Committee Hearing, April 26, 2000

However, of the women who found permanent work, over 60 percent found jobs that did not provide health insurance. The remainder had access to health benefits, although many had to serve a period of probation before they would be eligible for health care. I'd like to thank the Council for allowing me to testify today, and especially Councilwoman Tasco for meeting with Mothers on the Move and sponsoring this hearing.

Thank you. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.

Hi. My name is Shavell Gordine, and I'm a participant in the Work Opportunities Program. I live in the Feltonville section of Philadelphia. I have four children -- three boys and a baby girl. My children range in age from 10 to 9 months. I've been on and off welfare for about seven years. There's times I just decided to go look for a job because I didn't want the, you 70 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 know, the hassle of welfare anymore. There's times that I left because I did have a job. Right now, I'm working in Frankford Group Ministries. I've been there since December of 1999. I'm looking for a job in the mental health field. I have a deaf son and a autistic son, you know, so that makes me want to work with children and, you know, adults and families that deal with the same problems that I do. I'm very lucky because I do have a highly functional autistic child. He goes to a regular program, you know, a regular elementary school and a autistic program. I did apply for one job, and I'm waiting for a response. I mean, like, I call them every day and, you know, I'm calling about the status of my application. Right now, I'm working in the emergency assistance department at the Frankford Group Ministries. I help clients apply for, you know, crisis and applications, I bag food for people who need food -- we have a food bank, we have a clothes bank. And I might answer phones. Unfortunately there's really no, you 71 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 know, real training there. It's the kind of job that I do want. You know, I do need some type of degree and -- not really a degree, even if I had my GED, that would help and I could get in and then maybe start at the bottom and hopefully work my way up to the top. But right now, that's not possible because when I got into Work Opportunities, my wraparound was supposed to be for, you know, GED education. And, evidently, there's no funds to help for that. So, I'm, you know, I'm just out. I really -- I really enjoy my job, I really do. But if the only thing I'm doing is, you know, really copying paper, you know, and helping people sift through clothes, I mean, you know, what kind of experience is that? I do get wraparound services, but basically, that psycho-support group, we work with -- we basically deal with the problems that we have that are, you know, causing us to not be able to find a job right now and the things that are getting in the way. I've been in this program for almost six months. I haven't even had a resume, I have never even met my case manager. And, you 72 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 know, like I said, I don't have a resume, so that's like the first start there. And to be honest with you, I don't even know to do a resume. Minimum wage is not enough in my personal opinion. It makes us feel, you know, that that's all we're worth. And my personal opinion is, we're worth very much more than that. (Applause.)

We're strong women, we're out here, we're raising our children, and we're trying to teach our children values and to let them know, you know, you are somebody. But with 5.15, you know, really what can we do, what can we do with that? I'd like to ask the City Council by helping us push the Work Opportunities Program to fund for a training program so that women like myself and all these other women can get real training. If we had a 18-month program, I feel that that would help me and, again, the other women get off of welfare forever. Thank you very much for supporting us Moms on the Move, thank you.

Thank you very 73 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 much for testifying. (Applause.)

Would you state your name for the record and could you summarize your statement. We have a lot of people who have to testify today, so if you could just kind of summarize what you're going to say, I'd appreciate it very much. Kind of brief it up.

Hello. My name is Gwyntha Carter. And I'd like to thank you for being here to listen to my views. I am here today speaking on behalf of myself and other parents in the program Work Opportunities. I want to give you a little of my personal history. I entered this program December 11, 1999. I've been at 2 jobsites, 2 independent job searches, and 7 or 8 job fairs, per my caseworker. I have now been currently told by my district that I'm not in compliance with Work Opportunities, even though my case manager sent me out on these jobsites, sent me out on these job fairs. The issue with child care, as far as what John Dodds was saying I want to comment on 74 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 that. They were saying that licensed vendors are being paid on time -- I'm a prime example that they are not being paid on time. I've been on Work Opportunities since December up until the present, and my child-care providers at Nicetown Boys Club have not been paid, although agreement with CAO, the County Assistance Office, has now been made that they were being paid. But, however, I'm considered overpaid because my case manager had me doing the wrong thing, so I have to pay back the money. 15 a hour, how can I pay for child care and pay back some money to the CAO that I couldn't even pay in the first place. I have four children, two of which are here with me today because they told my day-care facility not to send my children anymore until the status of my case manager and agreement between me and case manager and the CAO has been determined. I've been bounced from program to program, I've been in Work Ops. Before Work Ops, I've been on an independent job search. Before that, I've been in -- maintaining job searches before and I've been in TWC -- not TWC, excuse me, 75 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 RTC, and none of them have been successful. 75 a hour, starting wage. I was denied child care because it was a overnight job and it was weekend hours, and they told me that they do not pay for overnight care, they do not pay for weekend care. 75 a hour -- my own job that I went and found on my own. Now I'm terminated from the program for good cause, but when I was in the program, if they didn't send me at a jobsite, I was sitting in a classroom, and everybody in the classroom was sitting in there talking -- notice I said "talking," not taking up a trade or learning a skill or, you know, doing something useful with my time. I never met my case manager. She -- my caseworker at my district called my case manager to verify that I was in the program, which I was. However, my case manager denied ever talking to me. Ten minutes later, when I got off the phone 76 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 with my caseworker at the district, my case manager called me and asked me how I was doing. How does that (unintelligible). Anyway, I've been placed on a job search since February, per my case manager. But before that, in January, I was working at a jobsite, which was clerical duties, which was fine. I was only at that jobsite for two weeks, that's all they required of me. Now, it was a clerical position, it was real good, I enjoyed the job. But how could I put two weeks of a clerical position on my resume and take it to somebody and say, you know, I would like to apply for a clerical position within your corporation but I only have two weeks of experience -- when nine times out of ten, a position like that, handling clerical issues and payroll duties, which is what I was doing, they going to want more than two weeks of experience, anybody's going to want more than two weeks of experience. 15, because if 77 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 we get $7 a hour, we can close our cash assistance and those mothers who do have their fathers paying child support, we could get that child support instead of it going to the county, and that could also help us in our financial situation. )

Now, I don't have -- my children are not in day care. My oldest two, they're in school. When they come home, they come at 2:55 every day. If I was to get called today or tomorrow from various places I put in applications, which I think I made a very good impression to them employers, how can I go to the interviews lugging my two children? That's not even going to look 'cause they're going to say, "She can't even get a babysitter to come to the interview, how can she work for our company?" How can anybody look for a job without day care, and how can the county, the CAO, say they're going to provide us with day care, but it takes six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks, three months for anyone to even get their child care money. And nine times out of ten, it's not going in the hands of the parents themselves, it's 78 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 supposed to go to the facility or the day-care provider, which is not happening. So, therefore, we're stuck at the end again. How can anybody with little or no 6 skills or someone who's never worked be in this program for six months without a certificate, without a GED. Some of these people in here can't even read and write, and some of these people are foreign or are trying to get their citizenship, and how can a six-month program benefit them when they try to go out in this workforce and try to look for a job by theyself (sic). I come here to you today asking for maybe months in this program, with quality 16 training, because I don't want to sit in no 17 classroom and talk; I could do that at home, on 18 the phone and watch the stories ask. I'm asking for $7 a hour instead of 5.15, because actually, 5.15 is nothing. Burger King and McDonald's pay more than that. And, actually, I went -- I went as my last means to the Burger King at the corner of my block, and you know what they told me? I was too qualified to be a cashier. I have very good skills, I can find a 79 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 job on my own, but my child care is my main barrier. The system was designed to help families in need, but if they keep shutting the door on us, how can we go to them for help, and who are we supposed to turn to then? Thank you for hearing my views.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Before we go to the next participants, I'd like to call Sherry Honkala up to make a presentation. She has another appointment this afternoon and she was due on earlier. So, Sherry, if you'd like to come forward and make your statement, 'cause it's in keeping with what these women are saying too, 'cause you represent Kensington Welfare Rights. Thank you very much ladies. (Witness comes forward.)

Thank you very much. It's a shame I got to be here and then try to figure out how to deal with the question of housing, which -- I think when we talk about 80 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 welfare reform, we got to make sure not to just talk about child care, but we got to talk about the fact that Philadelphia yet has been able to solve the question of the fact that we don't have any affordable housing whatsoever, and now if you go down the Office of Emergency Social Services, which I hope that Councilmembers know, that when you go to apply for emergency affordable housing, you can no longer -- when you entered the shelter system, you used to be able to get on the waiting list for affordable housing. That list has now closed. You can no 14 longer even get on a waiting list when you enter a shelter in Philadelphia to ever get any housing ever again in Philadelphia.

That's for the Section 8 Program, right?

Pardon?

That's for the Section 8 Program?

For any -- any emergency housing whatsoever. And this just happened right before Christmas. Like the commercial states that makes 81 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the Kensington Welfare Rights Union sick when we turn on the television or listen on the radio, when we hear the young woman who says, "Who can speak for welfare recipients? I can," we as welfare recipients and formerly homeless people in Philadelphia say, "We can speak for welfare recipients. And for us, the picture is not very rosy." Good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Sherry Honkala. Although people like to erase it from my history, I am a recent former welfare recipient and homeless mother who was sanctioned in Philadelphia as a result of the new welfare reform bill -- not years ago, but as a result 16 of the new welfare reform bill in Pennsylvania. 17 Having no money and fighting everyday 18 to survive, I got lucky. It was like my child won 19 the lottery. My son, Mark Weber, last month was 20 in the number-one family movie in the country and is now a movie star. (Applause.)

I tell you my story because this is the story of a welfare recipient that people don't want to talk about. My life and 82 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 my daily struggle was no different than any of the women that have spoken here today. I, like the other women here, love our children, have worked all our lives to try and feed and clothe them, and we never hear about children that continue to fight and go on and have better lives, yet they had to deal with one barrier after another. Without public assistance in my life, I never would have made it. My child would have never have become a movie star, let alone made it to the next year. While the media tends to focus on the stereotypes, they generally don't focus on the barriers put before welfare recipient. Well, my child knows these very real barriers and isn't donating all of his money to a program or more shelters, but instead, he is dedicating all of his money to organizing and politicizing and building a movement of strong, articulate women and youth to end poverty Philadelphia and in America. (Applause.)

