If you took intake in February, you have some people who still have the right to be in the program until May. So a number of groups were given transitional contracts for six months that began April 1st to basically close out the existing caseload. And they are meeting regularly with Rufus Lynch and with the PWDC around that set of issues. A group called "the Pioneers" and maybe -- I'm not sure where they stand -- the Universal Community Homes were given contracts that begin April 1st. We don't have them yet, but we're 184 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 being given contracts. Each of our contracts right now is looking at a minimum -- they're 4 months, from July 1st -- from April 1st of this 5 year to July 1st of the year 2001. 6 The presumption is 25 people a week for 7 each us, so that's 375. Plus we took on 20 people 8 at the very end of March because we were the only 9 ones who could take intake. So we have as many 10 people now -- we have 70 -- close to 70 people 11 that we're working with in the last three weeks. 12 That's more than we had the whole year, and that 13 included a SPOC contact last year. 14 So what are we given? We're given now 15 $500 for each of these people, and it's not on the basis of slots; it's on the basis of people. But, frankly, I'm not worried about this because if you cut from 15 groups to 3, my judgment is, our intake, based on the current base of intake, we're likely to have well over 400 people over the course of the year, for a maximum $600 a slot -- for a maximum of six months, rather. What are we asked to do? We're asked to monitor them for 20 hours a week in their work assignments, and we are now supposed to provide 185 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 ten hours of wraparound, for which there really is no money. The Institute has its own adult literacy program -- we're using that. And the Free Library has some excellent services that we've been discovering, and we are going to use that. And wraparound can be job search, it can be driver's ed, as, you know, somebody suggested. There's a wide range of activities here. So we are using our vast network of organizations that we work with to try to help them provide the support services for which there is no direct funding. Transitional work had all this in-house because of Pew I have felt all along that the problem is, we have groups that do different things well, but not everything well. And the partnerships that you need to make this work are what -- at least on the operational level, in terms of the issues that you've heard here, are what is the solution to that side of it, if there is one. It would be better to have 500 to $1,000 per slot for literacy and training, but there isn't, so you make the best of this bad situation. But that's where it is. We've been 186 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 taking intake. As I say, we took 50 people in in one week. Now that's leveled off because one of the other groups is in the equation. As far as the issues of concern to me as well as to everybody here, I do not believe -- I don't even agree with Ernie Jones. I think that I would much prefer to have the flexibility to have somebody in a training situation for longer than six months, if that's really what's necessary to help them get into the workforce. But you have to understand, Harrisburg's perspective on this is as follows: A full-time job is 40 hours a week, so it is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask a welfare TANF recipient to hours a week at work and 10 to 20 17 hours a week in addition, doing education and 18 training. In fact, that does them a favor because 19 it gets them into a habit of going to a 30- or 20 40-hour week. That's specifically the way they look at it. So if you're asking for them to spend 20 hours a week in education and training instead of work, that's their response. Are they providing enough resources to do the extra 10 or 20 hours a week of education 187 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES.
000036 and training? Not right now they're now, but that's their philosophy around it. The final thing I want to say, and just in terms of something that came in, Harrisburg's belief is, you get people into the workforce and then you get them support. So now on my desk -- this just came in, I guess, Monday -- is a request for proposal of this thickness that I haven't even opened 'cause I haven't had the time for so-called retention services that would be provided by community-based organizations and agencies to people who are in the workforce. " So I think we can and get -- and we are working -- I wouldn't have taken this assignment, which is a difficult one, if I didn't think we could make progress in building the kind of integrated self-sufficiency system that we have been advocating since before welfare reform became a reality. That's the challenge that our organization has assumed in taking on what is an under funded, difficult role. I am certainly in favor of increasing 188 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the payments, increasing the time, and all of that, but that is going to require, I'm afraid, a political revolution at the State level before we get the kind of people in who will listen to it, because right now, the people who are in charge have a philosophy that is exactly the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. Thank you for the opportunity. I can stick around for a couple questions, then I have to go, but I am certainly available for follow-up in my office, and look forward to working with you.
