Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner. You should just note for the record that all of the difficult and tough questions have come from that side of the room. This is the kinder, gentler side of the room. And all I really want to say is that I appreciate your testimony and the commitment that you have demonstrated having come in under, in my opinion, at least difficult circumstances with the 659 BILL 980003 backlog already in place. I know that we had you in some time last year to talk about that. And I guess I just wanted to express to you that I do appreciate the effort of you and your staff people. You have provided high-quality service to my office. And notwithstanding any problems, whether it is police reports or any of the other documents that we're chasing after, I just think that you do need to be commended and recognized for the type of job that you are trying to do. We have a responsibility, and the Administration, to support those efforts. And I think the Records Department as a department generally doesn't maybe attract the kind of attention and constituency which, at another level, you might appreciate. But it doesn't often get some of the support that it probably needs. Because many people, I think, don't recognize the importance of the role that the department plays in the government, in comparison to some other departments. 660 BILL 980003 So I know that you will continue to try to do your best. And you would probably like me to stop talking so you can get out of that chair. So have a good day. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank you very much. We really appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Department of Human Services is next to testify. Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER JOAN M. REEVES: Good afternoon. Madam Chair, and members of City Council. I am Joan M. Reeves, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services. With me today are Maxine Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Children and Youth; Russell Cardamone, Deputy Commissioner for Administration and Management; Margaret Holtzman, Superintendent of Riverview; Richard Spitzborg, Executive Director, Children and Families Cabinet; Leann Ayers, Executive Director, Office of Family Service System 661 BILL 980003 Reform. And I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you Joyce Burrell, Deputy Commissioner for Juvenile Justice Services. We appreciate this opportunity to present for your consideration the Department of Human Services' Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1999. I have a few summary comments to make. You have the full testimony. And I would like to start just with a reminder of the mission of the Department of Human Services, which is to strengthen and preserve at-risk families and the communities in which they live. The protection of children, youth, and the frail elderly is the department's primary responsibility. Our programs and policies are sensitive to communities and the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of our clients. In the beginning of Fiscal Year 1998, the department completed the revision of its strategic goals and objectives to better reflect the 662 BILL 980003 changing social environment in which we find ourselves. As stated in the Five-Year Financial Plan, the department is committed to achieving six measurable and attainable goals: One, to prevent the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable individuals; to protect vulnerable individuals from further abuse, neglect, and exploitation; to assure the existence of permanent and safe home environments in a timely manner for the individuals DHS serves; to assure the department's services are effective and responsive to client and community need; to assure high levels of accountability through effective leadership and management of resources; and to manage existing fiscal resources effectively and to maximize those sources of revenue. Each of the department's divisions has developed measurable outcomes that are to be achieved beginning in FY '98, and those are included in the full testimony. I want to highlight some of our major accomplishments in FY '97. The first being that the Youth Study 663 BILL 980003 Center has received full accreditation from the American Corrections Association, making it the only such detention facility accredited in the State of Pennsylvania. We have full State Department of Public Welfare licenses for all programs, including the Children and Youth Services, Youth Study Center, and Riverview Home. We are also proud of the Children and Youth Division's exemplary performance in adoptions, finalizing 422 adoptions in Fiscal Year '97, and we're projecting finalization of 450 additional adoptions in Fiscal Year '98. In Fiscal Year '99, the number will decrease to 400 due to the impact of our initial switch to the new adoption processes. We are continuing to have success with community behavioral health and the enrollment and services provided to our dependent and delinquent children. Aging Services, having changed its focus for Riverview Home, has resulted in the reduction of the length of stay to an average of 137 days for those clients that were discharged to 664 BILL 980003 community placements. 7 percent in Fiscal Year '97. 4 percent in '98. 8 percent. The Children and Families Cabinet has received a $4 million Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant for four years, renewable for eight years, or $4 million -- I'm sorry; or $8 million. This grant focuses on systems changes that will improve the outcomes for teenagers in the areas of youth violence, teen pregnancy, and teen substance abuse.
We continue with our Outcomes Project, which develops and identifies measurable program results that assure a child's safety, family stability, and child development. 665 BILL 980003 Achieving these outcomes has become more critical today due to the changes in federal and state child welfare, juvenile justice, and physical and behavioral health managed care. There are many more accomplishments identified for Fiscal Year '97 and projected in '98. However, all these improvements can be negatively impacted by the federal and state Welfare policy changes. The impact of state Welfare or TANF policy changes will become a reality in Fiscal Year '99. Also, increases in juvenile arrests, implementation of the balanced approach, increases in the numbers of youth adjudicated delinquent with mental health, substance abuse, and other behavioral conditions will continue to impact juvenile justice services. Any decreases in federally funded Titles 4E and 4A will also negatively impact the revenues available to fund the department's programs. The Fiscal Year '99 appropriations 666 BILL 980003 request of $388,242,647 assumes that the Department of Public Welfare will fully honor its commitments to hold children harmless as a result of the Welfare changes and to honor Act 30 needs-based budgeting requirements. We want to thank the City Council for its continued support for the children, youth, and disabled adults and elderly served by the Department of Human Services. This concludes the summary of the full written testimony, and we are pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you, Commissioner. I note that there is a large increase in the General Fund costs in your budget. For the record, can you provide a breakdown of what these increases will fund? It would appear that the increased staff levels are rather high. I believe that according to -7 of the budget detail, there will be 249 additional full-time employees in the department. And my calculation would indicate 667 BILL 980003 that 106 of these employees will be additional administrative employees. And we're not talking about social service workers, or social workers. These are all administrative employees, are they not, for the most part? Or am I not reading the budget properly? COMMISSIONER REEVES: What I have determined here, what we do each year is, through our needs-based budgeting process with the state, identify the kinds of needs and increases that we are anticipating. One area of administrative support that is increasing -- and that's about 30 positions -- is under our Administration and Management. As the department has grown over the past several years, with an increase in social workers and administrators, our support services like personnel have not grown at all, our contracts monitoring staff has not grown at all. And as we continue to increase services based on the needs of our children and families, and we increase requirements for our provider agencies, our ability to monitor those 668 BILL 980003 contracts, to make sure that they are meeting the quality standards that we have set, have been not diminishing, but it has been very difficult because the staff has not been increasing in those areas, as well. Another increase is due to, as our personnel functions for all the new staff have increased, this is the first year we are looking at increasing the number of personnel list in the department to handle things like payroll and other kinds of activities that right now are not being done. The other area of increase is as the complexity of revenues and bringing in revenues has increased over time, we are looking to increase those staff, as well, to assure that we are able to generate and pull down the type of federal and state dollars that we're entitled to. So those increases I have as 30 positions, with the majority of the increased positions really being in the Children and Youth Division for increased in-home services, for social workers, our community-based placement services, and institutional services. 669 BILL 980003 So I would have to go back and look at the budget detail to identify those administrative-type positions that you are referring to.
I would appreciate that. And I don't want to let you think that I am questioning, but I think we should know at this point in time. And I know that we are all supportive of the work that you are doing, particularly with the children and youth. But I think, for the record, we should have some explanation as to why there are so many administrative positions that are being asked for to be funded this year. COMMISSIONER REEVES: We will provide that to the Council.
According to a Daily News article -- and I guess you saw that, too? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, we did. We read that first thing this morning.
I don't know if 670 BILL 980003 members of Council did. But in essence what it does say is that we currently have 160 children in out-of-state placements, at a cost of $10 million a year. This year the department anticipates placing at least 65 in in-state placements; is that true? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
And do we have contracts signed for these 65 placements? COMMISSIONER REEVES: What we are in the process of doing is developing those contracts. There are provider agencies who are willing to increase their contracts and bring programs from out of state into the State of Pennsylvania. One such group has identified a site and facility in a neighboring county for some of the high-end-cost youth who need specialized services. So that, we think, will come to fruition. And those 65 placements, we believe, will happen. I was trying to find my notes on that. Because as of June, July of last year, and 671 BILL 980003 juvenile justice services, we had seen an increase in the number of youth placed out of state to 173. We have been able to bring that number down to 150 as of November. So we're working very closely with Family Court in identifying facilities within state who will provide services to these youngsters.
What kind of services do these youngsters get when they are placed out of state? Is it varied? COMMISSIONER REEVES: It is mostly treatment, mental health and other types of treatment, structured programs, really to help them identify the problems that they are having, as well as how to cope with them. So that when they are returned to the community, they have a better chance of not getting back into trouble again. And because it is residential care, there are requirements of 24-hour, around-the-clock-type supervision for these young people.