Because he knows, like KWRU, this is not about lazy welfare recipients who don't love their children, but he knows that 83 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 living in a city and in a state and in a country that has messed-up priorities, he knows that the reality is that given a chance, we too can overcome things and live beautiful lives. Stories of how welfare reform is not -- we know the stories of how welfare reform is not working at the Kensington Welfare Rights Union. Yes, we continue to work in the area of Philadelphia, in which the number-one source of income is welfare, and the second is drugs. Yesterday, I spent the day with a young man, 23, trying to kick heroin. On Thursday, I spent a day with a young man who was doing life for a $22 robbery. And, I'm telling you, I am tired and sick and tired of not only us, as young, single mothers not having opportunities in Philadelphia, but the welfare system is set up to not let us have the kind of families that we should all be able to have -- where families can stay together, raise their children, and live better lives. Our Human Rights Houses are now filled with a different population of homeless families that live in them. For example, a homeless mother 84 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 who was once on welfare now is working at K-Mart, homeless, with three children. Another woman, from Montgomery County, she goes out there to a factory every day, she pays her bills, she tries to pay her bills at the end of every month. She gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning, drops her kids off at 5 at day care, works from 7:30 to 4 o'clock, then goes home at 6 o'clock, where her children need her attention. She's now two months behind in rent and utilities. And because she's disappearing from the welfare rolls, is that what we really call a success story? Is she really doing better once she's going to have to come to our office, needing some place to sleep, because she's considered a success now because she so-called works? People working at the welfare-to-work programs and people who are on welfare or who are poor are human beings first and foremost. They need to be treated like that, like human beings who all, given an opportunity, can shine like stars. Let's extend the six-month program, 85 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 let's invest more money into creating living-wage jobs. Welfare recipients are disappearing from the statistics, but they're not disappearing from misery and poverty and from the criminalization of poverty. (Applause.)

Let's concentrate on giving our youth opportunities instead of incarcerating them. Let's concentrate on the real blight in our city, let's concentrate on removing homelessness and poverty with the same passion as we have for removing abandoned cars. Lastly, we encourage you to join us on May 1st, as we begin a bus tour around Pennsylvania to highlight what is really happening to welfare recipients. We will go to urban and rural areas in the state and show what is really happening to welfare recipients. We will also be demanding on July 31st as we organize the biggest poor people's march to the front doors of First Union Center on opening day of the Republican National Convention. (Applause.)

We will make sure that 86 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the poor will not disappear in America. My son will be marching alongside me, and we will ensure that we track what is happening to welfare recipients. Because, after all, my son cannot leave his history behind him, because he knows that the people that he loves are still living below the federal poverty level. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it very much. Thank you for all the good work you do, and congratulations on a fine son. We saw you on television.

Hi.

Could you summarize your statement, please. We have a lot of people to testify.

Yes, I will. I will try to be as brief as possible.

Okay.

My name is Tracy Lester, and I'm with Philadelphia Unemployment Project, and I'm involved with this program for the last 87 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 couple of weeks. I'm also representing One Day at a Time, you know, as a recovering addict, and as a mother, a single mother. I'm a 32-year-old woman who basically was raised on welfare, you know. So really, there is nothing that I haven't experienced involving this whole welfare-reform thing. I'm hearing a lot of women complaining about this Program these programs. They're not all that bad, you know. They have their good points, they have their bad points. It's my experience that, as a single mother, raising children, that the fundamental issue involving failure of the whole system as a whole is the fact that too many of the mothers have mental-health issues, housing issues, financial issues, because there is not enough money to support single women with children. As a recipient of welfare, it's my experience that most programs do not offer training that's long enough. Six months to a year is not being realistic when considering the adjustments that many of us go through when making the transition from being homemakers to being 88 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 working moms. In order for these programs to work effectively, the programs need to be more than 5 hours per week, so that women who are considering 6 working full-time can get used to managing their 7 time on a full-time basis. This is something that 8 we're not used to doing. You know, when all 9 you've ever had to do is stay home, go to the 10 bank, get your check, your food stamps, you become 11 kind of complacent in that system 'cause that's 12 what you're used to doing. You know, it's a very 13 hard transition when most of us have been born and 14 raised on welfare. Not only for moms, but for 15 fathers as well, dads as well, but most 16 importantly, for the children. 17 Six months is certainly not enough time 18 to learn about time management so that you get to 19 work on time, budgeting so that you have car fare, 20 lunch money, money for necessities, and money to 21 pay bills. These are the skills that are needed 22 to be successful in the workplace. Not to 23 mention, time is needed to search for highly- 24 skilled qualified professionals to care for our 25 children while we're in training. 89 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 It's my experience that a lot of these women -- 'cause I tried to do it myself and I had my own demise at hand. And I don't mind being honest today about where I made my mistakes at. I was greedy. I seen so much money coming my way that I lost sight of what was important. It's not one woman in here, if they're not honest with themselves, that can say that if they did it a little bit differently in connections with this child care money that they would be able to maintain a certain sort of life style. You know, we leave our children home alone and we collect that child care. We spend it getting high -- because I did it, and I know I'm not the only one that did it. We let our bills go and then we cry because people get tired of feeling sorry for us, you know. But it's reasons because of that -- it's stress, you know, a high level of emotional stress. Also, individuals that are involved in these programs should be paid, you know, as an incentive. Nobody should have to go to any institution, be it college or a training program, for free. I graduated from Community College, and 90 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 believe me, I didn't go for free. You know, I went there for the education, but I also went for some sort of financial freedom as well -- be it a grant or a student loan, something for me to have some sort of income coming in, where I didn't have to worry about failure or how I was going to feed my children or pay my rent or pay my bills, you know, but this was before I decided to have a whole bunch of children.

You know, these are some of the things that women need to start thinking about too. What kind of choices do we make as women before we go out and have 10 and 12 and 13 children. You know, we're making some bad choices from the beginning. Now, I'm not condemning anybody because of that, but that's something that needs to be thought about too, you know. 15 an hour, $7 hour is a ridiculous figure in itself. Pay should be at least 10 to $12 an hour, and reimbursement for car fare, clothing, lunch as well as necessities should also be offered so that there's never an excuse to miss days of training. And these reimbursements should be received on time -- not 91 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 weeks and weeks late, causing everyone unneeded stress. Why not promote success as opposed to failure. There should also be health care set up for families during their training as well as after so that the stress of worrying about medical bills would not become a barrier to becoming successfully employed. This health-care coverage should not only be offered; it should be free, quality health care, yet nondiscriminatory. Not to mention, if months is not 13 enough time, more time should be allotted. 14 Because a lot of people involved in these programs 15 have more issues than others. Guaranteed job 16 placement should also be offered, no matter how 17 long it takes, so that time and money is not 18 wasted. Drug and alcohol assessment, individual counseling, and housing assistance should also be offered. These are the things that, when put into place, will ensure success and a stress-free learning environment and a stress-free work place. These issues are certainly of the utmost 92 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 important. However, I feel that the need for better health coverage is of the utmost importance. For many women, as well as men, poor health and the lack to pay for health care causes many of us to be unable to work. For example, I'm in desperate need of glasses. Yet the health care coverage provided by the State does not even cover the cost of eye glasses. Why is that? Also, as a person who suffers from the disease of alcoholism, I find that my needs were not quite met. The inefficiency, the lack of concern, and most importantly, the lack of funds of the lack of allowing us to know where to find services for our addictions is very difficult. Today, I've come to say we need help -- not just for longer periods of time in regards to welfare-to-work programs, but we need help -- we need help in regards to health care. We need better health care that's affordable or free, with qualified professionals who understand all of our needs as women with children, as well as single fathers raising children. I became stressed out completely because of the lack of knowledge about 93 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 what to do about health-care issues. Not only did I lose every job I ever had, I nearly lost my life. I've come to think that somehow, there is some hidden agenda, that the people in positions of power, the people who claim to be qualified, failed me as a whole, as well as my children many times. When does this attempt at mass suicide stop? We --

Okay, thank you, Tracy, for your testimony. We do need the other women to be able to speak. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you. Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you very much, Tracy.

You're welcome.

We hear everything that you're saying and we hear the frustration in your voice and your cry for help. Thank you. (Applause.)

Would you identify yourself -- you're coming next, you're coming 94 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 next, you're coming next, but we want to hear from some of these providers so that you can hear what their side of their program operation is, so we would like for you two ladies to testify, then we will call up the next panel.

Thanks for letting me testify.

Mm-hmm.

Hello. My name is Madesia, and I am a member of Mothers on the Move, I am a mother of three children -- two girls and one boy, and they are 13, 7 and 11 months old. We live in West Philadelphia now, but until December, we were in North Philly. I was born in Danbury, Connecticut, and I moved to Philadelphia when I was 10. I have been on and off of welfare for about seven years. I was off of welfare for about a year, between 1997 and '98, while I worked at a Burger King in Bensalem, but I lost my job because of transportation problems. When I worked there, I took the R7 to work, and then walked a mile to get to work. Right now, I am TWC. I started the 95 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 program on March the 13th. I work in the Records Department, here at City Hall, and I mostly deal with customers -- people come in and I pull (unintelligible) for them and I print them for 'em. I also do some filing and typing. The thing I want to talk about is child care. I have talked to other mothers, and I know that lots of people have problems getting their money from the DW. I have been lucky so far -- my money was right on time. I think that allowing babysitters to be on the vendor system would be a good improvement because it would mean the babysitters would get paid right away, but I think it should be the mom's choice, because not everyone can be on the vendor system. Right now, my daughter, my baby daughter, is watched by a relative. The system really wants me to put her in a day care center, but I would worry too much. She is too young to be able to tell me if something is wrong or if someone is abusing her. After that story about a baby being taped to a wall in a day care center came out -- that was just two weeks ago -- I know -- I knew I could never take my baby to a center 96 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 -- that's until she get older. I need to feel good about where my daughter is in order to be a good worker. I can't be doing a good job if I have to spend the time, the whole time, worrying about what is happening to her. I would hate to pick her up and hear that she is in the hospital. She is shy, and I don't want her to be screaming and hollering because she doesn't know anyone where she is and no one is paying attention to her. Thank you for listening to my story. Please help us succeed with the day care centers.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Hello. My name is Bernadette Williams, and I'm a West Philadelphia mother of five children -- two boys and three girls, ages 6 to 23. I also had another son who has passed away. I have a high school diploma and over ten years work experience in the clerical field. I have worked at companies like CMA, Colonial, and GMAC. I have been on cash assistance for about 97 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 five years and I am currently in Philadelphia @ Work. Originally, I was placed on a worksite in Representative Ronald G. Waters' office, but due to extreme verbal harassment and discrimination, because I was a welfare recipient, that didn't last, and now I am placed at TWC. I do filing, type reports, keep a log of people receiving Transpasses and other duties. Last year, I graduated from the OIC program, and I was placed on a job at Hawthorne Suites. After I worked there for a little while, they told me because they didn't have enough business, they were going to lay me off. They told me that they would call me back, but they never did. I feel strongly that we need these welfare-to-work programs to be longer. I have a lot of clerical work experience, but I need to learn computer skills in order to get a better job. I have been on job interviews in the private sector, to temp agencies and employment agencies. And because I have no computer skills, they won't hire me. TWC has helped me to learn the computer -- I have already learned how to turn it on and 98 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 off, how to open up programs like Mavis Beacon Typing Tutor, and Microsoft Word, but they are trying to rush us out into jobs because the program only lasts six months. You can't learn a computer program in six months if you only go to class for a few hours a week. (Applause.)