Again, I apologize. I have been here all day too. Thank you, Ed.
I guess I should be saying good afternoon, Committee Councilwoman Tasco and other committee members that may be present.
They're on their way. 189 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036
Let me just say this to you: This microphone carries into all of the Council offices. So if a Councilperson isn't here, it doesn't mean that they're not listing 'cause we do listen on our squawk boxes.
My name is Ann Mitchell Sakey, and I'm the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Federation of Settlements. And with me this afternoon is June Cairns who is the Executive Director of United Communities of Southeast Philadelphia. June is also wearing two hats in that she is also a board member of the Federation. I don't know that there's really a lot more that I can say that hasn't already been said this morning, and I'm well aware of the time, so I'd like to try and capture my comments in three primary ways, if I could, and to share my remarks for the record a little bit later, as well as to provide some information on our organization. I'm not clear about why I'm on this particular panel, except for maybe now I am an advocate, having formerly been a provider of services for the Work Opportunities Initiative. 190 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 For us, it comes in three ways, and so I think I should, one, share our successes, and then share our frustrations, and then try and indicate our support for the Philadelphia Unemployment Project's policy position that the programs be extended to months, and that the training 8 include paid work experience based on a wage of at 9 least $7 an hour. 10 For the successes, we were one of those 11 providers that signed a contract with the 12 Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation 13 back in April of 1999. In fact, to do just that 14 -- manage the work activities, which for us we 15 define as work-readiness skills, development types 16 of things. We did that for 155 individuals over a 17 7-month period -- a 7-month period because, as has 18 already been indicated, we did not begin to receive referrals of individuals until September of 1999. I think that we have been successful with 155 individuals through 22 worksites compromised of settlement houses in Philadelphia. I think also that we've been successful in that I know for a fact that we have placed and retained 191 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 at least six of those individuals where we managed their work experience, one of whom is currently employed at the Greater Philadelphia Federation of Settlements in a full-time, unsubsidized position. And now our frustration. I can probably sum that up in, I guess, four words: management, management, management, and finally, payment. And I say management because I recognize that there has been, given the history that has just been indicated, a number of challenges with this particular program, the Work Opportunities Initiative. I would say that the first challenge is the fact that it is thought of, or was thought of, as the program of last resort, as opposed to fast track. With that being said, as community- based organizations, which the Federation is, with subcontract providers, who are also community- based organizations, the issue of management, administrative policy development, changing the rules on us from April to today, has been a very difficult situation for us to try and manage an effective program for individuals that we got to know and, I think, got to know rather intimately. 192 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036
For a non-social worker, tell me what you're talking about.
Well, what I'm talking about is the fact that you sign a contract in April. In September, you get individuals that you were supposed to have gotten back in April. I know that there were issues with that, that that changes the dynamics of how those work programs are actually going to work. The other issue would be, as we were told initially, that we were talking about five hours of wraparound service, and then we find out that we're talking actually about ten hours of wraparound services, without the dollars there to be able to support them. Finally, clearly, there are some issues that were going on administratively within the PWDC, and I think several of them have already been mentioned, but I would like to put on the record the fact that the Greater Philadelphia Federation of Settlements sent worksite agreements to that agency at least four different times to at least four different individuals, in which case, all four times, it got lost, and all four 193 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 individuals are no longer there. So the ability as a contractor to even be able to figure out what step to make in partnership becomes problematic, especially when you also have other subcontractors that you are responsible for. I'm really glad that Mr. Jones indicated that apologies are in order. I know that he indicated that for everyone, however, except for the contractors -- I being one of them. " I don't see them as being technical difficulties that could not have been overcome if there were going to be regular meetings and networking to share the provision of resources that are available within the Philadelphia community. I am gratified to know -- and I might be going longer than my three minutes, but I've sat here for a long while and have been dealing with many of the women that had come through the offices of the Federation that I got to know personally and felt in so many ways that it was my 194 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 responsibility to help these individuals to achieve their next level, how ever that was going to be. And I took that job, as well as all of my staff, very seriously, although I