These are the kinds of initiatives that give
adults the education necessary to enter high demand industries,
and that have employed thousands of teens in their first job,
laying the foundation for what they will need for lifelong
employment.
By allowing us to maintain critical resources, build
partnerships and develop new program models, CSBG leverages
tens of millions of dollars annually. CSBG may even be more
vital now than when it was established given the complexities
of poverty and the unprecedented challenges, we face in the
world today.
This was never so evident than in the last 18 months of the
COVID-19 crisis, where because of CSBG we were able to impact
over 200,000 people giving them hope amidst fear and tragedy.
ABCD immediately adapted its emergency services safely to
respond early on in the crisis while many non-profits and
government entities remain closed.
ABCD rapidly built a network of 20 community and faith-
based partners transforming initiatives to remote operation,
distributing 3 million pounds of emergency food, and
intervening to break homelessness for hundreds of households.
We also created new public-private partnerships with PPE
suppliers, restaurants, healthcare providers, and
municipalities to meet the overwhelming health and socio-
economic needs in new ways. The core issues of poverty may look
similar in our respective states, but the appropriate response
delivered by each community action agency can, and often does
look very different. CSBG, through flexibility and innovation,
has allowed the network to be able to meet those diverse needs.
We have the opportunity to strengthen the impact of the
Community Services Block Grant with judicious modernization
laid out in this bill, and I want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today and for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scott-Chandler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon Scott-Chandler
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony.
And next I recognize Mr. Clarence H. Carter for five minutes
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE H. CARTER, COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Carter. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Fulcher, Full
Committee Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx, my name is
Clarence H. Carter. I serve as Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Human Services. I'm honored to speak with you
today about my work with Community Services Block Grant
Program, and the over 1,000 community action agencies coming in
through the block grant.
My work with CSBG spans over nearly three decades, while
serving two Presidents, four Governors and a mayor. I've had
the blessing and good fortune to partner with community
organizations dedicated to addressing the challenges of those
in our society experiencing economic, social, and developmental
vulnerabilities.
My working relationship with CSBG has been a rewarding and
spirited one. I've met and considered among my friends and
partners, leaders of several community action agencies. They
are fierce poverty warriors doing some of the most innovative
programming in this space.
I want to clearly and unequivocally State for the record
that it has been my lived professional experience that CSBG and
the Community Action Network is a vital tool in the public
effort to serve those Americans experiencing basic challenges
to making their everyday lives work.
Over these many years what has made our relationship ebb
and flow is that I am a change agent. Since very early in my
work in this space I have believed the public safety net is
flawed in design and operation. I have dedicated my career to
highlighting and addressing these flaws by proposing the new
vision and construction for serving our vulnerable citizens.
I've encouraged my partner, Community Action Network, to
join me in this endeavor. I've openly shared this desire, and
that has created some turbulence in our relationship. Allow me
first to speak generally about what I believe are the flaws of
our public safety net before turning to my hopes for CSBG and
the transformation of the American safety net.
Between Federal and State government loans, America spends
more than one trillion dollars annually in over 80 programs
that address every aspect of the human condition. Each program,
while important in its individual objective, is not tied to any
overarching vision to our Nation.
Our current safety net is not actually a system or a net at
all. Instead, we have the disparate set of individual benefits,
goods and services that operate as band-aids to certain human
conditions. As a result, we measure success in the current
system by focusing on how many needed the services we provided,
how quickly we process applications, and whether we provide
every benefit, good or service to every eligible individual and
family.
We take these measurements without considering the
perspective of those served. In doing so we fail to measure
what I believe is the most important objective--rolling those
in need beyond their dependence on the benefits, goods, and
services we provide.
We believe the safety net should serve as a mile marker in
the life's journey, not a destination unto itself. We instead
should measure success by focusing on freeing those we serve
from the life of basic survival to a life that allows them to
create their own unique version of the American dream. I use
the phrase ``growing capacity'' to reduce dependency.
I would argue this should be the overarching vision, true
north, and rallying cry for our American safety net. This will
result in supporting our vulnerable citizens in ways that
foster their growth of knowledge, skill, and independence from
government supports.
I would further argue that we don't leverage other sectors
of American society in this type of work. A one trillion dollar
figure I referenced previously is a public funding only. It
does not account for one dollar, or 1 hour of time, talent and
treasure, any number of sectors add to the equation.
We don't combine our efforts and assets to ensure the whole
American safety net is greater than the sum of its parts. Now
back to CSBG and community action. The Economic Opportunity Act
of 1964 created this network of national and locally focused
organization to lead the Nation's conversation on the issues on
the economic social and developmental vulnerability.
During my 27-year relationship with Community Action, my
hope has always been that they would partner with me to say
this emperor has no clothes. Our safety net, while absolutely
essential to the vitality of our Nation is woefully flawed in
its design and operation. My hope has been and remains that
Community Action will speak out about the problem and work
toward solving it.
To be clear, the problem is not that we don't have enough
funding or programs, or people or heart to solve these
challenges. The problem is that we have no system at all. We
don't leverage all of the American assets in pursuit of a
shared vision to grow capacity and reduce dependency.
Addressing poverty in American cannot be a problem left to
the government to solve alone. I truly don't believe CSBG, or
any----
Chairwoman Bonamici. Excuse me Mr. Carter you are over time
if you wouldn't mind wrapping up, please.
Mr. Carter. Yes ma'am. It has been my experience that CSBG
and Community Action Agencies are an invaluable tool in the
toolbox of America's effort to serve those in our society
experiencing economic social and developmental vulnerability,
however every tool in our toolbox, in fact the toolbox itself
demands a refresh.
My critique here today is to call to action all of us to
rethink, reimagine and renew the collective American effort to
serve our neighbors and build a society that provides true
opportunity for all to try. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members
of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clarence H. Carter
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And I now recognize
Katherine King Galian from my home State of Oregon for five
minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MS. KATHERINE KING GALIAN, DIRECTOR OF FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY RESOURCES, COMMUNITY ACTION
Ms. King Galian. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair
Bonamici, Ranking Member Fulcher, Chairman Scott, Ranking
Member Foxx, and Members of the House Education and Labor
Committee. Thank you for holding today's hearing and allowing
us the opportunity to talk about why H.R. 5129 is so important
for the recovery and well-being of our communities.
My name is Katherine King Galian, and I join you this
morning from Washington County, Oregon, where I have been on
staff with Community Action since 2002, and currently the
Director of Family and Community Resources.
Today I am honored to share my perspective on the
importance of this bill to solidify the role of CSBG, increased
investment in this critical program, reinforce the emphasis on
strategic planning at the local level, and permanently increase
the income eligibility to 200 percent Federal poverty level.
I'd like to tell you a little bit about my community. We
are a county of just over 600,000 people in 726 square miles on
the west side of the Brooklyn metro area. We have 12 cities, 7
school districts, and the most diverse people in Oregon. Our
neighborhoods are urban, suburban, and rural. We have the
highest median income in the State and two of the state's
highest poverty census block groups.
Those facts impact the lives of people here, how they may
or may not experience conditions of poverty and their access to
opportunities. Through regular analysis of community needs and
resources, intentional community engagement and partnership
building, our community action organization has helped to build
social infrastructure that grows thriving communities and
provides permanent pathways out of poverty.