I need to learn advanced computer programs like Microsoft Excel, and Powerpoint. I need to be able to do spreadsheets and presentations. At one time, I could type 40 to 45 words on a typewriter, and if I could get up to that speed on the computer, I could get a good clerical job that would allow me to take care of my children and myself. Thank you for listening to me today. Please help the Mothers on the Move by extending these programs to 18 months.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you for your testimony, and I see you're juggling that baby there very well. 99 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 What we want you to do is not go away. We have some of the providers here, particularly people who run the Philadelphia program, who are -- I want them to respond to the comments that have been made here this morning, and to then, you know, we can come back after they have made their presentation. We'd like to call on Ernie Jones, Mr. Greenwald, Carol Geortzel, Vivian Norton, and Linda Hicks. And you are? (Unidentified persons respond off mike.)

Oh, yes, from Catholic Social Services, yes. Why don't you begin, Mr. Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you. Why don't you begin, Mr. Jones, since you're in charge of the big program here in Philadelphia.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

And we would have 100 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 brought you up in the second panel had we thought of it, but we wanted to hear some of the comments from the participants in the program so that you can respond to what they're talking about.

Thank you. I have prepared written testimony, which I have submitted to you.

Sure.

And in the interest of time, I just want to get some of the highlights that were submitted in there.

All of the testimony -- if you have any written testimony from any witness, the full testimony will become a part of the record. So if you want to summarize what you have to say, that would be fine, and we will put -- the full testimony will be put in the record, which is important.

Thank you. Initially, let me say, lest you believe that the only welfare-to-work programs in Philadelphia are the Transitional Work Corporation and Work Opportunities, I want to tell you that there are six different welfare-to-work programs, 101 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 four of which are actually operated under the aegis of the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation, I want to spend a few seconds talking about each of them and then perhaps try to address some of the concerns that you've heard today. " It is a federal initiative that was started in 1998, and it is targeted toward the most difficult segment of the welfare population -- those with no high school diploma, those with no work history, and those with drug and alcohol problems. 11. And, again, what you will find with most of these programs is that because they have been around probably less than two years, getting long-term retention figures is difficult, but we follow them for -- actually, in this program, we have statistics on three months after they've been 102 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 placed in the jobs, and about 50 percent of the people that are placed stay in after three months. " This program is the State's primary training program for welfare clients. For the past year -- and we're talking about July 1 up to now -- 2,352 clients have been enrolled in the program. 94. " This is a job placement program funded by the State Department of Public Welfare. It is an eight-week job placement program for welfare clients who have some work history and who have a high school diploma. The clients are engaged about 30 hours a week in various activities leading to actual job interviews, and finally job placement. So far this year, the program has 103 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 exceeded its goal of enrolling 681 by, in fact, enrolling over 800 welfare clients in the program. Of that number, 265 have been negatively terminated, and another 384 have been placed in unsubsidized jobs at an average starting wage of $8 per hour. The last program I want to talk about, and the one that you've heard the most about today that we operate, is the Work Opportunities Program. First let me say that Mr. Dodds' characterization of the program was correct. The program was -- and I apologize for that, I apologize to him and the ladies before and do so today. The program was ill-conceived, and certainly we did not do the job that we should have doing in managing the program. And as a result, the program has been placed on probation. We have sat down with the State and developed a corrective program that will make it an effective program. But having said that, let me explain -- and I've tried to explain this wherever I could -- that Work Opportunities was never designed to be 104 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the kind of training program that clients have been asking for. It was started in -- last -- right after March of 1999, when we thought everybody was going to be kicked off welfare. It was started by the State basically to be a place where those individuals who had been on welfare for two years and were at risk of losing their benefits, unless they engaged in some work activity, could go involve themselves in any work activity and still receive their welfare benefits. It was not designed -- and it currently is not designed -- to be a training program for welfare clients. Those clients who want training -- and I've, you know, said this to them -- ought to be in the SPOC Program or ought to seek other training opportunities from other programs. The real culprit -- if you're looking for that -- is Act 35, which mandates that once you're on welfare for two years, in order to continue to receive benefits, you've got to engage in a work activity for at least 20 hours a week. And there have been a lot of efforts -- and I've join those efforts -- to change the definition of "work activity" to include some training.

If 105 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 that is done, then we can reshape the program in such a fashion that, you know, that work activity can include some training. But until Act 35 is amended -- you know, clients can get training, but it has to be over and above the hours that they 7 put in for the work activity. 8 Let me just comment briefly -- and then 9 I'll close -- on the other issues about the 10 duration of the program, the wages, and I think 11 I've addressed the issue of training. 12 Our experience -- well, let me preface 13 that by saying that it is my belief that the goal 14 of all of these programs ought to be to get 15 clients out of the welfare system as quickly and 16 as expeditiously as possible. That should be the 17 goal, and that is what I think the goal is. 18 Our experience has shown that the 19 appropriate time for placing a client is around 20 three months. If the client comes in and is cooperative and, you know, is willing to go through what is being offered, that we can place the client in a job. And as you can see, all of these jobs -- or most of them -- pay above the $7 an hour. 106 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 So I don't think extending the program for months is the answer, it really is not the 4 answer. In fact, if you're looking for a step to 5 self-sufficiency, extending it and keeping clients 6 in another, quote, welfare program for 18 months, 7 I think, will get the opposite effect. 8 Finally, on the issue of the $7 per 9 hour wages, I love to see people get as much money 10 as they possibly can get. However, this is a 11 program that is set up, it's supposed to be 12 short-term, and it's supposed to lead people to 13 jobs in the private sector, making more than $7 an 14 hour. To pay people while they are going through 15 this training program for work activity at a level 16 that may be, in fact, higher than some of the 17 starting positions in the private sector, I think, 18 in the end, will serve as a disincentive for those clients to move out of the program and into the private sector. It is -- you know, the --

But you can have a cutoff date, they don't stay forever.

Well, they stay for six months, but if this were extended for 18 months and people were getting paid $7 an hour for 18 107 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 months, I think you would find more people staying for that long. Also, let me just say this, that it's not just $5.15 'cause that is an astronomically low wage. There is what they call "a disallow" for welfare in calculating how much their grant will be. If there wages were to go up to $7 an hour, part of that will still be deducted from there welfare benefits. And also, in addition to the 5.15 an hour, client are still getting child care, they're still getting medical benefits, and the only other benefits that come with being enrolled as a welfare recipient, taking that in its totality, I think, far exceeds $7 an hour. Now, the idea has been floated today that, you know, give people a $-7-an-hour job and then terminate the cash assistance. I think that's something that the State would buy 'cause I think the State will come out, in the end, making -- you know, doing a lot better economically. With that, I'm going to stop and, you know, answer any questions that you might have.

In trying to 108 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 revamp the Work Opportunities Program, are you involving our State representatives from Philadelphia to help work through some of the problems? Do we have their ear?

I have spoken to some but at this stage -- I have met and my staff have met with Moms on the Move and with the people at PUP to see if we can't come to some common understanding about how the program ought to be done. There were a lot of technical deficiencies that we committed, and we are correcting those, and I think, again, within the current parameters of the program, we'll be able to do a better job. We'll be able to get people and get them into an unsubsidized job. But on the broader issue of changing Act 35 to accomplish some of the things I've suggested, I have spoken to several of our State representatives.

Can you elaborate on what the feedback has been? And if you had to look long term, at what juncture do you see the reaction actually come into place with regards to Act 35, the amendment actually taking place? 109 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036

Well, I believe the bill 3 has actually passed the House -- it's one of the chambers that it has passed.

Okay.

Which calls for redefining what "work activity" is, to allow training, you know, after you've been on welfare for months. 9 (Mr. Jones confers with colleague 10 off-mike.) 11

I'm advised that there is a 12 discussion Monday morning to see exactly what's 13 going to happen on that bill. You know, some 14 people say that if you open this up, you will 15 allow some of the conservative members of the 16 state legislature an opportunity to make it even 17 more tougher on welfare clients, but 18 notwithstanding -- and I do think that the 19 definition of "work activity" needs to change to 20 be expanded to include some training after the 24 21 months. 22

Might it also 23 include involvement with the completion of GED 24 and/or Community College level?

Absolutely. That's part of 110 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the new definition.

Okay.

That would include -- educational activities would be included under the definition of "work activity."

Okay then.

What about the day-care issue? I mean, how is that being addressed in terms of payment on time or paying those day-care providers who are not the normal state licensed facility, like the grandmom or the cousin or whoever it might be that's taking care of the baby?

There are significant problems with the payment system. DPW made some changes recently, where they -- one of the problems is, they would calculate on a monthly basis the eligibility for day care. So if a person got a job today and worked for a week and then lost that job, they would basically assume that this person is working for the full month, and then it would take two or three months to catch up. They have now agreed not to do that for certain, I think, licensed day care people, to 111 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 just pay them, and do it every six months rather every month. But I think there are other people here who can, you know, speak to the issue of child care much better than I can.

Okay, all right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Greenwald, I'm glad to know you're working with the Unemployment Project and MOMs. And, again, this is to gather information today so that we can go to Harrisburg to ask for some changes. Mr. Greenwald?