have yet to be paid for any of that work. So what that means is that, as a bottom line, when you begin to talk about, well, how is it that you're going to work more with the community, and how is it that you're actually going to make a change, I as a community-based organization cannot afford to float the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation for an entire year and not be paid for my services. I also cannot afford to continue to have a colleague calling me at home on a weekend to address policy issues that ended up changing in midstream on Friday afternoon so that we would be able to handle something on Monday. And, finally, I guess, what I would like to say -- and this is more visionary, because I don't know all of the politics that are involved in it, but it would seem to me that if you're really talking about not just moving from welfare to work but moving to self-sufficiency, it may 195 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 behoove us to look at some of those clusters that are spoken about in the survey done by the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, where you have job clusters about child care, about health. I notice that drama was not done, and certainly you have clerical. All of that is really great. However, the 21st Century League has done some very interesting work where clearly it shows that for Philadelphia citizens to be successful in the 21st century, we need to look at the new job market dynamics, and those new job market dynamics are around information technology, and they are around hospital and tourism. And so to the extent that these programs can be looked at in that way -- forgetting the fact of whom it is that we are working with -- all citizens deserve the right to be able to participate in that opportunity. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I think it is afternoon -- at least here in Philadelphia. Wish we were in California. 196 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 I'm June Cairns. I'm the Executive Director of the United Community Southeast Philadelphia. You have my testimony, which lists our programs. We serve families and individuals in South Philadelphia, and I wanted to speak specifically about some of the systems issues that affected us as a subcontractor of the contractors with the Federation of Settlements.
So you were subcontracting with the Settlements, who was subcontracting with --
With PWDC, the old PIC, right, because they couldn't supervise the 150 folks, so they asked us, as the neighborhood organizations, to help them out. The overall assumption that community-based nonprofits were not all Catholic Social Services -- a lot of us are a lot smaller, they're the biggest human service provider in the City. Assuming that we have the capacity to help these folks in large numbers of them, I think, is somewhat faulty. Many of the staff at United Communities and the other settlements have at one time or currently are receiving benefits. 197 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Because of our commitment to serve the community and support individuals, we often provide additional supervision, loans for workplace clothing, advances for apartment securities, and other supports as staff may need them. This was nothing new to us. Rather, the system was asking us to take on additional folks to provide them this work opportunity. The supervision issues and the child care issues and all those other things were enormous. So when I got a call requesting us to participate, I met with my staff and we hesitantly agreed to take five slots. We did it out of commitment to the neighborhood and to the people who needed the opportunity, but it was a fiscally imprudent decision for the agency. I had a master's level staff person working at least a day and a half a week on this, and we were reimbursed a whopping $400 per person. That's $2,000 for six months of a master's-level person working with these folks. We originally, as Ann mentioned, had agreed to do 5 hours of wraparound services; it ended up being 10, okay? 198 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036
So that would impact on the quality of service provided.
Actually, no. What it did was, the quality of services was extremely high, and all of our people got jobs, I am pleased to say. However, what it meant is that staff person had to revise what she was doing in terms of some of her other job responsibilities, and a number of things got back-dumped on me, as the director of the agency, which really would have been great if she was doing. So that was an issue. My particular example of the poor administration of this effort, I think, is pretty dramatic. Participants in the Work Opportunities Initiative were asked and encouraged to sign up for direct deposit, which seemed a good measure for them -- they wouldn't be going to check- cashing places to cash their checks, and that was like giving them bank accounts, all those kinds of things about getting a real job. And they were told that they would be notified when direct deposit would occur. Yet one Friday afternoon, we picked up the paychecks, only to discover that the direct deposit had occurred 199 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 and none of the women had Mac cards, okay? A phone call to our contact person at First Union -- who I am really sorry didn't stay from the hearings this morning -- was that they were unaware of the program and the community development officer was unaware of the program, the Work Opportunities Program. My 9 o'clock phone call on a Saturday morning to my contractor was, these women needed money. They had planned on buying food. This was early fall -- school supplies for their children. And they had direct deposit and could not get their money. She authorized me to take money out of my bank account because I did have a MAC card.