Since it is a residential treatment program, does it make any difference where the residential program is located? COMMISSIONER REEVES: It does not make any difference where it is located. The problem is the difficulty of locating facilities within the State of Pennsylvania.
That already exist? COMMISSIONER REEVES: That already exist and that are willing to take these type of children. I mean, they are difficult to handle. And a lot of the local facilities, residential facilities, are not willing to take them. And when we reach out to those providers who can provide those services, and they want to locate here in the state, we run into, "Well, not in my backyard. We don't want a sex offender program across the street from where I 673 BILL 980003 live."
So Nimby, we run into Nimby. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. So it takes a long time and quite a lot of negotiation on the part of the provider agency with the community, with state-elected officials, and so forth and so on.
Last question. What reason have you to believe that we are going to be able to reduce the out-of-state placements? Are there new facilities being planned within the state? And, if so, what is their capacity to handle our population, which I suspect is growing? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, to your question. We are working with out-of-state providers who are willing to come into state. They have located properties, they are working with the State Department of Public Welfare so that they can become licensed to deliver those services. In our planning, we also ask them to 674 BILL 980003 develop a certain number of slots or beds for Philadelphia children.
You are welcome. Commissioner, can you tell us what the $355,000 contract for AFGARS is, the initiative? What is that? COMMISSIONER REEVES: AFGARS is a state -- not a state, A federal reporting requirement that every state has to comply with, which provides information on adoption and foster care for all children in the child Welfare system. Therefore, we are required to develop that system. It is an automated system. So we have to contract for the development of that system. I do believe we get federal and state reimbursements, so that -- and I have to ask my budget person John Zanier what the city's share of that is. It is 75 percent federal dollars. And out of that percent that's left, 60 percent 25 of that is state. So the balance is city tax 675 BILL 980003 revenue, which would be 40 percent of 25 percent.
We are not going to calculate. COMMISSIONER REEVES: So I goes it is about cents on the dollar. 7
Thank you, 10 Madam Chair. I want to follow up with just a comment about that article. I thought in some ways it was fair. The headline is very scary. You think, my God, $10 million. But then when you look at the costs and the seriousness of these issues, in some ways it was fairly balanced. And I think the part that strikes me is, so much goes to pay for a child, $65,000, or more, where trouble has gotten, you know, sort of things way out of control. Yet when you look at prevention, often that's where we get short-changed. Yet I know you and the department have been doing a lot around family preservation and trying to help families stay together and deal with 676 BILL 980003 some of their problems in a holistic family way. But as I was reading that article, I was thinking about some of the testimony we heard at our hearings on truancy, where Carol Getzel, I think it was Carol, has a contract with you all where they try to help children and families, like I think it was from the ages like 8 to 12, sort of early signs of truancy, early signs of school problems, and try to help the child and whatever is going on in the home, and perhaps the school, to try to prevent truancy with those young people. (Councilwoman Clark assumes the Chair.)
And it was relatively low cost in comparison to what it costs to incarcerate a young person or pay for the crime that can develop if they continue to get in trouble. Because I was noticing, again, the Youth Fatality Review Committee report that just came out, noted that all the young people who had been victims of homicide had been truant from school at some point, and many of them had dropped out. So I think a lot of the work that you 677 BILL 980003 are doing with prevention and family preservation would be a way to catch some of these problems before they get totally out of control, and, therefore, also very expensive to treat. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
One of the things I wanted to note was, sort of a different topic, Riverview. Again, I was a little puzzled when we look at the trends, and more and more people living longer, being frailer, needing nursing home care, and sort of the shortage of nursing home care in a lot of situations, and the numbers of people with also overlays of mental health and other kinds of issues. I didn't know why you projected a lowering of the number of people, or fewer people that you would be expecting at Riverview, from 263 in FY '98 to 255 in FY '99. Is there an explanation? There must be. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. What we are doing at Riverview is really in the process of improving the environment 678 BILL 980003 for these older people who are remaining there. And one of the things, right now in the cottages, there is no privacy. So you come in, there is no privacy. There is a little cabinet for you to put your personal belongings in. Part of our renovation is to increase the amount of space available to the person with more storage and more privacy. So as we remodel each of the cottages, it means because we are increasing the amount of space available to a person, it then decreases the amount of space available for all 263.
That does make sense. I remember the time I toured, the living conditions were very cramped. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
Let's see. One other, just a comment, on of your testimony, about the after-school programs. It says some programs run three days a week for one to two hours between 3:00 and 7:00. I guess I was worried why they aren't five days a week, if a child, you know, one of the 679 BILL 980003 things parents need and children need is sort of a regular, steady, dependable, safe place for young people to be. Do I have the wrong page number? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, I have it. It is under the Children and Families Cabinet. This refers to the programs that the Recreation Department is expanding and running for the Children and Families Cabinet. And I think they are looking at this 3:00 to 7:00 p.m., and the number of days that are available, as we expand the availability of after-school programs.
I will bring that back up to the Recreation Commissioner. COMMISSIONER REEVES: It is Commissioner DiBerardinis.
I apologize for being distracted. The next person on the list to speak is Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam 680 BILL 980003 Chair. Commissioner, we had a meeting months ago, many of your employees were concerned about the limited parking, and the Parking Authority made a survey of availability of on-street parking. There was also a suggestion at that meeting that there possibly be some space available to expand the existing parking facilities, especially for the shift workers, on site. Has there been any followup on that? Is this a matter of money, or is this just not feasible? COMMISSIONER REEVES: If you recall, I did submit a memorandum to the Managing Director's Office with the issues and the request. We did get a response to that, which basically says that it was not feasible to do what was being requested to be done, like limiting the parking only to Youth Study Center employees around the area at the Youth Study Center. And I think the other issue was whether part of the area around, I think, one of the walls on the --
Commissioner, 681 BILL 980003 forgive me for interrupting, but the stenographer needs five minutes to change the tape. Do you mind? COMMISSIONER REEVES: No. 6
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a recessed hearing. The Chair thanks Councilwoman Verna for her good work. And reports -- and reports --
Oh, and Councilwoman Clark for her good work in relieving Councilwoman Verna in the responsibilities of the Chair. And I'm very proud to report that I have no eye problems. Just got back from Wills Eye Hospital. I think the Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo at this time.
Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner Reeves was kind enough to answer a question about the Youth Study Center. (Inaudible.) COMMISSIONER REEVES: In terms of the parking, the fact that there are 12-hour parking meters around the facility as well as a parking lot a half a block away also had a lot to do with the decision. 683 The other thing that we have to look at is whether it is appropriate to use any of the property around the Youth Study Center for paving, and I have not followed up on that.
So are you basically satisfied that the way it exists -- so if we get any further communication -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: The way it exists, I am perfectly satisfied with the way it exists. There is parking available around the facility. It is 12-hour parking. There is a parking lot a block -- it's almost just a half a block away.
So it's not a matter of needing any additional funds to pave an area to provide additional parking? COMMISSIONER REEVES: I don't believe so, no. 20
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.
Thank you, Mr. 684 President. In the earlier conversation, I had not asked about the Youth Study Center. As you know, that came up in the capital budget hearings. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
And I was very concerned about any discussions of building a much larger facility. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
And my major concern was over the increased -- every year thereafter, operating costs -- we built a bigger facility, because maybe we could afford the capital outlay, but if you increase the size of the Youth Study Center, that means every year thereafter, our operating costs would be higher. Could you, for this record, tell us what is the current operating costs of the Youth Study Center? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. The current operating cost is. . . we will get that to you. I thought we had it right here. It's about $19 million.
A year? 685 COMMISSIONER REEVES: A year. Roughly million a year. 4
For a facility 5 that was built for a capacity of 105, right? 6 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. 7
And then the 8 population there has been higher, so you've 9 probably been paying some overtime? 10 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. So it's 11 overtime cost. And it's not just overtime cost. 12 I mean, there are other costs when the population 13 is over 105. I mean, you have to feed, you have 14 to clothe. 15 And also there's the cost of potential 16 injury to either the resident or the staff when 17 the facility is overpopulated. And just the 18 morale in trying to get a program operating is 19 also a struggle.
And one of the numbers was a high of like 183. I know sometimes in the years past, the population was higher because there were X-number of young people waiting for placement in State facilities or other facilities. 686 Do you know how many of that 183 number are young people awaiting, who have been adjudicated and who are just awaiting place in some other facility? COMMISSIONER REEVES: There's usually about 40 who are waiting for transfer to another placement, State or other types of facilities that the State is required to place. So there's about 40 on any given day that are waiting for State placement.