Thank you. I also want to say that we have spent a lot of time with Mothers on the Move and the Philadelphia Unemployment Project and CLS and members of our community to be a part of board subcommittees and to just have access to our community. We view yourself ourselves as an open demonstration, and as much input as we can get from you and everybody in this room, we'd be glad to and have accepted and acted on stuff that we could act on. 112 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036

Identify yourself for the record so we know who we are.

My name is Richard Greenwald, and I'm the President of the Transitional Work Corporation. I'm going to read my testimony and then I can go --

Do you want to summarize it.

You want me to summarize it?

Yeah, why don't you summarize it and we'll present it in the record. You've heard today -- I want your reaction to what you heard today, and you can give a little background about what you do, but also --

Okay, okay.

Do we have your testimony?

You do have my testimony.

Okay, thank you.

Let me start by saying, 113 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 first of all, thank you very much and thank you, members of the committee who have sponsored some of our participants at your offices. It's been a tremendous success, and you've played a part in it. And I also wanted to say thanks to everybody in the room who has contributed to our success so far.

I will tell you, I had one young lady work for me. And, you know, you have to look at people and their background, their personality, their strengths, their weaknesses, and certainly she was a capable young lady, very nice, very good on the phone, but I just wasn't ready to let her go. I needed her there a little longer 'cause she wasn't ready to go, she just didn't have the -- you know, some of us are bodacious and, you know, we can go out and make it, and then there's some of us that need a little more care, a little more coaching, a little more nurturing, and we wanted to nurture her a little more. And I would imagine that she's probably not working 'cause she need to do build that self-confidence to just go out there. And she was a very nice 114 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 person, and we wanted to hold on to her longer than the six months. So when you talk about extending the program a little longer, it's for that kind of thing that you need for us who are willing to work with these young women and nurture them and give them that one-on-one kind of training and help, 'cause it's not just doing the job, it's helping them to understand all the nuances of going to work when you haven't worked in a long time. And so those are the kinds of things that we learned -- at least I learned -- in working with the women who've worked with me.

Yeah.

Then I've had others who were just like so gung ho, they could be okay. But everybody's not like that, everybody's not at the same level, they're not the same temperament they're not the same personality, and we've got to kind of like walk with some of these women.

Right. I mean, I think that we have a diverse group of people is an important point. We do have parameters that guide 115 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 our program. We have certain funding that's given to us to pay wages for people, and most of our funding goes to the wages of our participants. And we do have parameters that require ten hours of training and require up to six months of participation before we have to get somebody into an unsubsidized job. But the key is, we do have a group of diverse people with different backgrounds, as we heard today, and some of the people who spoke today were from our program. And we need to acknowledge that. And we also need to acknowledge your point that we've got to believe in people. You know, the worst thing we can do as advocates is to say that people are incompetent and incapable of working, and it's the last thing that they're going to hear from us, that's for sure, and I know that that was the experience in your worksite.

So is that to say, then, that you do understand and recognize that six months is not too long -- I mean, is far too short. It's far too short for adults who got it together and need to make a transition from one 116 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 job to another, let alone from welfare to work. Is that what I'm hearing?

I think that so far -- no, it's not exactly what you're hearing. I think that six months so far in our experience and in the experience that I've seen around the country has been adequate for us to get people to get into jobs that we've needed to move into jobs. However, I think we should hear alternate endings and maybe figure out ways for people who may need it, that we maximize the resources better in the community to extend services. There's a lot of post-placement training opportunities that are out there, that we haven't done. All of us haven't done a good enough job connecting our participants into those services, and we need to do that. We need to -- before they even get to us -- make sure they take advantage of all of the services that are available. So, really, the 18 months -- you really do have 18 months because you're taking advantage of services in advance of coming to us and in 117 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 taking advantage of the post-placement opportunities. But what I hear from our staff -- and believe me, I've heard what people have said today, and we change all the time. But what I hear from my staff all the time, who are doing this work, who are in the field every day, is that we'd better be very careful about how we extend and grow our program. As much as our egos, as far as program managers, would like to have a bigger and longer program, we want to be very careful that we do it in a precise and exact way and that we get the input from you guys and everybody else here, but that we do it carefully so that we don't have people lingering in our program and a malaise happening in our program and a modality funk that happens in our program by just coming back day in and day out to our ten hours of wraparound and going back to a worksite where you shouldn't be there. So, for some people, we may have to consider an alternate ending. Right now, we haven't seen that. And for the people who shouldn't be working and can't work, so far, DPW 118 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 has worked with us to find another solution than termination from their assistance. But right now, it seems to be working, and for everybody who gets to program completion, almost nobody doesn't end up with job at this point in our second year.

Well, one of the -- you don't have to have a one-size-fits-all.

Right.

You have to have -- maybe ten months may be all right for somebody. I think you have to develop an evaluation process and a criteria for that evaluation so that the young lady who worked for me may not be ready to go in six months, she may not be ready to do the job that she was doing for me but something else. And then that wraparound training, if it's not going to be worthwhile, if there's not something going on, I'd rather have that person in my office 'cause she's certainly getting better training with me than going and sitting in a room 23 talking. (Applause.)

So if the training 119 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 -- and I know it's not your program design, but we're saying, while we're talking about how we want to change it, make the training, the wraparound service meaningful. Are they getting job readiness counseling?

Right.

Or is someone talking to them to motivate them? And what's going on in the wraparound? If not, let them stay and instead of giving me three days or four days, give me five days a week. (Applause.)

Right. Let me address, I think three critical points. One is, I concur, let's evaluate and see. If we need to do something that's individualized for a person, we better figure it out, 'cause definitely, one size doesn't fit all. I'm definitely amenable to listening to that. I'm not in charge of how our funding works, but I'm definitely willing to participate in the dialogue on how that would work. Secondly, we actually have had people who are getting better experiences transitional 120 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 worksite, do their ten hours of wraparound there. It's very few people that we do it with, but some people it has worked out better for. One of the reasons we bring people back for ten hours of wraparound training is because the advocates here wanted to make sure that people got mandatory literacy and math training, as well as job-readiness training. So that's one of the reasons we bring it back and do it at our site. Another reason is because we've got to get people into jobs after six months, and need to see them and we need to know them and we need to -- jobs happen fast and they close fast, they open fast and they close fast. We need to see people and get our arms around them and connect them into a job opportunity before it closes. It's another reason I have people come back to our site for wraparound training -- which, by the way, we call "professional development training," because the connotation of "wraparound" has a negative stigma attached to it. And then, thirdly, we want people to take advantage of this free service. And I must say, in defense of our staff, who have knocked 121 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 themselves out, working 60-hour weeks to put together an outstanding curriculum that has an entry and exit that's not always exactly the same, we've put together an outstanding-quality professional development training for that ten hours. Now, we always are getting better, and I would love to have you guys come in and sit in, and people have done that from the community who've had problems with our training. And for those who have done that, we've acted on their suggestions. But we actually have a very good one. We can get better, but we have, again, a diverse group of people who -- we can't lump in 2nd-grade and 8th-grade reading-level people, nor can we do that with the math people. So we try to do as individualized training as we can, as well as get job people enough job-readiness training so that they're ready to grab that interview, make the connection, and solidify a job when they have that opportunity. And we have created a very good professional development training that encompasses all of those things -- literacy, math, job- 122 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 readiness training. And, finally, people have serious issues. We have a huge system, there's lots of supportive services issues out there that are -- particularly child care -- that we heard today. We have career advisors that are like job coaches, that have no more than people on their caseload 9 who are in transitional work, who are experts at 10 dealing with the static in people's lives and 11 particularly in going through the bureaucracies of 12 the County Assistance offices. 13 Having people come back to paid 14 wraparound training is good way for us to talk to 15 them and see how they're doing so that we can 16 solve some of their issues. And that's one of the 17 keys to our success. A lot of people get jobs, 18 but it's the recidivism rate that trips us up. We 19 have these personal coaches that stick with 20 people, not only in six months of transitional 21 work, but in another six months of unsubsidized 22 work so that we can be both their advocate and 23 partner, as well as supervisor, to keep them going 24 to succeed. 25 So -- I know that was a long-winded 123 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES.

000036 answer about paid training -- I mean, about wraparound training, but I think it's a worthwhile one.

Thank you. Linda?

Good afternoon and thank you for hearing me. I am Linda Hicks, and I represent an organization called "One Day at a Time," which is a community services program better known for drug and alcohol services and operating and being advocates for the homeless and operating shelter services, which we prefer to call "Havens for Women and Children." I have just a few observations to make and I hope I will be heard. I want to make a few observations on my experiences in working with the Work Opportunities Program in particular. About a year ago, through the Workforce Development Program -- Well, you know what? Before I say anything about the Work Opportunities Program, let me say that it's really disturbing to me, as a person who works on almost every level with the 124 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 very people whose lives we're speaking of here and who has had a welfare-to-work program Transitional Work Program, been a contractor with slots for over a year, it's really disturbing for me to sit here today and hear about so many programs doing so well, that the actual people that I work with have no idea about and aren't a part of. I don't understand that. And I think that if we were listening to most of the actual MOMs who spoke, they are speaking of the programs and what doesn't work for them. I don't think they're a part of the programs that Mr. Jones, whom I do hold in much esteem, spoke of that are successful or Mr. Greenwald. So I'm just wondering, we're missing something here. I'm here to talk about some not so good experiences that I have personally seen with the women I've worked with, and there are hundreds, and listening to the other women represented here, why aren't they a part of these successful programs? Because I'm not going to deny that the stats that have just been presented are true and that there are some successes and there's some programs working, but why do we have so many 125 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 people and why are the people that we, the hands-on people, who they're actually working with, even such as yourself, not a part of these programs? That's one question that I just wanted to put to the floor. (Applause.)