Right, right, because I knew I'd get my money back. And she authorized me to deliver money to the women on Saturday morning that needed the tide-over until Monday. This does not make a lot of sense. I did that. However, the nightmare in terms of 200 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 getting their paychecks worked out the next week was horrible. I didn't want to hear about that. These women did not get a Mac card until two weeks later, okay? Now, the PWDC is telling us that we have to manage all of this and we have to provide nurturing work environments for these folks, which we want to do. The cost is enormous to community- based organizations who already have a tradition of doing these kinds of things. We wanted people to help them -- to help individuals in the program deal with life skills, but yet they're not giving us the tools to do it. We have cancelled our contract. We are not doing this program anymore. It's one that we would consider as one of the tools in our toolbox of helping people to become self-sufficient in our community. It's not the only way to do it, but it's one that I will not engage in until a number of these issues have been ironed out. We encourage the program to be longer, that we stop the clock and let some women get some education -- all the things that have been said earlier. But I want to let you know that it's 201 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 really tough on the community-based organizations and it's not that we're not supportive, because we are. We advocate long and hard for this community, but the impacts are enormous, and it's one that the folks haven't measured.
Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for your testimony.
I'm Sharon Dietrich, from CLS, and I'll try to keep it short for you. I've submitted written testimony so let me just highlight a few points.
Let me start by saying -- I want to make sure this is clear. The two different programs in this town are of two very different qualities. The PWTC, I will hand it to them, they have resources, they have management that cares, they listen to feedback, they seek out feedback, they have data to measure how they're 202 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 doing, and I give them a lot of credit for, like Work Ops, being a program that had to get up and running with not a lot of lead time. But they are doing, in my mind, a pretty good job under difficult circumstances -- not that there aren't things that couldn't be improved, but overall, I would give them some credit for being a well-run program. As you've heard all day Work Ops is not that. Women sitting in the waiting room for weeks, sometimes longer, waiting to get placed in one of these positions that has gone unplaced that have been discussed in this last panel. People who have never met their case managers. Case managers with ratios of 150 clients to 1. Maybe the best way I can draw out for you the distinction between the two programs is the telephone system. If you call TWC, you get right through, your phone is picked up, you get a please voice who immediately directs you to whomever you want to speak to. I cannot locate a switchboard number for Work Ops. My colleagues did an investigation, trying to find out, is there a telephone number 203 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 for Work Ops? And if you called me today at my office and said,"Could I have the phone number for Work Ops?" I would have to respond, "I don't know what I it is." So these are two different programs that have different struggles. And I was glad to hear Mr. Jones say that they're going to work to make it better. And I hope that that's right. It's not as though these problems haven't been brought to their attention prior to the last couple of weeks. This has probably been going on for a long time -- with, I might add, some really severe consequences women who have been sanctioned by the Welfare Department because the Welfare Department thinks that they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, when they've gone to Work Ops and this mismanagement has resulted in their not being able to go out and work the way they're trying to. Let me say that there are a couple things that Mr. Jones said that I found distressing. And one was what he had to say about training, that this is not the program for 204 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 training. If you want training, you go to SPOC. Well, the women in Work Ops are required -- required -- to spend ten hours a week in training. Now, there's no training for them to be in, so it strikes me as a bit ludicrous to say that they're not entitled to try to get some training in this program when they must go to the training ten hours a week, the nonexistent training, in order to continue to participate in the program. That makes no sense. And I think incumbent upon him to figure out how to get women trained in the same way that TWC does. (Applause.)