Our deep community connections and long-standing
partnerships were called upon as the health and economic crisis
of COVID-19 hit our most vulnerable community Members hardest.
Using CSBG carried that funding community action coordinated
and expanded the capacity of a broad coalition of faith-based
and culturally specific partners to respond to the needs of our
most isolated and vulnerable community Members.
While CSBG funds are less than 2 percent of the agency
budget, they allow us to leverage private, local, State, and
Federal investments, and to deploy them effectively to impact
the lives of nearly 30,000 people each year. Our organization
provides community-based programs across a variety of
categories including financial education, career coaching,
utility assistance, and weatherization, emergency shelter,
housing, parenting supports, small business development and
early childhood education.
Because of CSBG we bridge each of these program areas and
provide comprehensive supports that address the needs of the
whole family. Families and individuals are more successful in
their efforts to escape poverty when interventions are
sequenced and coordinated in a way that reflects the realities
of the human experience.
I'd like to share one example of how this works in people's
lives. Patricia lost her job and her home in the fall of 2019.
For 6 years she successfully supported herself and three
children as a bartender in a hotel. But when hotel ownership
changed, she lost her job. She couldn't afford rent, and had to
move in with friends, and she struggled to find stability.
She became increasingly anxious and depressed. At Community
Action, Patricia worked with a career coach who encouraged her
to further her education and increase her earning potential.
Patricia liked the idea of becoming a certified nursing
assistant, CNA, but she was afraid the courses would be too
hard. She did not have a strong educational foundation, and the
idea of 6 weeks of classes to learn a new technical field was
daunting.
Her career coach was there with her every step of the way,
starting with a resume. With her new resume in hand, Patricia
applied to the Marquee company, CNA training program,
interviewed and was accepted, but she continued to face
hurdles. What if they were evicted? How would she afford gas to
travel 30 minutes every day for classes? What about scrubs and
books? But because of CSBG these barriers did not become
roadblocks on her path to success.
The classes were difficult, and Patricia struggled, but her
coach was a constant source of encouragement. If she felt tired
or frustrated her coach was there to say I know you can do it.
And when she went on to proudly serve her coach right in
February 2020, she was successful in completing her course and
hired full-time at Marquee Assisted Living.
As the economic challenges of the pandemic continue to
impact families, Patricia is grateful to be in a field in such
high demand, and that kind of job security is a huge relief to
her. Thank you for believing in people like Patricia. Because
of CSBG she has a job that she loves and a newfound confidence.
She says who knows, maybe when I'm 60 I'll be a doctor.
By permanently raising the income eligibility to 200
percent people like Patricia can continue on a path she has
worked so hard for. As a CNA working full-time at $22.00 an
hour, she is under 200 percent Federal poverty level for her
family of four, and her hard-won stability is penny-less.
Rent to childcare, transportation costs, leave no margin
for error in her monthly budget. An illness, a car repair, or
an unexpected expense can derail her progress. With this change
Patricia can continue to receive support and move forward on
her goals and leave the life of insecurity behind for good.
People's experiences of poverty are as unique and diverse as
our community. Like roads, bridges, and schools, CSBG is what
connects an often-fragmented set of investments in a cohesive
system of pathways of opportunity for people.
Passage of this bill ensures that our low-income
individuals and families are centered as we rebuild to a new
normal, and for years to come. Thank you again for your time
and consideration of this bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. King Galian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katherine King Galian
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Under Committee Rule 9(a) we will now question the witnesses
under the five-minute rule. I will be recognizing Subcommittee
Members in seniority order. As Chair, I recognize myself for
five minutes.
Ms. Galian, thank you again for your insightful testimony.
As you noted Washington County, which happens to be in the
district I'm honored to represent, the communities you serve
are from urban to rural, include a wide range of socio-economic
levels. We have companies like Nike, Intel, Genentech there
that employ thousands in good-paying jobs, but as you also
noted, you serve families in two of our state's highest poverty
census blocks.
So can you please talk about how Community Action's annual
needs assessment, helps you meet the most urgent challenges of
those you serve?
Ms. King Galian. Yes. Thank you very much for your
question, Congresswoman Bonamici. So first we hear directly
from our community about what's most important to them, and
we're able to focus our intervention around their priorities.
We're not guessing, or developing interventions based on what
funding is available. We're responding to community input, and
putting the pieces together in a way that work for the folks
based on the needs and resources where they live specifically--
place matters quite a bit in terms of how interventions
function.
We are able to be incredibly specific, what is needed in a
town like Beaverton is very different from what is needed in
Forest Grove or Banks, in terms of one--who the community is,
and two--what access they have to opportunities. And we share
those findings widely, so that we're able to stay as a
community focused on the math problem, build consensus, and
share information about what is happening in each of the
neighborhoods.
And that means that we aren't the only ones that are having
to--that are working on interventions, we're working with a
broad coalition of people.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And again for Ms. Galian,
like many Federal programs, CSBG uses the Federal poverty level
to determine eligibility, specifically allowing states to serve
individuals up to 125 percent of FPL. But during the pandemic
as you noted, the CARES Act temporarily allowed states the
option of serving individuals up to 200 percent, with most
states eagerly taking advantage of that option to help more
people.
So this flexibility was recently extended as I noted, but
it's not permanent. So you told the story about Patricia, which
I found very compelling. Why should a family living at 150-200
percent of the Federal poverty level in Northwest Oregon or
elsewhere, be eligible for CSBG?
And what has this flexibility meant for Community Action,
and your ability to serve them? And would you recommend that
this flexibility be made permanent as our economy continues to
recover from the pandemic?
Ms. King Galian. Absolutely I would recommend that this
flexibility be made permanent. People experience conditions of
poverty you know, things like not being able to afford basic
needs and incomes up to 200, in some situations 300 percent
Federal poverty level. This flexibility has meant that we're
able to kind of dull the cliff effect for families and provide
some security for them as they work toward permanent stability.
For folks like Patricia, a $600.00 car repair can mean a
choice between paying rent or keeping a job. It's also the key
to maximizing impact of the investments and sequencing and
alignment. So programs that have income eligibility up to 80
percent--a very medium income in Washington County, so with
CSBG having a similar eligibility level we're able to do that
alignment and sequencing of interventions and make them all
more effective together.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And in the remaining, a
little more than a minute, I want to ask the same question to
Ms. Scott-Chandler and Mr. Bradley. Would you recommend that
this flexibility be made permanent as our economy continues to
recover from the pandemic? Ms. Scott-Chandler and Mr. Bradley.
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Absolutely. As Katherine said housing
is one of the biggest challenges in our region, and on average
a one-bedroom apartment is $2,000.00, and 125 percent the
monthly income is just over $2,200.00. So it really does leave
our families and our elders, and everyone on the edge. I mean
they are trading paying for medication, paying for life saving
equipment for rent and other things, and so allowing the 200
percent of poverty to continue captures those individuals and
families.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Bradley do you agree?
Mr. Bradley. Yes. I agree. It's the low--it's the hard-
working low-income families that fall between 125 and 200
percent. It's easier to help assist, get them back on their
feet when they're first falling, than when they plummet all the
way down and have so many mountains to climb to get back to
self-sufficiency.