Work Opportunities is the only program that I have personally been involved with because when Workforce Development, which used to be PIC, asked our organization to provide slots, we provided 100 work experience opportunities for women. And regardless of how shaky that program has been, and God knows for whatever reason, it has been a failure, we put forth every effort we could to provide a positive work experience for the women and -- well, there was some men too -- but for most of the -- for the participants that came to our organization. I do need to share with you that what happened was, I was so interested in what this country and what would we do with welfare reform and who these folks were -- I mean, I had an idea because, you know, of what I do, but I wanted to know, who are the people who are going to be a 126 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 part of these programs, and how can I help? because I had a personal interest in helping. How do I integrate them into our program and how do I make an impact on their lives? So what I did was, I took on the undaunting task of interviewing every one of them personally, so I can speak here with some knowledge. Out of approximately 150 women who came to our organization, regardless of what my duties were, I took out the time to speak personally with them, to ask them some questions. And what I can speak to here today, without having to take a formal poll, is that most of the women do not have a high school education. So if we don't have a GED and a high school education, how in the world are we going to be effective in moving anywhere in six months? I don't see how we cannot address basic education. I'm talking fact. I mean, I had a few women out of 150 who had some prior -- who had GEDs or a diploma, but the overwhelming majority of these women that I talked to since August up until March did not have basic -- they did not have GEDs or diplomas, they did not have the basic education. We're 127 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 talking about most not finishing 10th grade. That is a problem, and we do an injustice when we expect these people to move into the workforce and be viable members of the workforce. The other part is skills. I don't want to focus a lot on it, it's obvious. People, if they don't have education and if we are trying to move them from welfare rolls, where most of them have not worked because of the children or whatever, we know that they need skills. I'm not an advocate that we should pay people's tuition for four years and they should get a higher education, but people do need basic education, and they do need skills. And you have been bringing up a great point. Some of those skills and the training they could receive right at the sites. There was an opportunity here that we missed -- I don't want to rehash it. Just as you, I had people who we were able to probably offer some training to a few people, but six months was not enough time, because, first of all, you have to deal with the fact that you're dealing with a lot of people with a lot of issues -- uneducated or lower level of 128 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 education, 'cause this is not to insult anyone. But there's the need for education and social skills. I was really surprised that we got a lot of women who had never really been out of their home environment and were totally frightened of those of us who represent the working world. We have to have some type of program in place to address the human need also. We just can't talk about statistics and these are people getting our taxpayer dollars, but it's okay to spend all those dollars in programs that aren't benefitting the people who really need them. So we've got the aspect of socialism. We've got people who are frightened, who have no idea what it means to stand up next to some of us and work. And then we've got child care -- oh, my God, I don't even want to really waste time talking about child care.

I am frightened as a God-fearing woman and as a citizen of this country to think how we are putting children at risk when we make these women come to work and we do not provide the dollars on a timely basis that they need to care for their babies. ) 129 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036

I have two children myself and I am totally appalled when I think of the fact that of all the money we're putting up, that everybody and their brother's getting a day care center today. And we understand and we know that most of these ladies -- when you start talking about day care, you introduce another whole arena of problems. And we know that other people care for our children and we know that we need to broaden the horizon on how children are cared for. And yet we want to pay all of the business people to operate day-care centers, but if person has a mom or a grandmom or a sister or an uncle -- I used to pay my sister to take care of my child, okay, even though I had to also go out and pay babysitters. But when cut the options and we limit the options, we put these children at risk. So that's another whole issue. Money is not being paid on time. And basically, as a provider, I don't want to waste time on it, but with DPW, everyone from there should have been here to talk about case workers and, as someone said before, supervisors and the bureaucracy. I had to call on somebody at another 130 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 organization, my parent organization, GPAUC, to help me to be able to not go down to welfare and put up a sign myself, because I was so sick and tired of spending my valuable time talking to case workers who would call me -- no mind that at the Work Opportunities, they're supposed to have a case manager. But welfare, people should be here from the DPW, they should be here to address that this is not working, the partnership with them. I mean, I don't know where this emanates from or what the problem is, but I just recently had to get someone to help me to facilitate a conversation. " I sent the timesheet, fax it, give them what they want, and then having this person say, "I don't have a babysitter, I didn't get my money. Please, Linda," and bringing their child 131 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 to work two and three days a week. And then I get a call from a supervisor after I think that all I've done all I can, the hours she worked, when she started, here's the timesheet, and all of this as a providing agency, with no assistance from the provider agency that's really getting the money to do the job, and then having to have another party facilitate my getting someone at DPW to pay this woman's child care when she is coming to work every day and had been with me for six months, and this worker has been dealing with her for six months and still can't get paid. Those are the kind of ridiculous happenings that do not foster healthy working relationships and do not help folks to be able to stay at work. So I am for looking at the education -- that is a problem and why some of these programs don't work. And I want to go back to where these working programs are. If we got programs that work, put these people in them. And for a person to sit in a work experience slot for six months and no one to have ever contacted them and even said there's a job fair around the corner, or as someone said earlier, "I cannot do a resume," this 132 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 is from personal experience. I had at any given time 80 to 90 women at our jobsites and never did I, as an administrator -- I take that back, I got a fax one time about a job fair or about jobs being available. So people don't get information on how to find jobs. So I would like to advocate anything that stops setting all these women up for failure. We are not assisting them.

I am a proponent that money needs to be spent on educating them, and even if it's not months, but at least extending 14 the program or subsidizing it in some way, the 15 slice that they occupy, and doing some type of 16 progress so that we are not wasting our time here 17 and that we are not creating a level of 18 frustration that is going to cause these people to never be a viable part of the workforce, and that we do not endanger their children by making their mothers come to work and setting up unreasonable limitations, like it has to be Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. I operate shelters. I need people -- if they're going to work with me, you got to be 133 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 willing to working to 7, Saturday and Sunday, 'cause that's the real world. And child care needs to be paid for for various times. So if we look at child care, education, and some type of skills training, which may already be here, it seems to me. But if we look at being able to direct those of us concerned today the women that we represent and all of those women who are lost to the system -- obviously they're lost to the system -- into these programs, perhaps we can make some leaveway (sic). I thank you for your time.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Carol, could you sum up. Then we'll go to social services and then to the Urban Coalition.

Thank you. I'm Carol Geortzel from the Women's Association for Women's Alternatives, and I really appreciate the opportunity to talk before you. As some of you know, we've been working very hard to bring the issue of economic self-sufficiency to the table of welfare reform, 134 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 and I have some standards and information to pass out to be people. I'll be fairly brief. We're an organization that has worked since 1978 to try to provide opportunities both within the child welfare system to keep families together and to promote economic self-sufficiency for families. We have also run the Work Opportunities Program, and I'll just talk for two minutes about a couple of the things we do in terms of TANF advocacy and the Work Opportunities and the job training program in North Philadelphia that we run. The North Philadelphia job training is a SPOC Program in that we're able to have moms in the program for eight months. We have a 75 percent placement and an 85 percent retention -- not 50 -- over a 2-year period. That is because people are in training for six to eight months where they get adult education, get human service skill development, get some computer literacy, and their placement in jobs is long- and not short-term. And the recidivism that has been talked about as a problem does not occur when you give 135 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 people enough time, and the time varies so that you can work on the family issues of family violence, child care, sick children. All of those issues can be worked on -- skill development, education development, and job-readiness and placement. When you can do all of that with people, they stay on the job and they don't fall back and they get promoted. When you have the six-month programs, like Work Opportunities, without the real wraparound case management and in the system up until now -- and I know that it's changing -- their agencies were not paid to provide full case management plus placement plus paperwork, etc. and education. So it was not happening. 15 an hour without the education and 19 case management and job placement, and they're not 20 going to be -- the women that we worked with will not be anywhere, in the long run, as if that he had gone to training. We also have a TANF advocacy project in West Philadelphia where we work with four family centers, and we have been working with people 136 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 who've lost their jobs because of the child-care issues that have been raised. They've lost their jobs because they've been robbed on the way to work and scared to go back. And then they're told they're not in compliance. We have people who have lost their jobs because they don't have enough of an educational background to be able to have transferable skills. I want to mention something about the importance of people working with the State to expand the definition of "work activity," because if you do that, after months, people will be 14 able to combine education and work in ways that 15 will work for them in the long run and not the 16 short run. 17 I also want to talk about economic 18 supports and the importance of taking away the 19 stigma of getting food stamps, of getting child 20 care assistance, of having your children enrolled 21 in the CHIP Program for health care. Right now, 22 you get food stamps mostly through the Welfare 23 Department, so people aren't doing that. And you 24 can't -- if you're working, if you want to get food stamps, you have to leave your job to go to 137 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the office to be able to get food stamps. People can't do that. So as we're as looking at really systems that work for people who are moving from welfare to basically being working poor, in most cases, we feed to change all of the systems so that people can work and have a chance to move upward.

15 for 40 hours; 14 and $7 an hour -- which is not high wage if any of 15 you would think of supporting your families on 16 less than $15,000 a year -- $7 an hour at 20 hours 17 and at 40. 15 an hour, unless you're in 19 public housing, there is no way you can support 20 your family even very moderately. Your wage adequacy is about 60 percent of what you need, 60 percent. -15-an-hour job successfully, you then gain employment 40 hours a week, you really won't be anywhere. And if you haven't had the educational 138 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 background, you're not going to necessarily go anywhere. All of the states that have done research show that people don't automatically move up if there isn't some skill intervention for people to move up. And programs that have wanted to work with people after they're placed have not been successful because people have so many issues around day care and fulfilling the job requirements unless they've built in a relationship with people while they're working with training. So if your case manager has built a relationship with people, then you work with people after they're placed, and when they lose a job, they get a job, because they call you back. I just want to add some feedback on the stories of the three women in the video. There were three women there: one Latino woman who was doing factory and back room that involved some clerical work; a Caucasian woman who was doing non-traditional work -- and the race doesn't really matter, it's just three people from three different walks of life and backgrounds; and an 139 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 African-American woman going to college. When we did the video, they were all working and working their way upward. When we followed them up two months after the video, two of those women had left their jobs because of problems with their children. We were able to intervene because we were working with them so that they received case management again and they're back in the workforce. The woman who had a non-traditional job had to do mandatory overtime, and her issue was not child care for young children; her issue was her teenagers. She was going two hours to her job, she was gone then 14 hours a day doing mandatory overtime, and her 16-year-old son out on the streets. She was a former user and she was fearful for her child because she had been clean and sober now for many years. She quit her job because she feared for her children. She became depressed, she did not go back to using, and because we were tracking and working with her, we helped her get back into a job where she's now working in construction and is back on her feet. But this is what happens. 140 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Myra had children who have a lot of health problems and a lot of mental-health problems, and eventually, the child welfare system took temporary custody and told her that she had to be working full-time and not part-time in order to be reunited with her child, and she couldn't go to all of the appointments to be reunited with her child. So, again, through a lot of people intervening, she's now back on her feet going through reunification and has a different job where she's not working a night shift. Because for her, the night shift didn't work because of the rotating child-care issue and her kids being alone every dinner and evening time. So that the issues that people have raised are real because we're talking about real people. 15 an hour. That is not enough for people to feel respected, to get on their feet in the long run, or to have enough money to really be able to do that. So, again, from the Women's Association for Women's Alternatives and all of us who are 141 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 working to help people be able to move out of poverty and not into poverty, we ask that you really consider having the City of Philadelphia not only have a living wage that I know that --

Well, why don't we form a coalition of all of these organizations across the City to demand that we pass living-wage legislation in this City Council? I would love to see that come together out of this hearing. If you guys can do that and organize -- because last time, it was just one grouping of people organizing around it.