Another response I wanted to make to what he had to say is about how long the program should be. He said, "We can place clients in three months." Well, I could place clients in three months, but let me tell you that I have been doing employment-log cases for the last 12 years, and I know that placing someone in a job is not the same thing as keeping it. And I have no doubt that you can find a job in this economy for a lot of women after three 205 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 months, but the real question is, Where are they three months after that, or six months after that? And I can promise you that the women in these programs have some severe problems to be worked out. I heard recently at a meeting that was attended by employers who are providing slots, much like the two women we just heard from, that they are really concerned about what happens to their workers after they leave in six months -- much like you said yourself. They have women who are trying to be file clerks who cannot alphabetize. You know, it takes more than six months in order to learn a lifetime's worth of things that you need to know to be successful on a job. Even if in that length of time, we don't know that they can succeed -- we hope they can, but for the two gentlemen that run those programs to sit here and blithely say that six months is more than enough, I find stressing because I think that that's based on what Harrisburg wants to hear and really not based on what they know is going to work. 206 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Just a couple of comments on the six-months thing. You may hear from Harrisburg that they're not allowed to put people in these programs longer than six months, that there is a legal requirement in Act 35 that says that they cannot do that. I'm here to tell you that my legal opinion is that they are not correct about that. They are reading Act 35 in a way that serves their purposes. And what Ed Schwartz said about this whole, you know, quick attachment thing is absolutely what this is about. It's the same as though, go out and look for work -- well, this is kind of like admitting that you couldn't find work when you looked for it, but we're going to do this as quickly as possible for you so we can still push you out into some kind of job at Burger King. That is really what Harrisburg wants to do. Act 35 can be read that either their positions could be renewed or that there's no 22 limitation at all, but they choose to read it so that there's a six-month limitation. I do not think that that is a necessary reading of the law, and I believe that if there were interest in 207 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 making these programs longer, they are not legally prohibited from doing that. Another question about the six months that sometimes comes up is, Well, how will we fund a longer program? Well, I think the point was made earlier today that both programs -- Work Ops and TWC -- are under-subscribed for the number of slots that they currently have, particularly Work Ops. Governor Ridge appropriated money for 16,000 slots statewide, 16,000. Currently there are about 1500 out of 16,000 people in those slots. Clearly, you could simply use some of the unused capacity in order to lengthen the slots. The money is there. It's not even a matter that you need to tap into, you know, rainy day reserves and TANF surpluses. The money is allocated in those programs. If there is a will to make those program longer, there is a way, both legally and in terms of funding. Two other issues quickly that I want to highlight.
This program at the end of five years, all of the -- the program stops, the TANF -- the assistance stops.
For people who have been on TANF for five years, that's correct.
Five years, so they're off, they can't get any other help any place?
Well, let me step back for a minute. TANF doesn't stop, it's not like DPW's going to stop getting money. What stops is somebody's eligibility to get welfare benefits. In fact, the Welfare Department could use that TANF funding in order to provide jobs. And, essentially, that's what they're doing in these two programs. Which gets me to my next point. The Welfare Department could be setting this whole thing up so that these women are not having this time counted against their five-year clock. And I think it's reprehensible that we have who are 209 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 women working like they're supposed to and are having that count against their 60 months, when the Welfare Department has been given the authority by the federal government to say, You don't have to be on the clock. The Welfare Department could be using other funding streams and little technical tricks that I won't bore you with in order to make sure that women who are doing what they're supposed to be doing are not using up that five-year safety because, you know, net five years -- two years from now, it could be that the economy is not what it is today, it could be that these women do not yet have a wage history to qualify unemployment compensation. They lose a job and they're out of luck. There is no safety net to the safety net.
But we talked about this when this program first started, remember?
Finally, let me say this about child care: The Welfare Department wants to say that they fixed a lot of things a couple of 210 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 weeks ago, and it's true that the governor's budget this year made some improvements in terms of copays for parents and eligibility limits and stuff like that, but a lot of the problems that have been described by the women today are not going to be cleared up by the changes that have been made because the key issue here is that if you get into the bureaucratic nightmare that these women have described with your paper work, nobody gets paid. We've had people go through the six months' program who have never had a dime of child care come through. And there is a solution to that. This solution is being offered to people who put their kids into day care centers, which is, have the Welfare Department pay the provider directly and immediately -- don't go through all the paperwork nonsense and the i-dotting and the t-crossing and the lost papers, just put them into what is called "the vendor pay system" so that they get regularly and without a lot of fuss. DPW has decided to do that for people who have their kids in day care centers, but for people who do not, which constitutes 80 percent of 211 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the people in this city, they are going to be going along with the same old problems, unless and until DPW gets to the position where they're ready to say, Let's fix that too. But I am very concerned that people think that the day care situation has been dealt with, and I'm sorry to say that it has not.