So if they were taken out, there would not be such an overcrowding problem? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, that's correct.
And is all the money used to operate the Youth Study Center, is that City dollars, or does the State pay us when they don't have room in their facilities? COMMISSIONER REEVES: We get reimbursement from the State for the operation of the Youth Study Center. So the City dollars are about 50 percent, and the rest is the State dollars. 687
Okay. And lastly, could you provide us with a breakdown -- if the number's 183 or whatever it is at this point, could you get a profile of the categories of young people that are there and get how many perhaps wouldn't need to be there if the system was working better? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, we can do that.
Aren't they supposed to have a hearing like within ten days? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. Right now we are working very closely. Miss Burrell is working very closely with the Family Court, with the State, with the Defenders, and other stakeholders, meeting every week in order to review the population and to see whether they can be stepped down into other types of alternative placements or not, whether they can be moved, whether they're being held there on a hold because of a medical reason, or just what the circumstances are for each one of the children that are there.
Mr. President, 688 I think both the City Council and the City Administration really have to keep a close eye on both the costs and what is and isn't happening to the young people who are there and maybe shouldn't be there. Because often, they're sort of out of sight, out of mind. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
And as nice as the Youth Study Center looks as you drive up the Parkway, when it's overcrowded, it's potentially very dangerous, but it's also very costly.
Can you tell me the average time it takes to get a hearing for a person who is charged with acts of delinquency and held at the Youth Study Center? COMMISSIONER REEVES: I will have Miss Burrell answer that since she --
That would be fine. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Joyce Burrell, Deputy Commissioner of Juvenile Justice Services.
Miss Burrell, I'm going to have to ask you to speak much closer to the microphone and a lot louder. And if you can, it would be nice if you 689 could spill that water. We always like that. (Laughter). DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Good way to start, don't you think?
Why not. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Joyce Burrell, Deputy Commissioner for Juvenile Justice Services. Every youngster has an initial hearing within hours of entering the Youth Study 11 Center. The adjudication hearings occur for the 12 large number of youngsters within 10 days, but 13 there is a population that stays 20 to 30 days who 14 are in need of other placements that are not 15 available at that initial adjudication hearing. 16
What are the 17 circumstances under which a juvenile, if at all, 18 will not get a hearing in ten days? 19 DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: The youngster 20 will get a hearing within ten days. He may end up 21 with a continuation because there is not enough 22 information at that time to make a decision in 23 terms of whether there will be a longtime 24 placement for this youngster, or if, in fact, he or she is ready or can go home. 690 And availability of a suitable home does become an issue. Many parents are overwhelmed by some of the activities of their delinquent youth and are unwilling to have them home. So one of the things that we are focussing on is --
Because I asked you what are the circumstances under which a person cannot have a hearing -- DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: No, there are none. It's just that --
I practiced law in that court. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Okay.
I know about continuances, I got a lot of them. Just because a hearing is scheduled, it doesn't mean the hearing is held. And my questions is, what are the circumstances under which a person cannot have a 691 hearing within ten days? The fact of the hearing is -- I mean, I understand that this case requires that hearings be held in seven days and I know that they're not held in seven days, but they're usually held in -- they're scheduled within ten days. I'm not talking about scheduled hearings; I'm talking about circumstances under which they don't have the scheduled ten-day hearing. Because that creates a problem because it is the continuances that are the problem. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Right.
It is not enough to say we complied with the court order if we scheduled a hearing within ten days, and the world knows we're not going to have it, but all we did was schedule it under circumstances where, you know, nobody can say we didn't schedule a hearing and we're trying to comply with the court order. What I'm trying to do is get beyond all of that and find out from you what are the circumstances under which these hearings are scheduled but are kind of not -- we don't have them. I'm interested in some more practical 692 information. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: Okay.
Because if everybody had a hearing, if all those juveniles had their hearing within ten days and were either found delinquent or adjudicated delinquent, let go, or committed someplace, and I guess then there's going to be another delay, then we probably wouldn't have any crowding anywhere because what would happen is they'd be moving in and out. But that's not the case, and what I would like for you to do is give us a more in-depth explanation of what happens such that they get these scheduled ten-day hearings and then the hearings may or may not occur and what kind of continuances are applied for and by whom so that we can figure out, you know, a little bit more about why they're sitting down there. Do you have that kind of information? DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: We'll get that for you, Mr. Street. I know that one of the reasons is the need for more in-depth reports on the youngsters and more psychiatric evaluations of some the 693 youngsters. But in terms of more specifics, I do not have those at this moment.
I can remember a time when Judge Frank Reynolds was in charge down there, and he would sit until 6, 7, 8, 9, 7 o'clock at night, and he dealt with those cases. 8 And I can remember when the census down 9 there reached almost 200. I mean it was, way, way 10 up there. And it makes 144 look like, you know, kind of, you know, like lounge living. And I can remember having budget hearings here, and we talked about it, and he started sitting all times of the day and night, and he got that census down and kept it down. And, in my judgment, it might be easier for us to figure out a way to extend the hours of the court stay -- I mean, do a little -- and it's probably going to be a lot cheaper and we can do what we need to do to get these young people considered in some rational way. And those are the kinds of things that I'm -- listen, I used to get court appointments, and I would routinely run down there and say I just got an appointment, I'm prepared on this, I 694 need another hearing. And it was all true; it wasn't even anything anybody was making up. A juvenile can't have a hearing without an attorney. And if these cases are not being held, and if they're not being put back out on the street, if they're in custody and these lawyers are coming in and requesting continuances, at least in part, because maybe they were just recently appointed, we need to know about that too. I mean, I'm more concerned about how this whole system is working, because it is a system that has a lot of very important and integral parts. And for us to be able to have some appreciation for, you know, why we have this cost over here on this end, I think we've got to try to work our way back to the origin of some of the problems because, obviously, there are a lot of people who are involved in all of this other than just the Department of Human Services. So if you could produce some kind of analysis that lets us have that kind of information, in addition to what Councilwoman Fernandez has requested, I think it would be 695 helpful to us. DEPT. COMM. BURRELL: We'll do that.
Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, when a child is in foster care, does your agency do anything to try to collect the money, back support money that may be owed? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. As soon as a child comes into our custody, we file a child support order with Domestic Relations Court. And then it's up to Domestic Relations Court to hold a hearing in order for us to receive any support. We are meeting now with -- or a meeting is scheduled with Judge Pannapento of Family Court in order to see if we can't streamline the process.
Can you tell me how much money in child support your agency collects now from these indebted parents? COMMISSIONER REEVES: I can get that number for you. I know it's not a lot.
And can you also 696 tell me how many parents are contributing to this child support? COMMISSIONER REEVES: We should be able to get that information to you.
Could you get that to the President? COMMISSIONER REEVES: To the President.
And are we doing anything with other City departments to make sure there's not City employees who are delinquent in their duties as parents? You know, and the City on the other hand, do we cross check, you know, with computers, with Social Security numbers? COMMISSIONER REEVES: That kind of cross-checking, if anyone has an order to support, that's handled by Domestic Relations Court.
So, basically, DHS sends it over to Domestic Relations, and that's the last DHS worries about it? Is that what you're telling me? COMMISSIONER REEVES: No, that's not the last we worry about it, but we do have to have Domestic Relations Court hold a hearing to determine the ability of the parent to contribute 697 to support.
So you don't have a system or an attorney or a representative to make sure that we pursue these child support payments? COMMISSIONER REEVES: We, through what we call our "Fiscal Determination Unit," we pursue every dollar that we can pursue, including the support.
And you can let the President or let us all know how much we have and -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. We'll let you know the process that we follow, we'll let you know the amount that we --
Could it be possible to also find out about if there's a way to cross -- there's got to be a way to cross -- you file for a gun permit and everybody in the worlds knows about it. So, I mean, there's got to be a way, if you're a City employee at least, where we can cross-check to see if you're not paying child support payments. COMMISSIONER REEVES: I can't do that. 698 That is not within the mandates of my department. I can only request child support information on those children that we have custody for.
No, but the ones that you have custody for, that's the ones I'm concerned with. COMMISSIONER REEVES: The ones that we have custody for, we can cross-check.
I wouldn't want you to be responsible for anybody that you don't have a mandate to in your department. What I'm concerned about is, again, City employees. If there was a way to get non-City employees, it would make it extremely happy. You know, you have to have a license in this City to have a handgun, you have to have a license to have a pet, but you don't have to have a license to have children. I mean, we're having children having children, and there are social and economic needs here for this. But I just want to make sure there's not City employees that aren't skirting the law. I know that's not in your jurisdiction. But, I mean, could we meet with somebody? Could we meet 699 maybe even with the Controller's Office or the Mayor's Office or somebody who may have that information? COMMISSIONER REEVES: I would think that it's within the Family Court and the State Department of Public Welfare, where they get information on child support orders.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. I have questions regarding the day treatment program. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay.
Okay. It's my understanding that the number of placements to day treatment have decreased. And is that due -- are you thinking about eliminating that alternative or increasing it or just developing other community alternatives? COMMISSIONER REEVES: We are looking at increasing day treatment as an alternative to 700 being placed. Also, when young people return from residential and other type placements in the juvenile justice system, that there is what we call "after care," and they attend day treatment programs in order to help them readjust to the community and to prevent recidivism. So we -- our plans are to continue day treatment and increase it as appropriate.
How has day treatment been positively impacting the change of the behavior of the youth that it serves? As individuals, not -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: We have information -- we have what we call "Prodesk," which is an evaluation of all programs being provided to young people in the juvenile justice system. So we'd be glad to share data about the effectiveness of day treatment because all day treatment providers must submit information, and then those youths that they are providing treatment to or care for are tracked to see what the outcomes of that treatment is. 701
Okay, I'd like to see that information. COMMISSIONER REEVES: We will provide that to the President.
I have one other question. Family To Family, I see, has grown. Congratulations. And I'd like to know the zip 9 codes that Family To Family now serves. 10 COMMISSIONER REEVES: We'll be glad to 11 provide that to the Council. We have that here, 12 but it would take some time to identify each one 13 of those, but we do have that information 14 available. 15
Okay, one more question. I know I said I had one, but. . . Has your department considered putting the new -- well, whenever there's a new -- because they've talking "new" ever since I got here -- the new Youth Study Center out in the neighborhood or away from Center City? COMMISSIONER REEVES: There has been discussion about location-location-location, looking at such bus routes. I mean, if it's in a neighborhood, how parents would get there, 702 transporting the youth to Family Court. So there have been a lot of issues around where this should be located based on what the needs of the system are and the needs of the families are to be able to have access to their children.
Thank you. I feel compelled to say for this record that we've had the Youth Study Center located in almost every available spot in this City at one time or another, and we still don't have it located anyplace. I don't know what the answer is to all of that. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much, Councilwoman. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark -- just kidding, just kidding. (Laughter.) 703
Good afternoon, Commissioner and everybody. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Good afternoon.
On of your testimony, you talk about the City's share of costs for DHS programs was reduced from percent 8 to 15.7 percent because of federal revenue. 9 Are we -- must we be cautious about -- 10 well, I guess I should ask you, what is the 11 federal revenue? And in the future, do you see 12 the federal revenue disappearing and we may have 13 to come back and pick up the costs for these 14 programs? 15 COMMISSIONER REEVES: The federal 16 revenue for our programs, the majority of those 17 dollars are called Title 4-E. We are able to get 18 reimbursed over 50 percent of the costs of our 19 services based on placement costs. 20 So the more placements we have, the 21 more federal reimbursement we can get, which is 22 kind of anti- what we're trying to do to preserve 23 families. 24 So one of the other cautions about this 25 is that when welfare reform was enacted, a block 704 grant entitled 4-A, which is another source of federal funding, which will not grow over time, which then, through -- through some reallocation of Title 4-E, we have been able to offset any loss of Title 4-A dollars. One of the things we need to be concerned about is that if the federal government should ever feel that they needed to cap Title 4-E because the states are really doing a very good job of getting reimbursed under that federal title, if that should ever become capped, then we would probably be facing a federal funding problem. So to answer your question, reliance on federal dollars is really dependent on what happens in Congress.
Well, we know, but it doesn't seem like in the near future -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: As far as we can tell, it does not seem like in the near future that there would be any reduction in Title 4-E.
Now, back to the family preservation issue. Are there any efforts to move the federal government towards supporting 705 family preservation services? COMMISSIONER REEVES: In the most recent federal bill, the Adoption Assistance New Act, they reauthorized funding for family preservation and family support, so that those dollars, as far as we know, are still available to us. In the new act, there is a lot -- a great deal of emphasis on permanency, and those decisions need to be made about a permanent placement or home for a child within 12 months, which, in the previous law, was at 18 months. They also changed some of the requirements around reasonable efforts in order to keep a family together so that there are certain conditions under which we don't have to do anything in order to try to preserve a family. I mean, and some of those conditions, are abandonment, which we would have to try and find parents in order to meet the reasonable efforts requirement, which will not be required now. Some other things revolve around if a parent had abused or injured or killed another one of their children, and there are other children in 706 the family, we no longer would have to make reasonable efforts to maintain that family. Some other issues are a little grayer, which will require a great deal of documentation on the activities and services provided to families before recommendations are made for termination of parental rights. So right now, the federal government is developing regulations around that act, and the State will have to develop state regulations or laws in order to implement the act, I believe, by July of 1999, when the first pieces of this become effective. So we're in another -- I mean, we're looking at more services being provided up front to families, with documentation of the impact and the effectiveness of those services and the willingness of parents to cooperate and participate in the requirements that we will be asking them to adhere to.
Is kinship care considered in the family preservation, or is that something else? COMMISSIONER REEVES: That is -- 707
Kinship care as another budget item, what are you doing about that? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Kinship care falls more under foster care, so it's -- we consider it family preservation here because the child still remains with the family. However, because of State regulation, it is considered foster care. But when we place a child with kin, we consider that a permanent plan.
Mm-hmm. I think I have one other -- your staffing levels. I mean the ratio of case -- the case level. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Right.
The relationship of case to worker, could you give me that figure? COMMISSIONER REEVES: The average as of today -- and of course, this is an average -- is to 1. The State regulation is no more than 30 22 families -- I must emphasize families -- to 23 worker. So right now, we're at 23 families to 1 24 worker, on average. 25
That's a 708 1 decrease? COMMISSIONER REEVES: That's a decrease. We've been decreasing over the past several years. We can decrease by one family each year based on federal -- I'm sorry -- based on State budgetary requirements.
I don't understand that last statement. You said we can decrease by one family every year based on State budgetary requirements. COMMISSIONER REEVES: The needs-based budget, the State instructions for needs-based budgeting allows the counties to reduce case loads by 1 family each year so that if your case load is at 23 to 1, we can put in the needs-based budget to reduce all those case loads to to 1, and 20 then calculate the number of workers we would need 21 in order for that to occur. 22
Then suppose you were wrong? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Then we have a case load that remains higher than 22 to 1. 709
I mean, with all the things that happen that you can't predict. Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark.
Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, in your testimony, you spoke of a Youth Study Center being one hundred percent. Tell me what that means. COMMISSIONER REEVES: With the accreditation, that we were able to meet the American Correctional Association's mandatory standards at 100 percent.
Is this the first time we ever did it? COMMISSIONER REEVES: It's the first time we ever went to get it.
Oh, all right. So we passed it the first time out? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Well, there were a couple of reviews. So, yes, I would say the first time out, we did.
Can you speak to the factors that cause the increase in the 710 population in the second and third quarters of FY '98? That's one half of my question. The other half of my question is: Is the Youth Study Center overcrowded? COMMISSIONER REEVES: The first half -- the second half is that the daily population today is 143. So, yes, we're overcrowded. And the first part of your --
The optimum population would be what? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Is 105.
But that's a court-ordered limit. COMMISSIONER REEVES: That's a court-ordered limit. That's a court-ordered limit and a State regulatory limit because the facility was built for 105.
Have we ever been at 105?? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, we have. The end of last fiscal year, we were down to, on some days, 90, 97, 98. The last -- we've seen an increase in the number of arrests of juveniles over the past 711 four months. We've seen -- as a result of the increase in arrests, we have been seeing the population increase.
What steps have we taken to address the overcrowdedness issue? I think Mr. Street spoke just briefly about perhaps extending the length of the court's day. Would that help you? COMMISSIONER REEVES: That would be of help. Having hearings on weekends would help also.
Right. COMMISSIONER REEVES: We are meeting weekly with Family Court to identify kids who can be stepped down and stepped out. We have been working with them on lists so that judges can hear specific cases and make commitments based on some specific cases. It's not just the number of youth in the Youth Study Center; it's the number of youth who are also in the alternative placements awaiting adjudication, so we have to look at the whole system. Because if our community-based 712 placements are getting backed up and kids are being held for longer than 30 days because they haven't had a hearing, that means when there's a hearing for a youth in the Youth Study Center and it says place in a community-based facility --
There's no spot for it. COMMISSIONER REEVES: -- there's no 10 spot, so it sort of just backs up. So what we're doing every day is reviewing every child and every one of the alternative placements to determine whether they should have a hearing, whether they can be stepped down, whether they can be stepped back home. Because there are sufficient supports in order to make sure that, one, the community remains safe and this child does not get into anymore trouble.
Does the arrest of a juvenile help that child potentially get sent to the Youth Study Center? Speak to the record on the kinds of arrests that impact the population at the Youth Study Center. COMMISSIONER REEVES: I think what we see are charges of assault, aggravated assault, 713 car theft, sexual offenses that would bring a youth into the Youth Study Center. Outstanding bench warrants also result in kids being sent to the Youth Study Center to be held until they have their hearing.
Right. COMMISSIONER REEVES: So it's those kinds of offenses. There are a number of youth who are referred to youth aid panels if it's their first offense. But now we're seeing, based on some evaluations being done, that even kids with first offenses are being held.
Depending on the severity of the charge? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Depending on the severity of the charge and the charging of the charge.
Thank you. Now I'd like to switch to a question that I asked of the Managing Director.
I always had the 714 feeling when I knew a lot less about what goes on at the Youth Study Center as a practicing attorney and later as a member of the City Council, that in some respects, incarceration at the Youth Study Center was a form of punishment, that some of the members of the court felt it was an appropriate way to try to deter young people from getting involved in these kinds of offenses. In other words, we'll charge them, overcharge them, we'll hold them for ten days, two weeks, whatever period of time, because we're probably not going to be able to do much else with them, but at least we got them off the streets for a period of time. Can you comment on whether or not you believe that there's anything of that going on at the Youth Study Center at this time? Within the system? COMMISSIONER REEVES: It's hard for me to answer that. I'd like to look at some of the data that we've been collecting as to, one, the type of charges and who gets committed to the Youth Study Center and who doesn't, because sometimes two youths with the same charges, one 715 will go to the Youth Study Center and one will go home. So it's like looking --
Is that considered a commitment to the Youth Study Center? COMMISSIONER REEVES: No. When the child is committed to the Youth Study Center, yes. But when a child is sent home, no. That's not --
I didn't know people got committed to the Youth Study Center. COMMISSIONER REEVES: I'm sorry, not "committed." It's when they're sent to the Youth Study Center, because they can't be committed because --
They're held at the Youth Study Center. COMMISSIONER REEVES: They're held at the Youth Study Center, thank you. They're held at the Youth Study Center.
Okay. COMMISSIONER REEVES: So we'd like to really look at the data on that in order to answer your question. 716
I'd be willing to accept some information. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay.
Earlier today, I spoke to the Managing Director, but I really believe that this question is more appropriately directed to you, Commissioner. This has to do with the impact of federal welfare reform. What projections have been performed to highlight the impact of the $29.3 million decrease in the federal budget in the federal welfare funding, and how will that impact us? COMMISSIONER REEVES: In two areas --
Wait a minute. There are more parts to this question, then you can answer the whole thing. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay.
Who will (inaudible) the most, and what alternative services will supplant those that DHS will no 24 longer provide? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay. In terms 717 of our projections, last year in our needs-based budget, we projected to the State that we would see an increase of about 800 children.
800 children? COMMISSIONER REEVES: As a result of welfare reform. Two things: One, we didn't see that increase based on welfare reform; and, two, the State said, no, that wouldn't happen. So this one, they were right.
We did not see an 800 percent -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: We did not see based on --
I mean 800 new children. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Right, 800, due to welfare reform.
Was there any substantial increase? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Not that we can document was based on welfare reform. The other thing that we have --
Excuse me. One more question, Commissioner. 718 COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes?
Is it too soon for it to have played out -- COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes.
-- and gotten to our attention yet in ways that are reflected in statistics? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes. The answer to your question is yes, because it will be in March of '99 --
Okay. COMMISSIONER REEVES: -- when people start falling off the rolls if they aren't employed.
Right. Now project for us on this record, if you will, to March and subsequent months in '99. What plan have we in place? To what degree will we see those numbers increase and will it be primarily children who take the brunt of it? COMMISSIONER REEVES: What we have projected, we are continuing our projection of the 800 children that will come into our system. 719 We're also very concerned about kinship families, and I don't think we've made a projection on this as yet. Kinship families that will have the choice of either having a child only assistance grant or becoming foster parents and receiving the full foster rate for all their kin that they're taking care of. We're just beginning to see an increase in the number of kinship families coming into the department, so we're just starting to track that to see if this is a trend that is related to welfare reform. What we have also put into place is that as people come in requesting services from us, that we ask the question, What has been your experience or are you experiencing difficulty because of TANF? So that we can begin collecting data about why -- if see this increase, why it's happening. There have been a couple of studies done in other jurisdictions -- one in Baltimore, and I forget, one in another state -- who have had welfare reform programs a lot longer than Pennsylvania. And so far, they have not seen any 720 increase in child welfare. So, again, I think it's too early to tell.
Well, where there has not been an increase, what program changes have they made? And should we be putting some of that in position so as to ameliorate the impact when it hits us? Because it's going to hit us. We may be wrong as to the size of it, and we may be off by a few weeks or months as to when it hits, but it will hit us, because there's no place else for the people to go. COMMISSIONER REEVES: I agree. And we are looking at the kinds of programs. Some of them are around, you know, the supportive services that get provided to families so that they just don't drop off and then there's nothing available for them in order to take care of their children.
I think that children might be the last to see the impact. I think single adult males and females who appear to be able-bodied to work, for which there is no 25 training, and for which there are no jobs, are 721 going to be the people who have no choice but homelessness when they have used up every bit of public assistance. Respond to that, if you will. COMMISSIONER REEVES: I agree with that, and I think when Mr. Nardone is here, he can speak to that better than I can because we've had a couple of years of Act 45, when single adults were taken off of any kind of assistance at all. But, yes, homelessness is, I think, going to be one of our biggest areas of concern and biggest problems for families as well as for single adult people.
Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. I have no further questions. And I thank you for your answers.
Thank you very much. Commissioner, I would like for to you briefly detail for us and prepare whatever other information you might recommend. Detail for us the context that your department has with the schools. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Oh, yeah, okay. 722
I have had this continuing concern that there's not enough coordination and activity that the Department of Human Services has with schools. Can you comment on that. COMMISSIONER REEVES: We'll be glad to provide you more detailed information, but I must say that the relationship and the contacts have been much better here of late, with us working jointly on committees that look at the needs of children in the school district as well as those children who are in the delinquent and dependent systems. Because of managed care, it is necessary that there be a team of people to review all children that are being referred for residential or any kind of institutional placement. That has required us to have and work very closely with the school district as well as the Office of Mental Health in order to do those teamings so that we can make recommendations about the most appropriate placement for children. So I would say that since I've been here over the past few years, the relationship 723 with the school district staff has really improved, I'll say, a great deal. Probably more could be done, but I think we're working --
Well, I'd like to know what that relationship is, what are the circumstances under which you have contact with the schools, counselors, teachers. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Okay.
I'd like to know precisely how that works. Do you know whether or not the school district still has the responsibility to provide educational opportunities for children who have been adjudicated delinquent and that are committed to some facility within the State? COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, they are to have that responsibility and also for children who are dependent and in residential treatment facilities.
I would like for you, to from your department's point of view, put in writing exactly what that responsibility is and how your department relates to it and how -- and give us an analysis of what it is you think about 724 the way the system works, the way it's currently structured. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Yes, we will.
Anyone else have any questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Seeing no one, we thank you for coming. COMMISSIONER REEVES: Thank you.
I'm advised that the Department of Human Services is the last department that will be considered today, but we will be back at 6 o'clock to take testimony from the members of the general public, and all City Council members are encouraged to be here at 6 o'clock so that we can take testimony from members of the general public. Thank you very much. This Committee stands in recess till 6 o'clock this evening, Wednesday, February 18, 1998. (Recessed at 3:53.) - - - 725 (Committee reconvenes at 6;21 p.m.)
May I have your attention, please. This is a recessed meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole. Today we are taking testimony on Bill No. -- If you'll forgive me, I just went to -- where did I go, Pete? I went to the ophthalmologist, I'm told, and you know how they dilute your -- what do they call it? They dilate your -- what is it, your pupils? They dilate your pupils, I've had my pupils dilated. So, therefore, in order to read, I'm still trying to figure out Bill No. 980003, an ordinance adopting an operating budget for fiscal year 1999. There are a number of people who are on the list to testify, about two pages of people. Back in the good old days, we would be here till 2 o'clock in the morning, but I fear today we will not be able to stay that long. What we are going to ask people to do is if you have a statement, we'd certainly like to have you make it available to us. If there are a group of people who are here together -- I notice that there a number of people here from the Grays 726 Ferry Recreation Council. In that case, if you would all like to come up and sit at the witness table together, we might be able to expedite your testimony. But, in any event, each person is entitled to be able to testify here at this hearing, and we don't want to discourage anybody to testify. But in some cases, the testimony would be repetitious, and if you're willing to summarize, we will be glad to you have you do that. But, in any event, thank you for coming. Our first witness will be George Bochetto. (Applause.) (Paul Bochetto comes forward.)
Thank you, Councilman Street. I have an extra set of statements if I could ask that they be distributed among the Councilmembers.
I'm going to ask you to please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your statement. 727
Thank you, President Street. My name is George Bochetto, and I would like to thank you as well as all the other Councilmembers for allowing me this opportunity to testify concerning the budget proposed for 1999. I am a resident of the Center City Philadelphia, and I am a lawyer here in town with the firm of Bochetto & Lentz, but I would like to testify as a citizen, taxpayer, and businessman. I have reviewed the fiscal year 1999 operating proposed by Mayor Rendell, and I must tell you that I think that the direction in which this budget takes us is wrong. This will be the seventh budget presented by the Rendell Administration. The majority of this Council were Members during the time those other budgets were presented. This Council's main fiscal responsibility is the review of the budget and the approval of the budget. The budget under Mayor Rendell has been passed by this Council six years in a row by a vote of 17 to O. There has never been on a Rendell budget a no-vote cast; nor has this Council ever proposed even one amendment to a 728 Rendell budget in all of those years. Every year of the Rendell Administration -- that is, the past six years -- this City has averaged a loss of 500 people per week and 1100 jobs per month. In addition to unconscionably high taxes, especially the wage tax, crime and the deplorable state of our city's schools are what drives business and citizens away from our city. If we continue to ignore these issues, we will continue to lose both taxpayers and businesses. Attracting jobs is vital to our financial health, and drastically reducing the crime rate and improving our educational system is the only way we'll keep citizens. Mayor Rendell's proposed 1999 budget does nothing to stem the exodus that we are experiencing, and it contains no changes in the critical areas of the budget. Crime in the school is allowed to proceed status quo. Not one penny, not one police officer is added to the Police Department in the 1999 budget, yet other departments are receiving huge budget increases. This is foolhardy. The budget 729 contains a tax reduction so minuscule as to have no practical effect at all. Rendell's 1999 budget ignores all of those issues and ignores the issues that are helping to destroy our City. This is the year to get back to basics. Crime is an issue. Too few police officers is one of our main problems. Crime statistics reflect crimes that are reported, not those which are unreported, nor those for which there are too few police officers to respond to. Half-an-hour late responses to crime due to personnel shortages are clocked in as unfounded or uncounted. Students who graduate from high school who are unable to read or do math is an issue. Taxpayers and business that are fleeing our borders from the crushing weight of the City's tax is an issue. I would, therefore, like to challenge you, my elected officials, and this City Council, to scrutinize carefully the fiscal year budget proposed by Mayor Rendell for 1999. (Applause.)
I challenge the City 730 Council to submit an amendment to the 1999 proposed budget calling for not less than $50 million to be transferred to the Police Department from other departmental budgets. (Applause.)
We must have more police, and this $50 million will allow us to add 1,000 uniformed officers. I further challenge the City Council to discuss the impact of Philadelphia's impending loss of its first-class status and its impact on our revenues. This issue has yet to be addressed by either the Mayor, City Council PICA, or the Controller. In April of 1997, our population in this City fell to 1.47 million people. If we do not exceed 1.5 million people by the year 2000, this City will lose its first-class legal status and will suffer dire consequences as a result. I further challenge every Member of City Council to begin to adopt the measures called for in my plan to eliminate the wage tax. (Applause.)
And I challenge the City 731 Council to demand that the Rendell Administration submit a budget with substantial, and not token, reductions in the wage tax. (Applause.)
Finally, I challenge every Member of City Council to withhold any allocation to the school district until more safety measures are installed so that our students have a safe environment in which to learn instead of fear of physical harm. (Applause.)
Chaos in our streets has led to chaos in our schools. I'd like to sum up by saying that the Mayor and City Council deserve a lot of credit for helping to change the perceptions about our City, particularly Center City, but we have a long way to go. I ask you today, all of the Members of City Council, to meet the challenges that face all of us, to review this budget carefully that has been submitted by Mayor Rendell for the year 1999, and to reprioritize the spending rather than merely giving it a rubber stamp. 732 Thank you. And I would be happy to answer any questions that any Councilmember might have. (Applause.)
Good evening, Mr. Schwartz. I would appreciate it if you would identify yourself for the record, and I would ask you to confine your remarks to 6 hours and 13 minutes. (Laughter.)
Come on, folks, it's late but it's not that late, so it's 6 hours and 13 minutes. Now, I know that, Councilman -- I know that, Councilman, we spent a lot of time here together. I know we appreciate the -- 733
No, no. I think I clocked it close to that, Councilman, and I'll leave out some of the earlier portions, and I think we can get it done. My name is Ed Schwartz, and I'm President of the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. And I'm joined by people from groups that are working with me on a coalition called "Join." I'll say a word about it here. Faith Williams, from the Urban Affairs Coalition, Peggy Maguire, from the Germantown Women's Education --
Councilman, I'm going to have to ask you to speak a little closer to the microphone and a little louder.
Some of the younger members of us might not be able to hear.
" Faith Williams, from the Urban Affairs Coalition; Peggy Maguire, from the Germantown Women's Educational Project; Cynthia Ferguson from the Community Women's Education 734 Program. And I'm going to -- I've given you a summary of my remarks. I'll go through them. They're here to give some personal evidence about some of the things I'm saying. And the other material is for your use, in keeping with my tradition of supplying Councilmembers with vast arrays of statistics and whatever on any matter that might be of concern here. Mayor Rendell gives us, always when he issues his budget message, a good history lesson that begins sort of in 1992. My history lesson begins in 1981, and I'm not going to go through the whole history here because that would be 6 house and 13 minutes. But it's the fiscal consequences of unplanned crises, and I want to cite two. When the Reagan budget passed in 1980, you didn't wake up and see a different world. But by 1984, when I was sitting in this chamber, there were 4,000 people in shelters in Philadelphia that did not exist in 1981. And 500 people were lying in Center City beyond those shelters, at a cost of 735 $32 million in local taxes, equivalent to a 4-mill real estate tax increase. The same decade in that period, the State had capped, as those of you who were here remember, its reimbursement for helping the Department of Human Services respond to abused kids. So over the course of that decade, the City ended up spending about 50 or $60 million again of our money every year so that kids would not be beaten up by their patients. Those two items, coupled with land fill costs and the loss of revenue-sharing, accounted for just about all of the major spending increases that this government experienced in the 1980s that led to the fiscal crisis of the late eighties early nineties. Today we face now, over the next five years, a catastrophe of even greater proportions, and I'm here today to call it to your attention because so far, even though the Mayor has made very eloquent speeches about it, so far in his own budget, it's business as usual. A year ago, March 3, 72,000 households in Philadelphia received what amounted to layoff 736 notices from the State. They were told that in five years, they had to find jobs or they would no 4 longer have income. That's 72,000 households in the City, almost a quarter of a million people involved, 150,000 (sic) kids. Now, imagine if Mayor Rendell sent a letter to -- or 28,000, I guess now -- people 9 who work for the City of Philadelphia and said, 10 We've established term limits for City employment, 11 five years. You've got five years to get another 12 job. 13 I think that would be on the front 14 pages of every newspaper for as long as we hadn't 15 found jobs. Look at what happened when we had to 16 lay off all the SETA workers, 5,000 back in 1980. 17 What hell broke loose then. But that's what's 18 happened now to 72,000 heads of households a year 19 ago in Philadelphia. 20 And one year later, in the healthiest 21 economy that we've had, with quick attachments and 22 all these things, the case load in Philadelphia 23 has dropped by just 5,000 households. To reach 24 the situation in the year 2002, where we won't 25 have people lying by the dozens in the streets, 737 you'd have to reduce it by 11,500. Mayor Rendell, the week before he delivered his budget message to you, spoke to a conference of the United Way on this subject. And what he said at that conference was that, despite everything the City was planning to do, including its federal program that will come into play at some point this year, he right now projects 40,000 households by the year 2002, 40,000 that won't have any income at all.
Now, the material I've given you breaks out in every planning district in the City, every census track, the number of people on welfare as of the '90 census, as well as the number of people in your districts who don't have high school diplomas, which I'm going to get to. So you can look for yourselves at how this will impact your own neighborhoods in your own districts. But if there's somebody who thinks that this is all in, quote, North Philadelphia or somewhere else, we all know that's not true. We need to think again. I made the decision in January of last year that I was not going to sit by over this 738 five-year period while that was developing and just watch it happen. And so for the last year, I have been running meeting after meeting all over town, trying to get a grip on not only the nature of the problem, but what we need to do to solve it. What are the steps that we need to take to avoid this catastrophe? And, basically, the conclusion I reached is as follows: Obviously, we need to get people access to jobs in this environment and in the future access to jobs. And in this environment and in the future, access to jobs is no longer something we can rely on the City to produce. The City produced, after all these years, 3,000 jobs last year that's all. In the region, there was a growth of 38,000 to 40,000 jobs. So to solve the jobs crisis, we need, in fact, to get people from the City to the suburbs to work. A quarter of a million people come from the suburbs to the City to work. Sixty-five percent, I saw in the paper today, of the people who work in Center City come from Pennsylvania 739 suburbs and from Jersey. Nobody raised any questions about that. And 125,000 people in 1990 went from the City to the suburbs. Now we have people living in inner-city neighborhoods who can't get to the jobs in the suburbs. This was true ten years ago when I first wrote about it as the Council's Chairman on Transportation. Not much has changed. But now changing it becomes a matter of necessity. " And this, in fact, is the central point that I want to make with you today. It is the central point that has been totally ignored, both in the discussion of welfare reform and, frankly, in the discussion of the City's economic condition. As of 1990, we have 400,000 people, adults over 18, who do not have high school diplomas. And 120,000 of those people don't even have ninth-grade education. The greatest growth in jobs, as Andrew Cassell, a conservative economist, documented last week in The Inquirer, is in offices. For all the work that we've done on hospitality -- and you 740 know I voted for and advocated the Convention Center when I was here -- there was zero growth in hospitality jobs this year, zero, and a decline in the City. The growth in jobs comes in business services and in finance and in social services and in membership organizations. The statistics from the State on that are in this book I handed out. You need to work in an office. And working in an office is not some narrow skill; it requires basic literacy. Employers all over the place are putting the GED up as the prerequisite to getting into the jobs, it's a prerequisite to getting into training programs. This Council made the OIC Hospitality Suite Program possible. I'm on their board. We have 150 people working in the Convention Center or related hospitality industries. You know something? You need a GED to get into that program. We will not succeed economically unless we close the literacy gap. And in contrast to what was just said, I don't care how much we lower 741 the wage tax. As long as we have 400,000 people in Philadelphia who don't have high school diplomas or the equivalent, they're not going to be working, and businesses will not come back here. And we need to look at that as least as a serious problem, as the cost of doing business which everyone does recognize.
Ironically, many of the leaders of economic development in the City have been saying this for a long time, the last couple years. " Fred Dietrich, who is their international trade person over at Greater Philadelphia First has moved into what he calls the "Philadelphia Jobs Project" and is now spending most of his time talking about the educational level of our work force. Jeremy Nowak, who is the leading funder of community development in the private sector in Philadelphia, has spent his year talking to community development groups about the need to get into improving work force. 742 We haven't talked to each other about this. Independently, a number of us who have been looking at this problem have come to the same conclusion. So where are we in relation to solving this problem? The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania invests $8 million exactly in adult literacy. The budget has increased by exactly three percent in the last ten years, that's all. The City of Philadelphia awarded exactly 1800 GEDs in 1996, that's all. At that rate -- you know, we're interested in millennium projects. Well, this is one that would take that long. So the coalition that we've gradually put together began to sort out some priorities. First, we need, in fact, to triple or more the budget for adult literacy, triple it, so that we can get up to at least 5,000 GEDs in a year and not 1800. We need to provide a fast and efficient way of moving people from the City to the suburbs. And my proposal there, looking at what was done and looking at one of the demonstration 743 projects that you're going to hear, is that we should invest in the purchase of 500 vans and vehicles to help people move quickly, like the Philly Phlash and some of these other places. And we need to provide child care, which is a primary responsibility that the State and the federal government, under the new Clinton proposals, are attempting to meet. And we're all in favor of the Public Service Jobs Bill pending in Harrisburg that Senator Vince Hughes has introduced. But the long-range economic issue is not going to be addressed unless we deal with reverse commuting and we deal with the literacy cap. And now I look at the wage tax reduction. Now, I have had misgivings about that, but I haven't been here every year. And maybe if welfare reform, as I describe it, weren't on the equation, I wouldn't be here on this because the wage tax is no great bargain. And over time, trying to lower it, if all other things were equal, it's not an unreasonable thing to attempt to do. So you haven't heard me here. 744 But now we are facing a different situation. We really have to worry about what our investment in economic development should look like and what results we get from it. The fact is that the proposed wage tax reduction for this year will mean a savings of exactly of $30 for a person earning 30,000 a year, that's all. The Mayor in the budget message obscured that by talking about the cumulative impact of the reduction. But this year, it's $30. But those of you, you know, of course, if you earn $100,000, it will mean $100. And if you earn a half a million dollars, it will mean $500, and if you earn behind $1 million, it will mean $1,000. So, at that rate, the City is certainly giving bigger gifts to those who have more money. But for most of us, the amount will be beyond recognition. In fact, I had a meeting in this group, and I asked three questions: How many people pay your electric bill and know what you pay? Every hand went up. How many people pay their phone bill and know what you pay? And every hand went 745 up. How many people know how much you saved this year in the wage tax reduction that the City gave you last year? And every hand was down. So that's the savings that we get. Now, that savings is costing your budget $24 million. And that $24 million is 3 times the amount now spent on adult literacy.
And $24 million could help hundreds and hundreds -- I estimate close to 5,000 people in the City could get their GEDs. You could buy all 500 vans for moving people from the City to the suburbs with that $24 million, or part of it. So the question is, what will improve the economy of the City? Part of the reason I've never come back here on this question is that I do think economic development is an extremely important priority. And I don't think we should be trading off wage tax reduction against other things. It's got to have an economic justification. But my view right now is putting 500 people -- or 5,000 people back to work in jobs because they can get them. It's a powerful economic incentive. 746 And, you know, the two areas in Philadelphia that grew successfully without City planning, South Street and Manyunk, began with people with skills moving into them and then businesses growing around them. The suburbs did that, too. So if, in fact, we invest in increasing the educational level, take people off of welfare and get them working, then they come back to neighborhoods with income. In fact, the national statistics show people with GEDs earn 40 percent more than people who don't have GEDs, 40 percent. So you want to increase the income of people in your neighborhoods who are low-income? Give them a GED and get them a job, wherever the job is. So my appeal to you very specifically is to take real seriously in this budget the alternatives before you. Does it make more sense to invest in a fragmentary reduction -- and I've talked to Hankowsky and all these other folks about what benefit we're getting from it economically every time. And I am not, frankly, having been here 20 years, having written a book on neighborhood economic development, persuaded by 747 the response. On the other hand, I know damn well that the money invested in adult literacy could, in fact, produce real results. I asked Mr. Hankowsky two weeks ago at a panel whether he could say in five years that the economic development programs of the City would absorb all of the people who are going to be thrown off the welfare. And he treated it as the laughable question that it was. Of course not. So what happens in five years? What happens a year from now, when everyone on welfare has to spend hours a week doing something? And 15 all I'm saying is, in the investment that you're 16 making, you need to take this seriously. But more 17 than that, you need to take this crisis seriously. 18
Okay, I am, I'm done. Now, all I would like to do is to ask the folks here to briefly say -- address two questions. Both Cynthia and Peggy are working in adult literacy programs. They're on the front 748 lines of doing the GED. And I've asked them to just talk briefly about what it costs to get somebody from a ninth-grade to a GED level. Faith Williams has got a demonstration project in reverse commuting that is showing what can be done with vans, and I've asked her to come here and speak very briefly about that. And then we're done.
And I will be very quick in the interest of time and everybody's schedules here. I'm Cindy Ferguson, Director of Community Women's Education Project in Kensington. In our immediate neighborhood, 46 percent of the population does not have a high school diploma. We serve approximately 400 women a year. There are many other agencies in our area providing adult education. We all have very, very long waiting lists. We need to think about the time constraints that people are under now, the time restrictions of when they will lose their benefits, because when people are on waiting lists to get into a program, this is not serving their needs. 749 We offer about five different programs. And to just give you an example of the cost, we have a 16-hour-per-week basic skills literacy program. The average cost per student is $3,072. What we get from the State of Pennsylvania is $645 for that program. The rest of the money we have to fund-raise on our own. What we are not able to do at this time is to begin offering additional programs without other funding. And I would just want to leave you with a thought, that the thing that is so scary to me is looking at the five-year lifetime limit for welfare. We're not providing the tools for people to get off of welfare. Our experience for 17 years now has been that education can be the most 18 effective way for people to stay off of welfare 19 and not to be cycling back on and off. 20
I too will be very brief because Cindy said a lot of what I would say in terms of background. I'm Peggy Maguire, I'm the Executive Director of the Germantown Women's Educational Project. We're a small community- based, adult-literacy, life-skills project for 750 women in northwest Philadelphia and in Germantown. I just wanted to say very quickly that we work with about between 80 and 100 women each year. And we -- the way we are budgeted right now, we spend about $1,800 per woman and her children per year. That is how we're budgeted. What we get from the State is about $440 a year. So, clearly, we are depending very strongly on other sources of support in order to even be able to do the most basic services for women and their children. And I say "their children" because we provide supportive services to make it possible for people to even come to our classes. So that we're talking about providing free on-site child care, providing family counseling, providing emergency referrals for women and children as a part of the package of adult literacy. So just to be clear, that adult literacy is not something by itself when you're talking about an at-risk population that we're talking about. So, basically, we depend on local foundations, local churches, local individuals to 751 fill some of that huge gap that is being talked about. But, in fact, what we need is to be able to at least -- let me also say that what that pays for is six paultry hours a week of instruction for women who are supposed to, within a year, get all the education that they need to find and keep employment. So we're talking six hours a week. So I would suggest that, you know, obviously, we've signed onto the joint agenda. And I think that tripling the State budget is a beginning, but we also need to look very clearly at what are the connections between the dollars spent on literacy and the dollars spent on what makes it possible for people to pursue GEDs and to pursue, then, self-sustaining, living-wage jobs as opposed to whatever they can get when they're no 18 longer able to depend on welfare. Thank you.
Finally is this relationship of reverse commuting. And this demonstration project is what actually gave me the focus of what I think would work in this area.
Save me for last. I'll be very brief, and I speak very quickly. My name 752 is Faith Williams, and I work for the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and I'm the project director for the City-To-Suburbs Commuting Project. And we were funded by the United Way. We started our project back in July. We were funded by the United Way, we got a grant of $300,000 with which we bought three 15-passenger vans. We hired drivers, we set aside $30,000 in transportation subsidies to provide transportation for specific TANF clients that were coming off of the welfare rolls. And we do job development out in eastern Montgomery County, particularly the 309 Corridor. We provide the transportation subsidies, we provide emergency ride homes in case children get sick. A lot of clients are a little hesitant to go out into the suburbs without having a guaranteed ride home. We use taxi services, we'll dispatch a van, and the employers have been very cooperative with that. Since July started, we placed about 150 clients in suburban jobs. It's been a very successful project. 753 And our project is only funded for a year, so we're looking to, with the budget changes, have money put into not only transportation services for the big transit agencies, but for the creative and innovative projects that are working out there and creating partnerships between community service organizations, welfare populations, and the transportation management. Thank you.
Just to summarize, we are also, of course, going after the State. And at the very least, we would like to see the State demands we're making raised far higher on the City agenda than they are. Right now, they're not on the City agenda at all. But when we look at the tiny amounts that these folks get to do now the burden of helping 55,000 people between now and the year 2000, get the credentials to hire the work force, and then we turn and see the City giving $24 million back to us in the $20 or $30 a year increments, something's wrong with that. And I think you have to look at this 754 very carefully. Now is the time to act, before people are lying in the streets. And that's why we're here talking to you now, so we can begin to plan for perhaps a successful transition and not face the catastrophe that we faced on other grounds in the 1980s. I want to thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.
Ed, I'd like to thank you for the data, particularly going census track by census track and the maps so that you can really see, you know, the astounding numbers of people that do not have their GED, the adults who don't have their GED. So I think this information is very valuable for us to have. I had one question for Cindy Ferguson and Peggy Maguire.
Okay, how many -- Cindy said they did 400, but you've done 80 to 100 women per year. How many of those women are 755 able at the end of your -- I assume this is one year -- able to get their GED?
Well, actually, it's a good question. Actually, we do not have a one-year program. We have an open-entry -- yeah, thank you for asking. Our program -- basically, we say, Once you come here, you are welcome to stay as long as you need to reach your educational goals. Very, very few women can get a GED in one year, very few, because most of the people who come to us are not anywhere near ready to prepare for a GED exam, which is a very, very difficult and strenuous exam, by the way, which lots of high school graduates can't even pass. So the assumption is that we are being open to you as long as you need to. So I would say, in one year -- Cindy, come here. You're needed. In one year -- I think last year, we had perhaps 10 percent of the people can get a diploma in one year. The most successful people that I've worked with in our program have been there an average of two and a half to three 756 years. So I've actually sort of identified three years. And we have one of our current teachers who is a former student. It took her three years to actually get a high school diploma. But within that time, she was able to start her own business, she was able to get more active in her children's education. There were a variety of goals that she had set along the way that she reached. And three years later -- and had to drop out for a while because of illness and because of all the stuff that happens to women. So it took her three years. And she, to me, is a model student. I mean, she's what we wish everyone who walked through the door could be. And, as I said, we proved it by hiring her. But, so I would say, three years is more of a realistic target. And we operate -- one of the reasons -- well, one of the challenges of operating the way we do is that it costs money to say to women, You can stay as long as you need to. Cindy?
Sorry for the coughing 757 spasm. This is actually the first year we've been doing GED. Prior to this, we've been doing adult basic literacy as well as college classes, so I don't have history to report here, other than from this current year. We have two GED classes now that are both six hours per week. And we estimate that maybe percent of the students in those programs 10 -- am I saying the same thing or different things? -- that they're going to be able to pass the test this year. Our 16-hour-a-week day program, however -- and this is really the difference between a much more intensive program. There will probably be about 40 percent of the students in that class who will be able to pass their GED. It's very, very different when you're doing 16 hours a week and doing 6 hours a week. And the welfare legislation makes it difficult to do 16 hours a week. That's the program that we offer now that is under the most challenge.
Let me add that the Center for Literacy, which has been at this for a long time and just had other commitments tonight, 758 their estimate is if they have hours a week with somebody, they can do it. If the person starts in the ninth-grade level, they can do it in a year. If the person is reading or testing below ninth-grade level, it requires two years, but that requires like an intensive 20-hour program. And it costs them roughly $2500 per year, 5,000 for two years. And let me say that those of you, you know, who --
Councilman, I need 13 you to speak a little louder and much more 14 directly into the microphone. 15
Fine. Did you hear 16 that? It's $2,500 for a year for somebody at 17 ninth-grade level, 5,000 for 2 years. 18 The Kavaerner ship deal is spending 19 $30,000 a person to train people to work in the 20 ships. So we're talking about helping somebody get a basic job for one sixth that.
And one other question. Is the money from the two neighborhood- based centers -- you said you get a small amount from the State. The rest of it is foundation 759 funding?
The fact is that the State has produced $8 million in funding for 5 years. Last year, it went up to 8.2. This year, 6 it's going up to 9. It needs to go up a 7 staggering amount to deal with this problem. 8 And I debated Heather Houston two weeks 9 ago on this set of questions. And the literacy numbers that I was laying out to you came as a total shock to her.
Thank you, Mr. President. On the issue of reverse commuting, the statistics I have seen seem to indicate that the jobs don't last very long. And could you address that question on what can be done to --
I think the reason why I'm sitting here with the literacy gap --