It has to be broader.

And that's not enough.

That's right. It has to be broader. They've done it in Los Angeles, they've done it in many other cities.

I need the help of everybody organized around this issue so that we can pass living-wage legislation. I think we have a Council that is very cognizant, committed to equal justice and good-paying jobs. I don't think that this Council that is presently -- that has 142 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 been presently elected, for instance, is one that just wants to keep on giving and giving to the corporate world without saying to that corporate sector, "You have to give something back." The something back that they have to give, at least for all of the TIFs, for everything, for all of the breaks that we give them, years, 20 years without paying any tax 10 taxes, land that we acquire for them, all of these 11 things that actually create wealth for them, at 12 least the Simon Group, for example, down at Penn's 13 Landing, they're getting incredible breaks. They 14 should pay a living wage. The hotels that are 15 being built with taxpayers' largesse, they should 16 pay a living wage. The janitors across the City 17 that clean and so on, they should earn a living 18 wage. 19 So -- but this Council will not move 20 unless we see people here in different 21 organizations. You know that when we have a 22 hearing about the stadiums in this Council, every 23 seat is filled with people from the building 24 trades, all right, demanding that this Council 25 pass that, notwithstanding -- in fact, not even 143 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 that we ask any questions about it, just pass it blindly, without seeing what the taxpayers' responsibilities are going to be, what the impact is going to be on the City, what is it really going to bring economically to the City. No, no, no, don't ask no questions, just pass it. But when we have a hearing -- like, for example, we've had hearings on displaced workers, well, we've only had a few displaced workers, and the only thing crowd that comes in are the people who are affected. Now, you know that those displaced workers, those janitors that are taken off their jobs, if they don't find another job that pays them, will be homeless, will be on welfare, will be on the streets with their kids and so on. But when we have living-wage legislation hearings, we don't have a coalition of people filling every seat here. And I would like to see a coalition of people come together in this city about the human rights issues that we're facing, and I think it's about time that we really started discussing that, and you coming into this house to do certain things about that. 144 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 (Applause.)

I think --

The friendly amendment I would make to that is, we cannot find any seats in here when the stadium is on the table for a discussion, debate, friendly dialogue, and we have too many seats when it comes to issues affecting public education.

That's right.

School uniforms, safety and discipline. So we need to echo what Councilman Ortiz is saying and look at our own priorities and where they rest or should lie with regards to where we register our support.

And I think that a broader coalition than has happened really needs to happen, and can happen, in this city. And I think the hearings now that are talking about going from 5.15 to $7 an hour are only a beginning because that isn't the living wage. I mean, neither is $9 an hour really, but it's a step toward moving in that direction. And at $7 an hour, full-time people can be saving their time practically, and that's the beginning for people 145 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 not having to be on TANF.

But we have should have organizations out there, for example, that keep track of what is going on in this city, in this Council. For example, if we we're going to have hearings about building down at Penn's Landing and the Simon Group, and we're going to be discussing that that -- well, that should be of interest to every organization that wants jobs, that wants people to be employed. That should be of interest to every organization that is in terms of organizing the working folks and the poor people in the City. And they should come in here and testify and say, "Hey, fine. If you want to do that, demand that they do these other things, put it into their contract," 'cause we can do that. Put it into their contract that these other things have to happen. Like, for instance, Blondell has an idea that we all share, and that I share very deeply, because we've been talking. If there's going to be a stadium, well then they're going to have to take money from their tickets and set up a children's fund of some sort, all right? Well, if 146 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 you're going to build down at Penn's Landing, let's make sure they at least pay a living wage. Let's ask in the contract that a living wage be included. That's all.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We'll be meeting with Senator Loper to try to get them to open up their minds a little bit to House Bill 1266, which would broaden the definition of "work and education."

Good luck.

Thanks.

Who's next?

May I suggest something to our fellow panelists?

Identify yourself for the record.

Thank you for the opportunity.

To my fellow panelists, I agree --

Identify yourself for the record, please.

I'm Vivian Norton, from the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition. 147 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 May I suggest to my fellow panelists that in the organizing efforts, that if we bring our constituents, our clients, to hearings, and every one of them raises a voter registration card, we will be heard.

Excellent idea.

Excellent idea. Who is next?

I am, I am.

Go ahead.

I want to say that I am very much experienced with the same kinds of things that those panelists have spoken. I represent the Work Opportunities Program, which I manage for the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs coalition. Last year, when we entered into our subcontract, we agreed and maintained 500 work slots in about 60 agencies across the City of Philadelphia, and over the ensuing year, we have seen approximately 500 clients. We found early on that there were needs that we were not equipped to meet but in that -- in the time that we had, because the Coalition, 148 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 since 1973, has successfully fielded all sorts of jobs programs for youth from to 21, for adults 4 in many, many classifications and categories, and 5 this is something that the Coalition does 6 extremely well and extremely willingly. 7 With the Work Opportunities Programs, 8 there are, as was reiterated earlier, many 9 problems that emanated from the fact that Work 10 Opportunities was conceived in haste. However, we 11 took that as an opportunity to add two logical 12 programs to the Work Opportunities, and they feed 13 from the Work Opportunities Program. " When a client comes to us in Work Opportunities, they may stay in Work Opportunities about three months. When we find out that they there is no high school diploma or GED, then that person is referred to the Career Education Program, if we and the worksite supervisors feel that they are ready for that. Because a goal of the CEP program is to take those persons and place them in private-sector employment, with the proviso -- and this is already agreed with the participating employers -- that those persons 149 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 within the next year to months will get their GED, and provision is made in that program for them to do that. There are persons who will take those clients under their wings and do retention counseling and follow-up while they're going through there. " That program is a granted program, which provides for persons who have come through Work Opportunities and/or CEP after they have gained employment. Project EARN has a state-of-the-art computer center that people can come to after work. It provides some child-care subsidies, it provides some transportation subsidies, it provides some clothing subsidies, and it provides retention counseling as well -- for the employer, as well as the employee. Now, we can't serve the entire population, but those persons who come through us have that opportunity. We have some success stories that we can point to, and they are real. We have had at least one quarter of our worksites to hire full-time the Work Opportunities clients 150 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 who were placed with them. That to me says that this program -- that piece of the program was a success. We also in one case -- and this is my favorite. In one case, the place hired the lady, who was a client there. She now is the supervisor for the unit for which she hired, and she is really a good one. She is an excellent supervisor. She has never forgotten from whence she came, and she encourages and mentors those persons who work under her supervision. I don't know her very well on a personal level, but I see the results of what has become of her. These are the possibilities in Work Opportunities -- they're not built into Work Opportunities. We have our share of Work Opportunities glitches. And, make no mistake, child care is a huge problem that I personally have attacked from client to client through supervisors and supervisors and their supervisors and their supervisors, with some success sometimes and with some resounding failures other times. However, I think that what we have -- without being Pollyanna about this, Work 151 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Opportunities is a far better solution or a way to a solution than none at all.

I think that 90 percent, if not more, of the clients who come through these welfare-to-work programs are well motivated, they want to be independent, they want to govern their own lives, and most of them are looking for direction, which we have made a mighty effort to provide and are still providing. There are barriers, there are glitches. In anything, you may have glitches. This one has more than its share, and the biggest one is that child-care issue. " And I think that we and our clients need to take that to heart. We have met the enemy and they are us. All of us need to be patient, to work together, to understand that one person can't serve 500, that one person can do only so much, that the employers that we seek to influence don't 152 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 want to hear us, but we're going to keep knocking on their doors until they open. So with the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, we have a reverse-commute project that we relate to, we have the CEP Program, we have the Project EARN, and we have Transitional Employment, as well as Work Opportunities. We within our organization are working together, and we would be delighted to work together with those others that are out there in the field to see what we can do beyond what we're doing.

Thank you very much. Mr. Thompson, I'm so sorry. You've been here all day -- you started with the first hearing, and that was at 9 o'clock.

That's quite all right. For the record, my name is Frazier Thompson. I'm with Catholic Social Services, and I'm the Program Coordinator in the Welfare to Work Initiative. And I am very encouraged even more today, after being here and listening to the 153 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Mothers on the Move, and to also find out that there is now a forum where a lot of these issues can be aired, put on the table. , how we can all coming together, as Mr. Ortiz was talking about, in terms of a coalition. We can be a much stronger force because, I tell you, our communities are suffering when neighbors and family members are ill-mannered or anxiety-ridden as a result of not being able to take care of themselves. On that point, you know, I was going to say, there was a couple things that were brought up today, and I want to reiterate the fact that, you know, this continuous dialogue, you know, we have to do it on a lot of other different levels. This cannot be the only place to voice and make some initiatives happen. We need to encourage provider to provider, agency to agency, as Carol was talking about. And one of the strong points that I 154 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 feel strong about, I should say, is the area that Carol mentioned in terms of case management. How do you identify this particular client, how do you keep them motivated so that they are not just being pushed to the end of their time according to State guidelines, time limit, but they are motivated and encouraged to go to work. I have devised a little system within my own program. I do a certified nursing assistance and I also do resident child-care assistance -- resident child care aides. One of the things that I provide for them is a support system and an extensive case-management support system that takes them from the initial presentation. I go down here to PWDC, the SPOC Unit that Mr. Jones was talking about, and I do my own recruiting. So as a result of the recruiting, I am the first one that they get a chance to speak to in terms of identifying what are there objectives, and then I can help them move forward to the next phase, which is another assessment through the SPOC Unit. Now, once moving through the SPOC Unit, we set up an interview, and they are 155 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 actually interviewed by the people who are actually going to be doing the hiring, because within the Archdiocese, we do have our own resident centers for disadvantaged youth, and we also have our own nursing homes for certified nursing assistants. So if they have chosen our training program, we provide them the training by the people who are actually going to do the hiring. " You know, and I know this might be a little bit different than some of the other providers, but the point I wish to make about that type of support to the participant is that if you can keep them motivated -- and I know there are a lot of other things that happen between PWDC, the District Office, the child care, the housing, and other -- maybe behavioral health issues that might come about. One of the things that I take upon myself in terms of a case manager is to provide the resources so that during this dialogue with this participant, and if I'm doing the ongoing 156 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 treatment plan or retention follow-up, then I am that much more aware of what this individual needs, because they're going to call me back. They're going to say, "Frazier, I need this, I need your help with this. " Consequently, the case management never ends. It starts from the beginning at the presentation, where you are motivated to make a change, and it follows all the way through to the retention so that you are encouraged to stay on the job and maybe enhance some of your own capabilities at that point even further. One of the other things too that was brought up earlier was about basic education.