So those mothers who have their children in a day care center, the checks are sent directly to the vendor?
But the State has a problem with us giving the money directly to the client, to the mother?
The State puts mothers through hoops that it will not put --
So they have to really justify the fact that the child is in day care.
They got to get the paperwork in, and there's lots of paperwork snafus that cause everybody these problems. I think people testified about, you know, We fax in the hours, we send them, we call them, it's lost, it's 212 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 not right.
No. The providers are not required to do that, they get paid, it's a hassle free system, and we need the same hassle-free system for women who are using the woman down the block that we are getting for the day care provider. And if there are no further questions, I will --
Those are really the highlights of the points that I wanted to make.
We're certainly going to have some follow-through, you know, in follow-up meetings to discuss the results of the contents of this hearing. And as we -- really, it's the political will of what happens in Harrisburg, and that's what we really are up 213 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 against, but I really appreciate your coming today thank you. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I just need to say something for the record.
Come forward. Miss Weiss, would you like to come forward. Oh, I forgot the Miss King lady. Let those two ladies make their statements and then we're done. You can sit at the table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Is there anyone else to testify? When we finish with this panel, with these two ladies and Miss Weiss, we're going to recess the hearing, okay? Go ahead.
Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Veronica Johnson and I represent PWDC. I am the outreach recruitment specialist for that unit, SPOC, Up Front, as well as Work Opportunities. This is the reason that I'm here. Originally, I was the assessment counselor for that unit. Most of the client that have came in 214 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 here, I think they know me well. I think I have not responded to any issue that has ever came across in Work Opportunities, could never have solved it, but we definitely have addressed it. The reason I stepped up is, I wanted to state for the record the phone number for Work Opportunities with any concern as far as community-wise.
Thank you. I think those ladies who questioned the issue of the phone number left, but I think maybe you all ought to make it available to all of the providers.
But if there a question about the number, I think you ought to take it back to them and let them know that there is some issue with that.
Okay. I just had to state that we are here and that we care.
Good morning. My name is Margaret Peterkin (ph.). I volunteer as a resource coordinator with Miss Rose King at QUADS, 215 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 Inc. The issue this morning with TWC and wraparound, they were saying a few of their ladies are allowed to do wraparound at that worksite. There are three interns, because they dread wraparound. So we thought since we did -- and we sort of operate out of the box with our interns because, as we tell them, they hit the ground running. The first day they come to work, they work. We take them to meetings with us. You know, it's a small nonprofit --
QUADS, Inc. -- It's Qualified Unique Alternative Development Services. It's at 1419 North 52nd Street, but we wanted our ladies because they had had such a success rate with us as interns to stay with us for wraparound. You know, in the ten hours that they need for wraparound, we're teaching them Internet access and we're also teaching them Access and Excel. " They said no. So we 216 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 thought, Well, why can't they stay with us. You know, training is training, however you get it. But when you think out of box, sometimes that gets to be a problem. But one challenge we put to our interns is that all major retailers do corporate donations for clothes, and everybody needs a, quote/unquote, monkey suit to interview in. Everybody needs interview outfits. ), who's very aggressive and doesn't take no for an answer called Ross, she called TJ Maxx, she called Marshalls, and she called Jones New York. Within two weeks, we had gift certificates from Ross, we had gift certificates from Marshalls. She spoke to the vice president of human resources at Jones New York, and they're sending $100 gift certificates for our interns. Because one thing about -- it's very good to say "Go ahead a job," but you have to have clothes to wear to interview, and you have to have the right type of clothes to wear to interview. Some people don't know this. You know, if you don't have the work experience, if you don't have the experience, you don't know. 217 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 So they did this, and a lot of these companies -- and I don't know that the other providers know this -- are very receptive to this process. " We called Sears and Sears said we have to do that through United Way. But I think some of the thinking, if it could come just out of the box just a little -- and