200 percent in the CARES Act, 200 percent in ARRA, 200
percent in regular appropriations has proved invaluable for
allowing these agencies----
Chairwoman Bonamici. And thank you, and I'm going to try to
set a good example and yield back. And now I recognize Ranking
Member Fulcher for five minutes for your questions.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for Mr.
Carter if I may please. Mr. Carter one of the things that is
omitted in this bill is to me a very critical one, and that's
the financial participation of faith-based organizations. And
can you talk for just a little bit about what makes faith-based
organizations unique in the way they serve low-income Americans
compared to the government, how the government does it.
And why religious providers are critical to the effort to
help those that are in need. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. Mr. Ranking Member thanks for the question. If
given our intention to grow individuals and families beyond
their need for these supports, what is important is to combine
transactions with relationship. The government is good at the
transaction part. It's horrible at the relationship part. And
we see the community of faith as being a faithful partner in
that relationship.
So you put transaction together with relationship and that
equals personal transformation, so we see think that that's an
invaluable partner, along with other sectors of our society in
serving economically socially, and developmentally vulnerable
individuals and families.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Carter I can just hear as one person's
perspective that I believe substantiates your comment about
government not being the best at relations all the time. I
think right now as a Congress we are struggling with our
relations. And so thank you for your comment there.
On a related note, followup Mr. Carter. There's also a
restriction under the proposed changes that would prevent
religious organizations from being able to hire employees
according to their faith. Could you comment on that? That is if
they receive the program funds. Of course, which is very
important, and what kind of impact do you think that may have
on the ability of those faith-based charities to fulfill their
mission of serving low-income Americans?
Mr. Carter. I think that it would actually undercut the
core of what makes the community of faith what is it if indeed
we require them to disconnect employees from their faith in
service to those neighbors in our community we're trying to
serve. It is a difference between the idea of proselytizing in
the service that is being provided as opposed to me being
allowed to have representation of my faith as part of the work
that I do.
So I think that we wouldn't want to hollow out that which
has the individual part of that faith community as a part of
their service.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Carter, thank you for that. Madam Chairman
I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher.
Next, I recognize Dr. Adams for five minutes for your
questions. You are still on mute Representative Adams.
Ms. Adams. OK. Can you hear me now ma'am?
Chairwoman Bonamici. Now we can hear you.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, very much and good morning, to all of
you, to Chair Bonamici, thank you for your work on the
Community Services Block Grant, and to the witnesses thank you
so much for being here. This pandemic has certainly put us in
mind of all the various ways that our communities must pull
together and support those that are most vulnerable.
So I'm glad to see that this program is being modernized,
and that it also has a bipartisan undertaking. I've known about
community action for a long time. We've had great community
action programs in my State. But community action agencies are
a trusted resource in their communities, and as such they've
played a key role in investing in health equity issues during
the COVID-19 pandemic. They've tackled disparities in their
communities by funding cultural and language appropriate
outreach in education for underserved and at-risk community
Members.
So Ms. Scott-Chandler, CEO Scott-Chandler, can you both
talk about the community partnerships that your organizations
have joined to address health equity issues, and support COVID-
19 prevention efforts? So CEO Scott.
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you for the opportunity to answer
the question. ABCD has a long-standing commitment to reducing
racial ethnic, and economic health disparities through many of
its peer-driven community programs, health education, and we're
widely recognized as a national model.
These concerns have been at the forefront during the recent
public health crisis as you've mentioned and recognizing that
gaps in information and access and trust have severely
compromised the ability of low-income neighborhoods, especially
ours to protect themselves from the impacts of COVID-19, and we
utilized CSBG resources to bridge those gaps.
It allowed us to bring accurate COVID-19 information to
communities. We undertook a comprehensive public information
campaign early on in the pandemic using multiple avenues of
communication, social media, print, electronic, neighborhood
level outreach to communicate reliable information, and to
promote prevention and testing and vaccination. We provide all
of our information in linguistically and culturally appropriate
ways.
We reflect the communities that we serve. About 75 percent
of our community that we serve are of color and speak 40
different languages, and our staff and our leadership reflect
that same demographic. And so we are able to communicate and be
trusted by the communities who we've been serving for over 60
years.
We also supported delivery of personal protection
equipment, and helped many folks get to testing sites, and
vaccination sites over these last 18 months.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. So we know that communities of color
have faced systemic disadvantages in energy costs, supply, as
well as access to renewable energy resources and energy
efficient technologies. Community action agencies play a
critical role in helping these families access public benefits,
including low-income, home energy assistance programs.
So how crucial is this outreach by the CAAs in informing
and assisting families of color in accessing energy assistance?
Ms. Scott-Chandler?
Ms. Scott-Chandler. OK. Yes. As you mentioned many of our
communities of color are spending far too much on energy
related costs, and do not even know they are eligible for
assistance, and so our outreach in multiple languages,
materials in multiple language is critical for us to reach
people in communities. It's critical that we be intentional and
inclusive. As I mentioned we are a trusted community resource,
and we work with faith-based partners. We work with other CBOs
to reach people where they are in all communities, and we're
mindful of the communication mediums, and the gaps with
internet, and social media.
Everyone is getting information by technology these days.
We have to help our communities access broadband, access
computers and technology. This is the type of outreach that we
do, and it sends a message that we offer programs that people
can trust and want to engage in.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. I've only got about 10 seconds left,
so Madam Chair I'm going to yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Adams. And next I
welcome to the hearing and recognize for five minutes for your
questions Congressman Thompson. Thank you for joining us. You
are recognized for five minutes for your questions.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Much
appreciated and thanked you for this hearing on a topic that
I've always been very passionate about. We're talking about the
original anti-poverty programs. One of the best forms of a
public-private partnership that I know of, and it addresses
poverty no matter what the root cause of poverty is.
So trying to prevent it and raise people out of poverty.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today and
giving us the opportunity to talk about you know the only
Federal program with the explicit goal of reducing poverty, and
that's Community Services Block Grant. As you all know CSBG
traces its roots back more than 50 years ago to the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 that established local community action
agencies to help identify why people were in poverty, and how
to address it using public and private partnerships.
And virtually every county in America has a community
action agency which act as a safety net for low-income
individuals and families, but even more importantly, they help
create opportunities for people to move from poverty to
prosperity, to independence.
Unfortunately, this program has not been reauthorized in
nearly 25 years. That's why my colleague, Representative
Bonamici and I introduced H.R. 5129, the Community Services
Block Grant Modernization Act. Specifically, this bill
reauthorizes CSBG Program for 10 years at an annual level of 1
billion dollars for the first 5 years.
It permanently raises the program's income eligibility to
200 percent of poverty line, which was temporarily provided in
the CARES Act. It maintains local control of community action
planning and activities, and it authorizes a broadband
navigator program to respond to the broadband digital needs of
low-income families and communities, and much more.
So CSBG requires some modernization to allow awarded
organizations the ability to tap their full potential and
better serve families and communities. And this program has a
strong history of bipartisan support because of the great work
it enables. Mr. Bradley thank you for being here and being such
a strong advocate for our community action agencies.