I don't know the answer in terms of how and extended training programs may work out with some of the current guidelines, but I'm more than willing to be a part of any dialogue that would encourage that, because basic education is a guarantee of -- I almost want to go back and say "our constitution," you know what I mean? Because if they don't have the basic education, there's nowhere to move. They might 157 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 stay at $7 an hour or $8 an hour for years, and then they're really going to be at a loss, because our economy is growing. But we've talked about basic education, job readiness, socialization skills, and one of the other things that is provided at our center is computer literacy because I've been able to institute a computer lab that will allow them to do job research, resume writing and also, hopefully within the next ten days, I'll have at least one computer set up for the Internet so that we can do our own job searches within the office. But there were so many things that were brought to the table today, and this room was so full of energy from 9 o'clock this morning, I could not sit back here and not say anything. Because on the provider side, there's a lot that's happening, I know. I'm involved with PWDC. Usually on Friday afternoons, I'm downtown here. We do have a workshop and are trying to connect with other providers to encourage them to be more attentive to the SPOC guidelines or the State guidelines that have been given to them. The other thing too is to encourage 158 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 program coordinators and managers to be more attuned to what it is that the needs are of the individuals that they're trying to help through this transition. And, you know, we need to expand our own capabilities to show true compassion. This is not just a statistics game; we need to have viable, healthy people, who are encouraged to find themselves self-sufficient, self-empowered, and then self-motivated. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before I call up the next panel, I want to ask Mr. Greenwald something, then we have to break for the stenographer for about two minutes, and then we'll come back. But are most of these programs funded through your head organization, the old PIC?

I can answer that question, but I'm not the representative. The Transitional Work Corporation, which runs the program Philadelphia @ Work, it's our only program. It's synonymous with who we are -- we're TWC. We are not the Work Opportunities Program, 159 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 we are an independent nonprofit organization.

Do you contract out?

We don't contract out.

So the program is run by you at your site?

That's correct. And we're a nonprofit joint of -- while we're a nonprofit, we're a joint venture of GPW (Greater Philadelphia Works) and the Pew Charitable Trusts. They all came together in a confluence of ideas in 1998 saying, What can we do to coordinate?

And where do you all get your funding from?

We are subcontractors of PWDC.

What's that?

That's Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation -- formerly PIC.

Okay, you also.

Yes, indeed, that's right. We have -- in fact, I have another contract coming up in June. 160 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036

Okay. So when you talk about the providers getting together to deal with some of the issues, would you be a provider also?

Yes, I would.

So you come under that umbrella also?

We execute our contract through PWDC.

Okay. So what we need is to have like a provider network to sit down and talk about some of the problems in the program, and then you all can become an advocate for change. I mean, although you may be competing, but you're all getting some money so, you know, it's worthwhile to think about that.

There are plenty of the people who need our services -- you know, we're not competing.

We're not competing.

All right. I think it's worthwhile for us to look at how we form a coalition, as Councilman Ortiz said, so that everybody's not off doing everything, and 161 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 then we can focus in on what the problems are with the program and serve as one voice in advocating in Harrisburg with our local elected officials for a change.

I do have one follow-up question to Councilwoman Tasco's inquiries. Funding is a block grant or is it reimbursement based on success?

Is that for anyone?

Yes. Well, for all of you.

Okay. I think for the purposes of our program, what we are contracting for -- when we go to the contract table, we have already slots identified. So then we're going in to the SPOC Unit on a Tuesday or a Thursday, and we're doing some actual recruiting. I have a resident child-care aide's program that started in early November. I did the recruiting, we had the slot for ten. I lost one as a result of health issue -- she was prenatal, too close, and would miss time because of training. And another we lost because of some behavioral-health issues, some D-and-A issues, but 162 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 that was part of the assessment and we were able to catch that up front. But as a result of that, you know, eight were placed, and eight are successfully employed today.

So were you penalized for the other two?

We were not. We had one (unintelligible) become a negative because we caught it in time. So you have to also have -- along with these programs, you have to have a timely turnaround of the paperwork and the tracking activity so that you don't get penalized. That's another facet of program guidelines that come down through SPOC. You have -- within the first month of recruiting, you can identify individuals that have challenges that are way beyond your scope.

Okay, I understand all that. I'm formerly a social worker and worked with those kinds of programs. My question is, for the two that weren't successful for very legitimate reasons, did the funding entity withdraw dollars, penalize you? Did you get dollars up front and that was 163 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the end of it? And what happened with those dollars as it related to your slots?

I think what happens is -- and I'm not really clear on how the funding system works because it goes downtown here, it doesn't come through my desk. But there was one negative that we reported because we didn't catch her in time.

Okay. And what happened with negative in terms of funding?

In terms of funding, it goes -- I think what it is, we lose some funds or some access to future funds.

Okay, then. Mr. Greenwald?

We have three streams of funding -- the TANF Block Grant that you're referring to.

Oh, so that's a block grant, okay. BROWN:

And we take -- so some of the funding comes from there and most of that goes towards our participant wages. Then we have a stream of funding from 164 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the welfare-to-work money -- that's that Department of Labor money that came through the governor and was executed by PWDC, and that's about equally 45 and 45 percent of our money. And then percent of our 7 administrative money comes from Pew Charitable 8 Trusts. 9

Okay. So you're 10 not penalized at all --

We're --

-- if there's no 13 success with the block grant dollars.

We're acting like we would be but, in reality, we're a grant demonstration project, so we're not being penalized.

Okay, all right.

In our case, we contracted for 500 slots. There were benchmarks along the way for the year, and they were quarterly. And we maintained our 500 slots, so I can't answer as to whether we would have been penalized had we not because we didn't.

Okay, but the 165 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 bottom line is, you were funded for that which you requested for. You slotted for 500 in your proposal?

Yes.

And you got --

We got funding for 500.

Funding for 500, okay. That's what need to know.

Right.

Thank you all very much. We appreciate it. We're going to stop for about five minutes for our stenographer to take a break and change the paper. And we'll come back with the next group of panelists. And we appreciate your patience. You know, this is you tough issue and we're going to be here all day. We were all day here two years ago, we're going to be here all day here today. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)

Okay. Thank you. You know, this is a tough issue and 166 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 it's going to take all day, and I'm sorry that it takes time when people want to testify. These are the people -- let me just check and see who's here. Is Sharon Dietrich here? Okay. Sharon Ward? PCCY. Not here. Ed Geiger. He left his testimony. Vivian Schatz? She left. Dawn Moody? Rosalind Spigel? Doris Kensey-Chandler? We know Ed Schwartz is here. Is Aaron Mooney here. (Unidentified person responds off-mike.)

For Aaron, so you're the wrap-up, okay. Who else is here to testify other than these four people at the table? And you are?

I'm Rosalind Spigel.

Okay, why don't you come forth. We will make this all one panel. And you are?

Ann Mitchell Sackey. 167 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036

We'll call on you after we finish this panel, and then we'll have Sharon wrap it up. Thank you very much. Since we started out with the 21st Century League two years ago, when all of this started, and you came forth and we had testimony, and some of the things that you pointed out are true today. So thank you, Ed. We'll ask you to make your presentation and we know you have a lot to say. Do you have typed testimony?

Yes. You have it.

Oh, we have it? Okay, thank you very much, Ed.

Thank you, Councilwoman. My name is Ed Schwartz, and I'm here for the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. And even though I'm on this advocacy panel, that is not the primary basis of being here and asking to be able to speak. We have been both an advocacy group, as you know, but also a provider, under both SPOC and Work Opportunities. And right this minute, we are one of only two citywide agencies that are under 168 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 contract for the coming year under the Work Opportunities Program. So we are a part of the solution, or seen as, to some of the problems that you've been wrestling with here today.

You have to speak into the mike; I can't hear you. Is the mike on?

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Oh, the mike is working, I just need to make it closer. We are, as I said, one of only two organizations -- and there may be a third, but there are only two right now that I know of that are getting contracts under Work Opportunities for the coming year, the year having begun April 1st. Right now, we have 70 people, 50 of whom have been in our office in the last two weeks, placed in nonprofit organizes under the Work Opportunities Program. That is the role that we have been asked to play. So I am here to try to answer some of the questions about where things were and are that I've heard raised by you folks up there, and perhaps provide clarity, and then also to give my 169 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 perspective on what are the things that are currently being sought that are barely doable and one, frankly, I don't think are going to be doable, given the political realities of what we're facing. Let me just make a couple of comments about a fundamental difference in philosophy, if you will, between what everybody in this room 10 who's testified to, including me, believes and what is believed in Harrisburg. What we believe is --

I'm not surprised, but go ahead.

Well, I don't think there's any -- I mean, this is not going to -- I need to define it because it makes all sorts of differences in terms of the operational issues that we're describing. We believe that the first objective that should have been started on March 3, 1997 was to build a five-year process where people on welfare, on TANF, ended up with the skills to enter the workforce in the most competitive basis, and that that ought to have been the standard by 170 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 which we organize the specific programs for these people. In other words, their development and their competitiveness ought to have been the criteria. That's been our philosophy, and in the name of that philosophy, JOIN, the coalition I put together, came into being. John Dodds got Vince Hughes to introduce the jobs bill, and we all backed that. It's that philosophy which now is behind the bill that we're also supporting to make education and training a work-related activity. The testimony I provided to the previous Council on the literacy gap, when you had your hearings on that. All of that was built around the premise that a person needs to be given a competitive advantage in entering the workforce, and that requires a mix between job experience, education and training, child care, and all of the rest of it. And that's what needed to be done. And if it meant that somebody would be outside the workforce for a while because they needed training, then that was given their opportunity. That's what we believe. 171 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 What Harrisburg and Act 35 reflects is a totally different premise. Act 35 is an act of rage by people who got tired of paying for other people to stay home and sit and do whatever they do and take care of their kids. They want their money back. They want to be told, these legislators and the constituents who elect them, that whatever is happening here is resulting in the fastest possible reduction of the welfare caseload that we can accommodate. And, yes, there's some concern that they don't want people lying in the streets 'cause that probably would look bad. In the end, if they don't know what happened to anybody who left the caseload, they're not really going to look too hard, even though they kind of say, "As long as they're not in the caseload, they're no longer a problem." And I have to say to you that part of the political challenge that we have in getting anyone to take our philosophy seriously is that from that vantage point, their program has been a staggering success. We started in March 3rd of 1997 with 67,000 households on TANF. And now, we 172 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 end up, in April of 1999, you know, with 37,000 households. Now, I think -- and frankly, I've given you, as a separate matter, the latest caseload report, which is now available statewide for this county, and we could go into a little bit. If you look at what we need to do between now and March 3rd of the year 2001, when people's federal benefits run out, this is an alarming number still. But if you start two years ago and the goal was to reduce the caseload, that in fact has been largely achieved. The Inquirer removed Monica Yant (ph.) from covering this as a story, welfare reform in the public --

Well, she had a personal issue today, I was just told.

Well, I'm just saying that Monica Yant used to have -- and this is not her doing, but Monica Yant had this beat as a full-time beat. She was removed from it as a full-time beat so she could cover City services. That's the Inquirer's decision, that welfare reform is no longer a matter of, you know, 173 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 full-time concern. And that's exactly what happened here. Now, the other aspect of this, which has operational consequences, is the so-called "work first" philosophy. And what that says is that in the past, welfare reform -- welfare programs have failed because they have given excuses for people not to work. Training is not looked at as an advantage, unlike everybody else in the population. Training in this setting is an excuse for somebody not to have a job. And so the first objective built around this "get 'em out and get 'em jobs" is to get people focused on getting a job and into jobs. And once they have a job, even a part-time job, then maybe we'll talk about giving the mother supports in the context of that. But until they have a job, they will not support anything that looks like it's an excuse to keep somebody out of the workforce. Sherry Hellyer, who's the lead person in this -- and I had a personal conversation about this in December at the United Way conference, and she said, "Look, Ed" -- and it was the only civil 174 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 conversation I've had here, and she's the one, two years ago, when I banged my hand on the table, that's Sherry Hellyer, so that's who we're talking about. She said, "Look, I have to report back to people who want to be told that people are getting jobs. If I can justify a strategy on grounds that helps them get jobs, that's the only basis to do it. If it looks like an alternative to getting a job, getting into the workforce as quickly as possible, then I can't deal with it. " Which is why between every one of these programs, people are then sent back on a 30-day job search. This allows her to say to these legislators and conservatives, "Well, yeah, we sent them on another 30-day job search and it didn't work, so now we've put them in X," whatever "X" is. So this helps you to understand the sequence of events and the context of these two work experience programs. Harrisburg has not wanted any program like this -- either the Transitional Work Program or Work Opportunities. These are alternatives to what they really want, 175 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 which is to help people get into the workforce. And they also fully understand that some of the community-service jobs are actually pretty good work assignments for people -- they get to work in their neighborhood or near it, they get to work with people who care about them instead of employers who care about, you know, something else. You know, they can get settled into a community-service job program. We have been running one for seven years out of the Institute. I speak from experience on this. And that's exactly what they don't want. They don't want somebody to get put into a work assignment under the public's subsidy that becomes an excuse for them not to get out from under the public subsidies. It make Pennsylvania the only state that I know of with a work-first philosophy that has not had workfare as a major component of the program. In New York City, 35,000 people are being paid by welfare there to work in the city government, and the big issue of the advocates like in us New York is the treatment that these people get when they're working. Workfare is not 176 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 a part of this equation. So for two years, we demanded this jobs bills, Dodds and I and other groups. That never happened, and it wasn't going to happen as long as the legislature is controlled by the people who control it and as long as we have this governor and this philosophy in government.

Then March 3, 1999 comes along, and now suddenly, we're facing a situation where hundreds of people, maybe thousands, are going to have to do something hours a week to stay -- to keep 13 their benefits. The City's program, which you've 14 heard of, the Transitional Work Program, was the 15 response to Ed Rendell's effort as mayor to get 16 Congress to kind of give forbearance. And in the 17 end, what happened is that big cities like us got 18 these programs. 19 So Philadelphia got a $52 million grant 20 from the Department of Labor, and the Pew Charitable Trusts put up $3 million. And so now we have Philly @ Works and the Transitional Work Program. That accounts for, in a given year, 6,000 people who are essentially on a supported job search kind of mission under the auspices of 177 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Philadelphia @ Works -- that's the City's Labor Department-funded program -- and the Transitional Work Program, which you've heard described by Richard Greenwald as being primarily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The community-service jobs component of that is primarily funding that, and that takes into account in any six-month period 750 people, but they are way under-enrolled for that. But they're well-funded, because of Pew mostly. They're well-fund to do administer and support the people that they've got. They have caseloads for case managers at 15. They are able to give the kind of support, you know, that those folks, you know, would need beyond the community- service assignments, which are comparable to every other community service one, including what we're doing. They're placing people in neighborhood and nonprofit groups. That's the program that basically Donna Cooper put together. All right, now we come to a year and a half ago, about December of 1998, and March 3rd is coming, and people are hysterical about what, in fact, will happen to these clients. The City had 178 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 made some proposals, and the State had not responded. " And what happened here is this: a whole bunch of nonprofit groups, including the Institute, were put under contract to take a minimum of 100 work activities, to identify 100 work activities that people could perform for 10 hours a week. And we would not have 11 responsibility to answer the kind of question that 12 Councilwoman Reynolds asked -- to place them in 13 full-time jobs. Our only role was, in fact, to 14 manage them in these community placement 15 situations around the City. You had to take 100. 16 We had a subsidy of $400 a person for 17 that. The average subsidy for a SPOC program, 18 which you've heard of, SPOC being the showcase 19 training program, is over 2 to $3,000 a person. 20 So there is the difference. But the presumption is that $400 permits you to manage. If you have 100 slots and $400, the fast math there is $40,000, so you end up with one staff person, one and a third staffpeople, somebody onsite, that's all you had money to do. And a whole bunch of 179 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 groups went under contract on that basis. Now, your expression, Councilwoman Tasco, reflects what we all looked like about February of 1999. Oh, my God, how are we possibly going to handle all of that? Well, what happened, in fact, was quite the opposite of what we feared, because the City vastly overestimated the number of people who actually would be in the situation that was described. The issue around which I banged my hand on the table in December of '98 with Sherry Hellyer was precisely this issue. I asked her, "What are they going to do on March 3rd, when people have to work and they don't have jobs? " So there was some discretion on the State's part or on the City's part as to "willful," and it really is the State call. So what Harrisburg did is basically say, As long as somebody is looking for work under 180 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES.

000036 a supervised program, we will consider them to be in compliance. So instead of immediately going into jobs, a whole bunch of people went off for this endless job search. And the result of that, the City -- Mayor Rendell speaking to 32,000 people would be affected. The fact that the -- the broadest number was 19,000, of whom 8,000 were exempted for medical reasons, so you got down to 11,000. And when you started adding up all these other programs -- SPOC, Work -- they were all present and accounted for. So 26,000 contracts were given at a rate of 2600 slots. We all got $10,000 checks as first payment, and we saw no one, no one, as intake from April 1st into August or September of last year. And I began to wonder, Well, now, you know, what happens? And finally, in fairness to the groups, they made the payment on the basis of the slot maintenance, because you can't put a group under contract and then, you know, sort of, for budget reasons, take it away. Starting in August and September of last year, intake began to increase. And, for example, in our operation, we have a big project 181 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 in the American Street Corridor, Councilman Ortiz, that Raphael Feliciano, whom I know you know, who has worked with us. I have to say, just parenthetically, that I have a staff now of eight or nine people, depending on whether you count full-time or part-time. Four of my staff are graduates of the program that I'm talking about. And they are not sweeping the floors; they are running that program. So, you know, I have put our organizational money where our commitments are. We've hired people and they are now directing what we are currently doing. So this is the setting. Work Opportunities is the court of last resort for people who have been failed by everything else. If they end up in Work Opportunities, they been through SPOC and didn't make it, they have been through the Transitional Work Program and didn't make it, they have been through something else and didn't make it. That's why they end up in Work Opportunities. It's "ass-backwards," if you'll pardon the expression, because my judgment is, if 182 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 somebody has no work experience, a program like Work Opportunities ought to be the first thing that they do to get some work experience, and then they should go into more intensive educationally- service ones. This is the opposite. What they're doing is taking people through intensive programs, and when they fail all of that, then they are sent to Work Opportunities, as the least intense. Well, the contracts that have now been given out as a part of the solution to this -- and let me say, the State is very unhappy with the way the City administered this program in the current year, but the framework for their misery is not the framework of us. They're just angry that the City over-budgeted the number of people that they thought they would (unintelligible), there was no 18 intake, there was very, very bad monitoring procedures, they didn't know where clients were. What these folks are bean-counters; they want to be able to tell themselves in Harrisburg, Here are the number of people who are looking for work, here are the number of people who found work, here are the number of people who are out of compliance and might need to be sanctioned. 183 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 And that kind of information was not easily and readily available from PWDC, which is why Harrisburg was so angry about it, and the program is in fact hanging by a thread, to use the language of a monitor whom I heard last week at one of the meetings about all of this. So the solutions that are now in place are as follows: Organizations, some of them. That had contracts under the previous Work Opportunities Programs that have clients that are still there -- I mean, your contract ended March 3rd.