I'll give you a personal example. In 1995, after my company was downsized, my unemployment ran out, and in January 1996, I applied for welfare. In March of 1996, I got a letter from a caseworker to come in 'cause they were doing job training. I went through six weeks of training with PIC. There were 45 of us in a room. Three of us had high school educations, one person had post high school education -- that was me. The bulk of the women in that room had between 3rd and 7th grade education, but the focus was everybody go get a job. How, how? How do you do this when, you know nobody -- they never did a skills assessment, they never addressed skill level. It's just go get a job. That was easy for me, that wasn't that 218 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 hard for me. In May, I got a job, you know. And as a matter of fact, I came to work for PIC and I worked for the summer in Youth Works. When that job was over, a company that came to Philadelphia, called (unintelligible), who handles Health Choices now, the medical assistance program for welfare recipients, came to Philadelphia, and I got that job. They downsized in March, and that's when I came to volunteer with Miss King, you know, and it's almost time for me to go back to work again because my unemployment. . But I think if they just -- I understand that all of this is about numbers, that they, you know, there are masses of people that have to come through the system, that they want to see work. But this is also about people, and until you address some quality-of-life issues, this is going to be a colossal failure, it really is. Because it -- one size does not fit all; it never has, it never will. And until you address some skill levels and some quality-of-life issues for people to make sure that they not only have a job but they have a career and that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, they're not 219 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 going to have any kind of successes. 15, it's an insult. )
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, I appreciate your testimony. And now to Miss Weiss. (Witness comes forward.)
Did you really think you were going to testify this morning? (Laughter.)
I was hopeful. Well, I guess I'm last and presumably not least. I'm Cheryl Weiss with the 21st Century League, and the League is a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia 220 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 that has researched and issued two major reports on welfare reform and it's impact on Philadelphia. I've brought some copies just in case you've misplaced yours or never got them in the first place, I'm not sure. What I want to do is not comment on the two programs that have been the focus of this hearing; rather, I want to call attention to some broader public policy issues that may have some bearing on these and other welfare programs. As I'm sure you know, the twin goals of welfare reform are to reduce the welfare rolls and to encourage self-sufficiency. With TANF now into its third year, the welfare rolls across the country and in the Commonwealth are now at their lowest point in 30 years. And, in fact, as others have said, the welfare rolls in Philadelphia have declined significantly to the point where there are about 45,000 TANF recipients as of January of 2000. So I think there's very little dispute that the rolls have fallen due to a combination of both the strict time limits of the new welfare law and the robust economy. But the decline in welfare rolls does 221 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 not equate to the achievement of self-sufficiency, the other significant goal of welfare reform; nor does it speak to those TANF recipients who are quickly approaching their five-year lifetime limit. And these are the two issues I just want to a couple of minutes to highlight for your consideration. With respect to self-sufficiency, the key question we have to ask, now that we're into the welfare reform three years is, How is Philadelphia and the State overall doing? According to the State's own report, we're not doing very well. From March 3rd of 1997 through December 31st of 1998, the State looked at roughly 185 welfare recipients that passed through the welfare system. Well, about a third of them left the welfare rolls, obtained a job, and stayed on that job for a year. But one-third, the other third -- it's about 65,000 people -- left welfare but came back on. So retention was not very good. And then, the most distressing, I think, is that another third, or more than 60,000 adults and their children, simply disappeared. They left the welfare rolls and they reported no 222 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 earnings. And the question is, What happened to those people? Nobody knows. So according to the Department of Public Welfare's own study, as well as the League's study, what we have learned is that retention rates across the board, regardless of the program, are not very stunning at all. In addition, as you've heard time and again, what people are earning hardly puts them on the road to self-sufficiency. The average wages from all of the programs that Mr. Jones identified is somewhere between $6.30 to $7 an hour, so folks are living at the poverty level. You've got testimony written, so