Your testimony provided us a snapshot of the history of
CSBG, positive impacts and the need to modernize. Can you
elaborate more on how community services block grant program
effectively lifts individuals and communities out of poverty
and puts them on the pathway of opportunity?
Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Congressman Thompson for that
question. The Community Service Block Grant is absolutely
essential to allow community action agencies No. 1 to run a
variety of programs that address multiple causes that allow
them to address multiple causes that may put families in
poverty, that may prevent them from achieving self-sufficiency,
that's No. 1.
No. 2, our agencies are absolutely trusted, reliable
institutions in the community, so they know from all the
partnerships. They know from the local elected officials what
that community needs, what those families need to help them get
out of poverty, or to stabilize their life.
Three, is that the Community Services Block Grant allows
these agencies to leverage so much of non-Federal resources to
help those families address poverty. In addition, and you
mentioned broadband, in addition the Community Service Block
Grant allows our agencies to be on the cutting edge of
addressing significant problems impacting low-income families,
one being the broadband initiative that you're so involved
with.
So there is--whether it is hunger, whether it's nutrition,
whether it's transportation, whether it's job education,
language skills, health, our agencies running from a multiple
of service and assistance are able to address the needs of the
low-income community.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Madam Chair, I can't see the
clock. Can I inquire?
Chairwoman Bonamici. You have another 32, 31 seconds.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Well Mr. Carter you know you have
had a long history of working with the program. In your
testimony you talk about reforms you'd like to see, and I agree
that we need to modernize and provide accountability measures.
Can you elaborate just briefly on how you see these measures
working for accountability.
Mr. Carter. Actually, I think our principal accountability
should be in the benefit to our service that we offer. Did it
grow that individual or that family beyond their need for those
supports? So right now, we measure a lot of process and output.
I can tell you how many units of service that we provided. What
I can't tell you is did we lift that individual or that family
beyond their need for these supports?
And so there is a very robust system of accountability
already in the network. I would ask that we enhance that by
looking at the ultimate impact. Did we increase assets? Did we
increase credentials? Did we create, did we reduce bad debt?
Did we reduce the need for that individual or family to rely on
these public supports?
Chairwoman Bonamici. And Mr. Carter, Mr. Thompson's time
has expired, and I want to as I turn it over to the next Member
for questioning, I just want to thank Mr. Thompson for your co-
sponsorship, but also your contributions, especially with the
broadband navigation, great contributions to the bill, and now
I recognize Representative Hayes for five minutes for your
questions.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing. As democrats put the final touches on a
transformational bill to help lift American families, we must
also look to a program that has a proven track record in the
fight against poverty.
In Connecticut, Community Services Block Grants are used by
community action agencies to provide wrap around support in
almost every city and town. The community action agencies, in
nine of the towns that I represent have served 107,000
families, and 260,000 individuals, helping over 81,000
households avoid crisis with energy assistance, and nearly
17,000 people avoid hunger with emergency or supplemental food.
Community action agencies in Connecticut have also enrolled
5,600 children in early childcare services. In my district we
are served by Community Action Agency of Western Connecticut,
the Human Resources Agency of New Burton, and new opportunities
incorporated in multiple locations.
These agencies provide an avenue for residents to empower,
shape and transform their communities. My question today is for
Mr. Bradley. Can you tell us about the unique concept of
maximum feasible participation in CSBG which requires low-
income residents to have a seat at the table in the design,
implementation and administration of programs which serve their
communities?
Mr. Bradley. The short answer is yes, I can. Thank you for
the question. Maximum feasible participation was one of the
more controversial phrases incorporated in the community action
program in the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964. It was
originally phrased maximum participation, and it was watered
down during the deliberation of the task force that wrote the
Economic Opportunity Act.
What it implies is that different than any other Federal
program at that time the poor were going to be involved in
planning, administering, evaluating, they're going to get an
opportunity to buy in and share their vision, their concerns,
their desire for opportunity. And the more that the low-income
population was able to participate in this, the more they are
going to support it, and take advantage and use it to lift
themselves out of poverty.
Over time that maximum feasible participation is now seen
as empowerment, as a piece of democracy in our low-income
communities, widely popular on both sides. This is the phrase
in the program and the opportunity to allow low-income families
and individuals to help shape their destiny because they're at
the table. It is critical to defining what this program is all
about.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I have
engaged just in a really thoughtful way with the agencies in my
district, and one of the things that I think that we really
have to stress is although these programs provide support for
people, the ultimate goal is to empower people to get back to
work, to be productive Members of society.
So following up on the question that Ms. Adams was asking
for Ms. Scott-Chandler. Are there ways that community action
agencies can be better supported to continue engaging low-
income and historically disadvantaged households? I mean the
programs exist, but I feel like the base has to be expanded so
that more people know what's available, and how we can provide
services to bridge the gaps that they're seeing.
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Yes. Absolutely. And one of the things
that we did with the CARES Act funding was to, I think I
mentioned before, partner with 20 other organizations. You know
no one can do it alone. No one organization can do it alone,
and we are the convenor, the trusted resource in the community,
and so we were able to partner with all sorts of organizations
to do outreach, to deliver services. That's how we on the
ground can get to our communities.
Again, you know, our staff live and work in our
communities. Word of mouth is often the trusted way of getting
information about our services, but we are constantly trying to
through our community needs assessment, find out what people
need, how they can get the information in the best way
possible.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. My time has expired. Madam Chair I
yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative Hayes. Next,
I recognize Representative Fitzgerald for five minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you Chair. President Reagan once said
we should measure welfare success by how many people leave
welfare, not how many people are added. I want to just echo
President Reagan's thoughts here. The Federal safety net
program should be used to help raise people out of poverty, not
keep people dependent on government assistance.
Mr. Carter, what can Congress do in order to help Federal
safety net programs become more effective at pulling
individuals?
Mr. Carter. I appreciate the question. I would say begin
with the intention of that objective. Part of the challenge of
the design and operation of the system is that we are a
disparate set of programs that don't have any kind of true
north, or overarching objective.
So I'd say that we begin by having that overarching
objective of growing capacity to reduce dependency, and then
using all of the safety net programs as supports to achieve
that objective as opposed to individual islands in and of
themselves.
So we'll begin with the intention what the system is about,
growing people beyond it. And then allowing for connectivity of
the supports so that they can support that shared objective of
growing people beyond their vulnerability.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Just a followup. After President
Clinton had embarked on the many changes that he wanted to make
to welfare in America, it was up to the individual states
oftentimes to come up with the innovative part. And I was part
of the Wisconsin State Senate when Governor Tommy Thompson
pulled together the Wisconsin Works Program, W2.
So with that being said, Mr. Carter the structure of the
CSBG Program, it makes it difficult for innovative new partners
to enter into the programs. It seems that one of the reasons
for that is because states have little ability to redesignate
the funds from any existing partners, and that was critical
when we developed W2 in Wisconsin.
Even if they are not performing well, we still need that.
What reforms should Congress consider to support more
innovation and help remove the poor performers?
Mr. Carter. One, I like the idea of an integration fund
which would specifically support partnerships between the
community action network and other sectors to be able to bring
innovation into the system. And while we don't want to in any
kind of willy-nilly way, remove network service providers.
There does need to be a rigorous standard in which we hold
every entity that uses public money to serve the economically
socially and developmentally vulnerable to account for doing
so. And those that are unable to meet the mark, then we ought
to be able to move on from there.
I would add that when I first had this responsibility some
20 years ago I asked David Bradley if he could introduce me to
some of the best and brightest community action agencies, and
his first recommendation was ABCD in Boston, where I had the
opportunity to break bread with a champion in community action,
Bob Core, and there was--I saw there were some of the most
brilliant innovation that goes on in the network.
And there is so much of that innovation, but with any other
endeavor there are those that excel, and those that can't meet
the mark, and we ought not to be afraid to move on from those
that can't meet the mark.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much sir. Thank you and I
yield back Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative. Next, I
recognize Representative Leger Fernandez for five minutes for
your questions.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much Chair Bonamici, and
Ranking Member Fulcher. I really want to thank the witnesses
not just for being witnesses, and lending their expertise
today, but for the work they are doing in the communities to
make a difference, to empower, as we've just heard.
You know there are so many programs that come out of this
that are pretty exciting in terms of their focus on indeed,
what I think it outcome. I'm very pleased to be a co-sponsor
for the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act with
Chair Bonamici.
Like one of the programs I think about is the Rural
Community Development Program, which provides these grants to
non-profit organizations for housing and training, for
technical assistance, you know, and that supports the network
that is needed to get safe drinking water, and wastewater
treatment facilities.
You know now we know it's also these essential
infrastructure, includes broadband, and we've added that. But
Mr. Bradley, your written testimony, you had a little more time
in that, and you were able to describe your support for the
reauthorization, and the fact that it strengthens community
action principles, principles of using needs assessments,
strategic planning, and yes, partnerships which we are hearing
about the importance today.
We know we're going to see new funding coming out of
Washington to the states and communities in both the Build
Back Better and the Infrastructure Bill. I really want to make
sure that smaller, rural, poor communities will be able to
access those funds. You know I don't want a nickel to stay in
D.C. when it could be helping families on the ground in New
Mexico and elsewhere. Can you describe to us how both the
reauthorization and the principles and the work that's done
will help you know, help CAAs, could help communities access
those funds?
Mr. Bradley. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And
H.R. 5129, I think is a critical, critical element for the next
part of our history, and the ongoing history of this program.
There are many things in there to go through very, very quickly
that will strengthen the program, that will I think help
community action agencies function better, will highlight
results, so let me go through very quickly things in this bill
that are important to our communities.
This bill adjusts the State minimum allocation. We did this
in 1989 and 1990, 12 small states were getting one-quarter of 1
percent. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, upped that to one-
half of 1 percent, but in a way that no State was cut. There
isn't a State in the country who said we have too much CSBG.
They're saying you know we need more money.
This bill will take this minimum State allocation from one-
half to three-quarters, and we know in rural communities,
including in New Mexico, we know in rural communities, a lot of
times the most important entity for a local government, for
other partnerships, for other non-profits, for faith-based, is
that community action agency.
By giving them more resources we're going to leverage far
more dollars to help those low-income communities deal with the
problems they're having. Broadband is probably too lengthy to
answer at this point, but we also require this bill
performance--Federal, State, and local.
The Federal entity, Federal Office of Community Services
needs to get money out on time. This puts a 30-day threshold.
We want states to get the money down locally in 30 days. All
that helps the efficiency, and the operation of these agencies.
And then finally, one quick word on innovation.
There is a lot of innovation going on locally in this
program. We look at Head Start, you look at community health
centers, on and on and on. Those programs started because the
innovative DNA contained in community action agencies, that
still exists. The problem is nobody knows about it.
Fresno does something on gangs, no one knows it but them,
and maybe the State and myself. We created an innovation fund.
It's only 8 million dollars, but an innovation fund to help us
evaluate and replicate, if necessary, the due diligence on a
lot of innovative ideas.
So I think this bill in total is going to strengthen
community action agencies all across the country and with more
resources in the rural areas, they're going to continue to be
the vital entity that those communities rely on, OK.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much. You know I want to
go Ms. King Galian, and I wanted to go back to the point about
measuring success by looking at outcome. When I listened to
Patricia's story, that was about outcome. Her life was changed.
Can you describe how you look at that issue? Not just about
Patricia's, but in the entire work that you do, in terms of how
you're measuring what you're doing, because clearly you brought
to us a story of how a life was changed, and therefore the
family's life was changed, the children's life, their outcome
is going to be different.
Can you describe a little bit more about how you believe--
do you believe that's already baked into what CAAs do?
Ms. King Galian. I do. Obviously in a situation like
Patricia's, multiple programs came together to provide what she
needed, and we're measuring outcomes for each of those
individual investments, the education outcomes, housing
supports, childcare supports, and also the combined impact of
all of them moving Patricia and her family out of poverty.
So we are looking at households increasing income. How many
folks are moving from below 100 percent Federal poverty level
to over 100 percent Federal poverty level and bringing all of
that together to measure both the incremental steps on the
pathway to stability, and those that reach stability as a
whole.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much. And it looks like
next we're going to go to Mr. Mrvan. You're recognized for five
minutes for your questions.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairman Bonamici. Ms. Scott-Chandler
during the pandemic the CAAs, as well as businesses and other
non-profit partners shifted to remote services. Where possible,
and internet connectivity became a barrier to job seekers,
seniors and students, and others who did not have access.
Can you discuss how the CSBG leveraged its resources to
ensure community Members remain as connected as possible? I
believe you're still muted.
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Yes thanks. Thank you. To your point,
and I've been at ABCD for 22 years, and the change in how we do
our work and how families access services and understand
services is astounding. The digital divide existed before the
starkness with which that reared its ugly head during the
pandemic. It's just tremendous.
And CSBG Cares allowed us to jump into action to get
computers to folks, whether it was seniors, whether it was
youth, or displaced workers, folks who needed computers when
their employment went remote, so they could communicate and
stay connected to every part of life, to understand what was
happening with the health and the economic.
But it was not just technology that was needed. So we had
to support broadband, and pay for internet costs, we had to
troubleshoot folks, and we had a call center, a call line where
we could help individuals, not only with services and with
necessities, but also how do I deal with this? How do I access
this? We went remote. All of our services, emergency services
were able to be accessed online, so we created virtual
platforms so that people could still apply for LIHEAP and SNAP
and utilize ESOL, even our Head Start programs used virtual
classrooms.
So we were able to with CSBG and leveraging, to really help
people in a way that you know we would never have been able to
do without the CARES funding.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. Mr. Bradley, states play a supporting
and key role in CSBG programs, what improvements at the State
level do you see need to be done to improve their connection
and the involvement in the CSBG program?
Mr. Bradley. Thank you for that question. I think it boils
down to just a few key areas. No. 1, the flow of funds, the
distribution of Community Services Block Grant Funds has been
an issue in the past. It seems to be one of the last programs
that HHS releases, and a lot of times the states are slow in
getting it down to the agencies.
And when funding is scarce or delayed, that creates some
complications to the operation of the community action agency.
So the first thing is to ensure a timely distribution of
community services block grant funding is No. 1.
No. 2, a robust review of agency plans that agencies submit
to the State every year, and a robust review of State plans to
HHS. By that I mean HHS approves or disapproves State plans.
Three, the innovation fund, which is now federally, there
is a lot of innovation going on in every State, and I would
encourage the states to use their discretionary program within
CSBG to create new partnerships, to look at innovative things
outside of necessarily Washington, the small pot of money we're
creating there.
And finally, there's one other thing that the states could
do, and that is take advantage of this network. I mentioned
very briefly in my opening about what Governor DeWine did. I
didn't have a chance in Ohio in the mortgage and rental
assistance, I didn't have a chance to mention what the founder
of Quicken Loans is doing with the agency in Detroit.
This is a resource. This can be very, very helpful on
dealing with a multitude of State problems. Take advantage of
the opportunity of the Community Service Block Grant and this
network. Not enough states do that in terms of big items
confronting low-income communities.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. With that I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. I now recognize
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Dr. Foxx for five
minutes for your questions.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, very much, Madam Chairman. Mr. Carter
as you shared in your testimony there are more than 80 Federal
means tested welfare programs. Many of these programs are
poorly targeted or overlap with other programs. What steps do
you think Congress should take to avoid program duplication and
maximize taxpayer dollars, so that they are more effectively
helping economically vulnerable individuals?
Mr. Carter. Representative Foxx thanks for the question. I
begin my answer by saying again it needs to begin with
intention. If we were to take a step back and look at all of
these programs in the aggregate, and first have a shared
objective, and then be able to look at from that shared
objective, what those individual programs and assets are, it
would then allow us to reduce duplication and connect the dots
of those programs so that they could all support that shared
objective of growing capacity and reduced dependency.
So instead of taking the worm's-eye view, that we have had
to create individual programs that look at individual
conditions, let's step back and say it is our intention to grow
the capacity, to reduce dependency of our society.
And then what are the tools in the toolbox that we need to
do that? And it will allow us to reduce duplication and better
target those resources to those families that best need it.
Ms. Foxx. You know it's pretty ironic that there's very
little emphasis put on the fact that this program was started
under President Johnson, and that we have more people in
poverty now than we had then. You know, nothing seems to be
working. We're spending trillions of dollars, and yet we're
totally ineffective. And it's a shame. It really is a shame at
how much money we are taking away from those who work hard in
this country and spend on totally ineffective programs.
Mr. Carter you mentioned this in your answer to me, but how
could we better integrate the safety net programs with
workforce preparation to ensure that low-income Americans are
able to move up the economic ladder and not just be recipients
of welfare all their life?
Work has dignity. Work has meaning. What can we do better
for workforce preparedness?
Mr. Carter. We can better enable connectivity. One of the
main challenges of design and operation of the safety net is
that there isn't a mechanism to connect one program to another,
and so therefore you have a Workforce Investment Opportunity
Act OK, which is about addressing getting everybody in the
labor force and scaling people up.
But it doesn't have a mechanism that it can connect to
let's say the tenant's program, or other supports, or supports.
So the main thing that Congress could do is create a mechanism
to connect programs that will allow us to achieve a common
objective.
Ms. Foxx. Great. Well I thank you very much for the work
you're doing, and for bringing the perspective that you're
bringing to this effort. Again, I think what we all should want
is to have effective outcomes. And another thing Mr. Bradley
said we should have robust review of programs at the State
level. Well review does nothing if you don't have results.
And if you don't have consequences to those reviews, so it
doesn't matter if you review a lot. Words mean nothing. You
need action. So when you have programs that aren't working,
again, it doesn't do any good to just review them and say
they're not working.
Then you should defund those programs that aren't working.
You should open these programs up to other people who can do
something. We are selling the American--we're telling them that
these programs are going to help them, and then they don't do
anything to help them. And again, we're taking money from hard-
working taxpayers and just wasting it, and that is a sin. It is
a true, true sin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Foxx. I now
recognize Representative Bowman for five minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much Madam Chairwoman and thank
you to all the witnesses for being here today. In my district,
the Yonkers Community Action Program does incredible work to
support low-income families using CSBG funds. This year alone
they delivered over 125,000 pounds of food and assisted nearly
2,600 families experiencing food insecurity.
Organizations like Why Cap have been essential during the
pandemic, when many low-income families, especially black and
brown families, are dealing with job loss, lack of access to
affordable healthcare, and rising food prices. It's clear that
we have to increase funding for CAAs across the country and
help them better serve their communities by addressing out of
date income eligibility requirements that don't reflect the
true cost of living which continues to rise each year.
Ms. Scott-Chandler, I'd like to ask specifically about the
work your organization is doing to help low-income families
confronted with the effects of climate change. Hurricane Ida
recently devastated communities in my district in the Bronx and
Westchester, and low-income families were hit the hardest.
Basements and homes flooded, cars washed away, and dozens of
people were killed across the State.
For families living paycheck to paycheck, recovering from
climate disasters can be nearly impossible, and even when we
aren't dealing with massive climate related storms like Ida,
low-income families are increasingly experiencing unaffordable
utility bills that prevent them from escaping the cycle of
poverty as a result of climate change.
How can CAAs leverage CSBG funds to protect low-income
families from the effects of climate change that perpetuate
poverty and ensure climate resiliency from these communities
that are often hardest hit by climate disasters, specifically
for CAAs that have not yet fully engaged with the effects of
climate change in their communities. How should they approach
this work?
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you. Well I think we have been
working in this area indirectly for many years because many
years ago CSBG allowed us the flexibility to develop innovative
partnerships with public utility companies and develop an
energy conservation program that was initially launched with
another organization as a pilot, and now involves all of the
CAAs across Massachusetts, and over 100 million dollars in
utility funding.
The program provides leading edge heating system
replacement, renewable energy resources, weatherization to
thousands of households annually across the State. And it's a
compliment to the much smaller federally funded energy
programs, but it's become a national model.
And I mention this because as you said, low-income
families, families of color, energy costs, a broken boiler and
furnace, not only is a disaster for their heating their homes,
but it is really a financial burden that they can't--one more
thing they can't deal with.
And so we've been able to be on the ground replacing
boilers, giving appliances, changing out lighting, you know
things that can save money, and also contribute to the demand
reduction. And it's available for tenants and their landlords,
as well as the low-income homeowners, as an emergency response,
as well as the broader, longer-term climates, energy
efficiency, and demand reduction.
We also have been working with----
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I'm sorry I just want to reclaim my
time. I've got one more question. Thank you for that, that was
a great answer. Ms. King Galian, in your testimony you spoke
about how your organization takes a holistic and interagency
approach to addressing poverty because no single poverty or
intervention can end poverty on its own, which I agree with.
Instead, we need a cohesive system of support and
intervention that addresses all aspects of the experiences,
causes and consequences of poverty in our communities. I think
this is especially true during the aftermath of national
emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected low-
income communities, not only in terms of physical and economic
health and safety, but also socio-emotional health.
How can CSBG funds be used to promote coordination in
providing high-quality, holistic mental health supports and
violence prevention programming for low-income communities
across the country?
Ms. King Galian. Wonderful. Thank you for that. That's an
excellent question. So one example--two examples, actually of
how we do that here with CSBG in Washington County is one, our
community health needs assessment identified that one of the
driving causes of our high suicide rate was economic stressors,
so we used CSBG to ensure that we have staffing embedded in our
mental health crisis clinic, to connect people to resources as
they're accessing their mental health supports.
And two, we do a similar thing, our family justice center,
so when folks are accessing the domestic violence support, and
Court support, they're able to get their economic needs met as
well, and we lean into the strengths of our partners, and we
each do what we do best.
Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Sorry for going over time.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative. I now
recognize Representative McClain for five minutes for your
questions.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Carter, poverty
is a huge issue in this country. There's no denying that, and I
think we all are concerned about this, and are concerned about
you know raising people up out of poverty. But equally
concerning is the high level of unemployment, and the rate that
the unemployment is in addition to the available jobs that are
not being filled.
I'm just wondering if instead of throwing money at the
problem as a means of a solution, do you think we also need to
encourage self-sufficiency for those obviously who are able,
and really tie the two together to help people--individuals,
get lifted out of poverty.
My question is how we can ensure that we are not, excuse
me. How can we ensure that we are encouraging and providing
Americans with the resources to become self-sufficient? And how
do we help them transition out of poverty into the workforce?
Mr. Carter. Well thanks for the question. Again it begins
with intention. And what I mean by that is right now we have
the intention to provide the benefit good or service. I think
that the way the system should operate is after we have
immediately addressed the crisis, whether that crisis be
feeding, or housing, or cash, we ought to immediately pivot to
OK, you're here today because you are in crisis.
What is our objective--our societal objective to do is to
help you grow beyond that crisis. So we're going to pivot from
that to an intention plan to help you grow beyond this moment,
and then bringing together the support of benefits, goods, and
services, and measure the movement of that individual, or that
family from that crisis to self-sufficiency.
Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. I think a concern that every
American is having is ensuring their tax dollars are being
spent efficiently and effectively. So to piggyback on your
point, how can we incorporate at all, or can we incorporate,
the private sector to help fight poverty, to ensure really an
all hands-on deck approach, to make sure that that's being done
rather than solely relying on the government? You know like
that public-private partnership.
Mr. Carter. We absolutely have to do that. And here in
Tennessee we are taking a very unique approach where we are
reaching to all the different sectors, the private sector, the
community of faith, academia, philanthropy, the service sector,
to come together to take a whole dependency approach to this
notion of growing capacity, reduced dependency.
We have become too reliant on the government being the sole
problem solver here. And what I think is that government ought
to serve as a catalyst to bring the rest of the society to
solving the problem to make the whole grid and the sum of its
parts.
Mrs. McClain. Mr. Carter I agree with you wholeheartedly
and if we have the government working in conjunction with the
private sector, I think that's a recipe for success. I'm going
to switch gears for just a moment. The current formula for how
states receive the funds have not been updated since 1975, and
obviously, a lot has changed.
Just even in the types of jobs that are available. Do you
see a need for the update in the formula at all? Do you think
that would help in terms of where the resources are funneled?
Mr. Carter. I don't know. I haven't had the opportunity
recently to review the formula, so I don't know that I would
have an opinion on whether or not the formula needs to be
changed. I do think that David Bradley made some good points
about the efficiency of making the dollars available because
there is a--it passes from Federal to State to local, and we
could more efficiently move the dollars to get them to the
agencies that serve, but I'm not certain that beyond that small
State allocation, that Mr. Bradley also spoke to, I'm not sure
that a change in the allocation.
Mrs. McClain. Yes, I'm more concerned, and my question is
we haven't updated the formula in four decades. And a lot has
changed, and I'm just wondering if we updated the formula would
that not help who it goes to, but then also to your point,
maybe if we updated the formula it would get to those in need
quicker.
I just want to make sure to your point that we're using our
dollars effectively, but we're also getting them to the right
person, right individual in a timely fashion.
Mr. Carter. I would just say that there is it's always
value added to review and update the mechanism. So a look at
the allocation formula would certainly be in the best interest
of modernizing the program.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Carter, and thank you, Madam
Chair. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. Now I recognize the
Chairman of the Full Committee, Representative Scott from
Virginia, you're recognized for five minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Fulcher for having the hearing. I'm very
familiar with community action agencies. The last summer while
I was in law school, I worked at a community action agency in
my hometown as a counselor with the neighborhood youth corps.
And I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's in the
Boston area, so I'm very familiar with the good work of ABCD.
The COVID-19 pandemic put us in a strain on so many people, and
so many communities as we look to get back not only too normal,
but actually improve economic stability of families., the
conversation about the community action agencies could not be
more important.
I want to just briefly recognize one issue that's been
discussed here, and that is the important role of faith-based
organizations as trusted community partners of CSBG, and other
Federal programs. The bill as is written, allows participation
of faith-based organizations.
And make no mistake about that. They still participate, but
as good stewards of Federal dollars we have to ensure that
Federal funding is used in a manner that comports with Federal
Civil Rights laws and the Constitution. So I want to thank Ms.
Bonamici, Mr. Thompson, and the bipartisan co-sponsors Their
work in modernizing and strengthening the CSBG Program. Ms.
Scott-Chandler, one of the issues that we've been dealing with
in getting families back to work have been job training and
childcare. How does ABCD help families get back to work,
particularly making it possible for these programs to be
available?
Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Through
ABCD's experience with workforce development and early
childhood programs both, we know firsthand that in order for
people to get jobs, and maintain jobs, they must have
childcare. It's pretty simple. And particularly for our working
moms, 3 years ago we were able to pilot a program that
leveraging CSBG dollars in our childcare voucher subsidy
management program through a demonstration grant from
Department of Labor.
And the program utilized a model of bundled vouchers in
which it combined immediate access to education for the in-
demand jobs, industry, and childcare for job-seeking moms. And
our workforce prepared as partners, our employers, and
childcare providers worked together to facilitate people
getting the skills, and getting the jobs, and then feeling
secure that their children were in a space that's nurturing.
It represents some of the system change and connectedness
that has been talked about today. And CSBG is really
undergirding those kinds of ideas, and those kind of innovative
programs we've been able to do.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Galian, given the dramatic impact
of COVID-19 on American households, Congress provided
supplemental appropriations for energy assistance in the
American Rescue Plan, and significant funding for LIHEAP. Can
you tell me how the community action agencies were able to help
in distributing the money under LIHEAP so that the money
actually got to where it needed to go?
Ms. King Galian. Certainly. So with the LIHEAP increase we
were able to serve more people, to be more aggressive in our
outreach, and increase the standard payment, which meant that
we were able to reduce the number of repeat applications, which
meant we were able to serve people more efficiently.
And with our specific targeted outreach, and our expanded
network of partner organizations and increased capacity in
those organizations as well, we were able to get deeper and
broader into our most isolated and vulnerable communities. And
because of CSBG we have a mantra kind of within our staff that
is person-centered, fund blind, and make people whole, so we're
able to combine not just LIHEAP, but all of the other
investments to meet the needs of the individual person, rather
than focus specifically on the single fund.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Bradley do you have any comments
to make on the composition of Boards of Directors?
Mr. Bradley. Yes. I think our Board of Directors is one of
the absolutely strengths of this program, the one-third, one-
third, one-third. One-third local elected officials, one-third
low-income representatives, and one-third from the community
which includes faith-based. Two thirds of our agencies have
faith organizations on their Board.
There is not another institution in the community that has
all the segments of the society at the table on that, so I
think the Board is a strength. We want to continue to make sure
that the Board is engaged, which they are. They review the
strategic plans--which they do, and they ensure the fiscal
accountability of the agency which is ongoing.
The Board of Directors is one of the hallmarks tri-partite
Board of this program.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I now
recognize Representative Comer who I understand is trying to
connect. One of our co-sponsors of the legislation.
Representative Comer are you available? Oh, he's available it
says Sarah, but it is Representative Comer. He just disappeared
again Representative. OK. You're going to have to unmute. You
do need to unmute. There you go.
Mr. Comer. All right thank you.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Terrific. Now we can hear you. You're
recognized for five minutes for your questions.
Mr. Comer. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I want to
address my question to my friend David Bradley and let me say I
appreciate all that you do sir for community action. In
Kentucky you make a huge difference in my congressional
district, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Bradley can you speak of some of the ways community
action agencies could help connect individuals to local
resources, and find steady employment during COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr. Bradley. Yes, I can. Thank you for the question. Thanks
for your support for the program. And we were talking earlier
about in discussion with connectivity. That's what you have
community action agencies for. Their relationship with
workforce, either serving on the Board, or vice-versa. Their
ongoing partnerships with so many other non-profits.
And private sector in the community is second to none.
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of partnerships
in this community that help, that address employment and
helping people move up that ladder to opportunity and self-
sufficiency.
And what we've learned over time is that it takes fighting
poverty or addressing poverty is complex, and it takes
partnerships, and this program prides itself on the
partnerships necessary to get people employed, to get people
back on their feet, and to give people hope and opportunity.
Mr. Comer. Absolutely. And were there additional
flexibilities needed to serve these individuals, or did the
programs work as intended, allowing local communities to meet
their needs in the community?
Mr. Bradley. Yes, the CARES Act gave a billion dollars,
which is a lot of money to the Community Services Block Grant.
So that was the first big COVID relief package out there. And
there was also a billion dollars provided in ARRA, in 08, 09,
and 10, during that time period. And we learned some lessons
from that.
No. 1, 200 percent is important because again as I said
earlier, it's that family that's above 125 that are just
falling, and have just been laid off, just falling into
poverty, that someone has to be that catch. Someone has to help
them stop that from falling and give them an opportunity to get
back on their feet. So the billion dollars was used extremely
well.
If I had criticisms of that it is No. 1, the slowness in
some states in getting the money down locally. That was a big
issue, and months after months after months, you know states to
release the money. We would hear that well only 20 percent, or
30 percent of the money has been spent in this State. That's
because the money didn't arrive on time, so that's No. 1.
And two, not every State allowed 200 percent eligibility,
and I think that hurt the response to COVID. Generally speaking
though, HHS, the vast majority of states, certainly the vast
majority of local agencies really stepped up to the plate and
were the first in their community in providing assistance to
the twin crisis of the pandemic, and the economic crisis as
well.
Mr. Comer. Well Mr. Bradley again thank you for all the
work you do for community action in Kentucky, and Chairwoman
Bonamici thank you for allowing me to waive on this
Subcommittee Mr. Bradley if there's anything that we can do
legislatively to help as I've worked with Chairman Bonamici in
a bipartisan way in the past, and we will continue to work with
you.
You make a huge difference in our communities for
particularly with low-income people who are trying to take that
step from welfare to work, and I appreciate that, and anything
that we can to do help get moving forward we'll certainly do
that, but thank you for your work in the past, and Chairwoman I
yield back my time.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative Comer. And I
do not see other Members to ask questions, so thank you again
to all of our witnesses and to the Members for your questions.
Pursuant to Committee practice, materials for submission to the
hearing record must be submitted to the Committee Clerk within
14 days following the last day of the hearing, so by close of
business on November 17, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
Only a Member of the Subcommittee, or an invited witness
may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record. The
materials must address the subject matter of the hearing.
Please submit materials to the Committee Clerk electronically
by emailing submissions to [email protected].
Again, thank you to the witnesses. Members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we
ask that you please respond to these questions in writing. The
hearing record will be held open for 14 days to receive these
responses.
I do remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee
practice witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to
the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days,
the questions submitted must also address the subject matter of
the hearing.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member Representative
Fulcher for a closing statement.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a letter form
the Ethics and Public Policy Center that I'd like to submit for
the record that explains why it's crucial for existing legal
protections, for faith-based providers to remain in place. So
with the permission of the Committee I'd like to enter that
into record.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Without objection.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, I'd be
remiss if I didn't just remind everyone that the obvious
remission of the Modernization Act, CSBG Modernization Act is
the removal of faith-based organizations from financial
participation in the program.
And I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say well they
can participate, but just not financially, and so I just wanted
to point that out. There's over 19,000 that are participating
today. Why would we want to take that away? These faith-based
organizations are uniquely positioned to serve.
They have a culture and heart for this, and by their very
nature they care. And to remove them, Madam Chair, and Members
of the Committee, to remove them from financial participation
is a critical blow to the program, and to the people that it
serves.
So Madam Chair, there's only upside in allowing that
continuation for faith-based organizations, and I just
encourage everyone to support that in this CSBG Modernization
Act. Madam Chair with that I yield back.
Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher. I
now recognize myself for purpose of making my closing
statement. I want to start by saying this is a bipartisan
legislation with no intention of removing faith-based
organizations from participation, as Chairman Scott mentioned.
Once again, I want to thank our expert witnesses for being
with us today. Your compelling testimony paints a clear picture
of the central role of the Community Service Block Grant
Program, and the role that it plays in addressing poverty in
our communities.
As we heard today each year CSBG and the community action
agencies it supports, helps millions of individuals and
families in need access important services, and take critical
steps to achieve economic security. These services and supports
are unique to each community.
They're locally driven because those living in a particular
community are best suited to address the needs of their
community. With continued Federal support these local
organizations, and their committed staffs can continue to
effectively reduce poverty in the communities across the United
States.
The demand for strong, local action remains extremely high
as we continue to recover from COVID-19. Right now CSBG funding
organizations across the country are conducting vaccine
outreach, helping low-income families stay in their homes, and
other important work.
The CSBG Program has a long legacy of reducing poverty in
our communities, but we must not neglect the program's future.
It's been more than two decades since CSBG was last
reauthorized. Today we have a valuable opportunity to
reinvigorate our bipartisan commitment to ending poverty, and I
look forward to working to advance this important legislation
that will improve the lives of Americans in need through
community focused action.
There being no further business, I want to thank again the
witnesses and the Members for their participation, and without
objection this Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Chairwoman Bonamici follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submission by Chairman Scott follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ranking Member Fulcher follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg46029_chrg-117hhrg46029.htm
- Size
- 117,515 bytes
- SHA-256
- d9a250d1453f9582f0eeadfef4129ab01ff52669162bcb3808edc9c9d9d42d02
- Original
- No public link identified.