I'll skip over some and really get to the second broader issue, and that concerns time limits and the reauthorization of TANF. As of January 2000, some 23,000 welfare families -- which is to say 70,000 kids and their parents in this city -- will have exhausted 3 years of their 5-year lifetime limit. Their lifetime limits will expire at about the same time that the TANF law, the federal legislation, comes up for reauthorization. What will happen to these families when 223 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 they reach their five-year lifetime limit? Will they lose all of their cash benefits? What will happen to the children who, after all, comprise two-thirds of the welfare population here and across the country? TANF does not address issues except in a vaguely-worded clause that allows states to exempt percent of their TANF population. 10
Well, according to the 13 federal law, states are given -- are allowed to 14 exempt 20 percent of their population from the 15 rules of TANF. The problem here is that -- to our 16 knowledge anyway -- the State Department of Public 17 Welfare has said nothing about how it will use 18 this exemption, who will be exempt on any kind of 19 permanent basis. They have not engaged any of the 20 key stakeholders, to our knowledge, in a discussion of what will happen when we come to this five-year limit. So mostly all of what we've heard is that welfare reform is a smashing success because the rolls have dropped dramatically, but the point 224 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 here is that some 23,000 families in Philadelphia are fast-approaching their lifetime limit. So we would urge members of City Council and the City Administration to not only examine these particular programs that have been the subject of your hearing, but really to raise the bar and look at some of these broader issues, like the reauthorization of TANF, the lifetime limits, really what will happen to people who exhaust their five-year lifetime limit and still don't have a job in what is the most prosperous economic times that we've enjoyed. And I would say this not only in terms of having that conversation with the members of the State, but also our Congressional delegation, because even in Congress and our national leaders, people are running around saying that welfare reform's been really successful, and they need to know that there are some very real issues confronting the people and urban areas such as Philadelphia. Thanks.
Before you go, when you talk about the people who disappeared, I 225 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 think you said it was 60,000?
The State is not doing any tracking to find out what happened to those individuals?
Well, the State, according to this report, which is "Welfare Reform After Two Years," is to get some information about earnings through the Employment Bureau and try to do matches between who's on the welfare rolls and reported earnings. And, to my knowledge, they don't do a great deal of tracking. And, in fact, one of the salient points of the League's report, both the latest one and first one, is that DPW has a woefully inadequate database and really does not collect the kind of data that it needs to do informed social policy planning and decision-making. So they just disappeared, Councilwoman. I don't know where they went.
We hear you on your challenge to Council to follow up on some of 226 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 the other issues, which we will sit down and talk with you about to see what the next steps would be to follow that through, but it's a daunting task. And I would like to thank everyone who came today to present their testimony. I'd like to thank the Unemployment Project for keeping the issue before the public. It's -- you know, we do have people out there who are not -- we don't know what's happened to them, and we don't know if we're going to be successful with the 23,000 moving to self-sufficiency.
So it's an ongoing challenge to the Council as well as to our State legislators. And we appreciate again MOMs keeping forth their fight to keep the issue on the table. (Applause.)
We read about you going to Harrisburg, making the fight, and we'll continue to work with you, and I want to thank you. And I'd like to ask my colleagues if they have anything to say before we adjourn the 227 4/26/00 HEALTH, HUMAN SVCS. - RES. 000036 meeting. (No response.)
There being no 5 further comments -- we won't close this 'cause we might want to come back again to continue to review what's going on. We will recess this hearing on this issue. However, if we raise the other issues about the reauthorization, we would have to do it in a resolution. So we will recess this hearing on this issue till the call of the Chair, and we may have to come back with additional information and continue the dialogue. But we do plan to work with the MOMs and the Unemployment Project and their coalition to help advocate in Harrisburg for some of the issues that they have raised here today. Thank you very much and we thank our colleagues for listening. (Applause.). (Adjourned at 3:15 p.m.) - - - 228 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 26, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 000036 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter