Are they all members of the Chamber of Commerce? How do you reach those businesses that are not?
Well, what we're doing is about an 11,000-piece direct mail and we're combining that with the neighborhood job developers who are going out. So, you know, if you have or other people have other suggestions, obviously, we're buying media time, print ad time, neighborhood newspaper placements. So if there's opportunities to try and reach them that we haven't thought of, we need to continue to develop that over the year. As I mentioned, the efforts that we're doing are about seven weeks old, and we'll continue to rule out more outreach strategies. We want to see if these job developers can really identify all those jobs at the neighborhood level. 109 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 And, again, I think the one indicator is going to be the use of the wage subsidies. But it's also, a lot of times, even the neighborhoods say to us, I just really need somebody who's going to come and be here and get support from you guys to make sure their child care doesn't fall apart.
You said that there's going to be about 52 million? We keep hearing different numbers. It's million for 11 two years? 12
So what is your 18 target area? How many people have you targeted to 19 place? 20
I knew that was going to 24 be your next question. I'm sorry I don't have 25 that off the top of my head. 110 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 We have that back at our office, but I didn't bring that with me. I can bring that this afternoon and give it to you later.
Sure. In order to place 7500, we anticipate serving somewhere around 11,000 folks.
The regional centers, how many regional centers are there? How were they selected? And how were people notified that the regional centers would be set up so that they could apply to be a regional center?
Sure, mm-hmm. The regional centers, there are five organizations that now have contracts for regional centers, and several of them have more than one location. So that, for instance, the regional center operated in the Kensington and northeast sections of the city is operated by JEVS. They have a partnership agreement with Congreso and impact for two additional locations in their geographic area. So the total number of locations, I 111 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 think, is somewhere around 11, but I could also deliver a list. I should have attached that to my presentation.
PIC sent out an RFP for a regional center, you know, structure. The actual RFP was for employment-advising services. And the Private Industry Council staff have departed, but my recollection is that went out to somewhere between 4 to 500 agencies. Again, I'd be happy to provide Council with the mailing list. That was one RFP that went out. Then there was another RFP that had a number of other welfare-to-work services that included the job placements aspect. And, again, it went out to the same mailing list. And then from those responses, the PIC reviewed those proposals, and Rosemarie was the head of that review process.
Yes. We were -- we actually had originally expected to select seven. 112 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 Actually, we did select seven, but through the contract negotiations, because our per-head placement rate is relatively low for the level of services that we're asking, although we're hoping that it will suffice, two of the contractors selected not to continue to engage.
You have said that you are going to do the direct mail piece to the employers. And you also -- there is a marketing program to inform welfare recipients that this deadline is coming. What funds will be made available to the regional centers for community marketing campaigns so that they can notify individuals in their service district?
Sure. The regional centers are on a performance-based budget. They get a flat dollar-fee from us for their overall number of people they're going to serve. They can use those funds as they wish. So when the regional center submitted a budget to us, most of them had money for the printing of flyers and handing out door-to-door information and going to neighborhood meetings. 113 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 So that it's really up to each regional center to determine how much of their resources they want to use for outreach. Given the response to the hotline, and we meet with the regional seniors pretty much every Monday, they have lots and lots of people calling them. In order to access services, the individuals have to go to the DPW offices in the neighborhood. And so over the last several weeks, people have been going to the DPW offices. And then, if it makes sense for them, getting referred back to the regional center so they can begin to engage. But some people who call us haven't done their eight-week job search yet or may still be eligible for more intensive job training services. So that all those people that we refer there may not all come back to us. But my sense is, at this point, based on our meeting last week, that people are beginning to see, you know, increasing numbers of referrals. We would like there still to be more people engaged. 114 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671
So, therefore, a regional center would have to use their -- they have to develop their own budget to develop their marketing plan? What is your marketing budget? What is their marketing budget for the program?
Just so I can clarify that. That was in the RFP when we put out the requirement for services that, you know, community outreach would be the expectation on the provider. The money that we're spending for the commercials, the radio broadcast, TV, and direct mail to clients and employers, is a little over a million dollars.
Of the many vendors that you have and the services that you provide, how much money is provided to minorities and women?
No, but I mean your vendor services, the money that's being --
-- Contracted 115 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 out. You have $53 million.
And we want to know how much of that is being given to women.
If you don't have it right now, we'd like to have that information.
We'd like to know, who is your marketing firm, what ratio of that would be for women and minorities.
-- of this 116 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 program.
What other governmental services will be provided to the regional centers that will enhance the one-stop employment and human development service system? How are they linked to gaining Social Security cards, other information, birth certificates? Are their linkages there?
The biggest link that we've created is together with our behavioral system, and the Health Department will speak a little bit to that in their testimony as well as to emergency service systems vis-a-vis housing and the shelter system and the Department of Human Services supports. Last week, we were beginning to talk about impediments to service that were more bureaucratic like Selective Service, Social Security cards, and things like that. So we've begun to reach out to the federal agencies that represent that infrastructure so that we can get people into the programs. The Selective Service issue is 117 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 particularly important as it relates to non-custodial parents, which we hope to serve over 500. And if they didn't sign up for Selective Service, when it happened, you know, in 1979, since then, then we have a problem getting people engaged, and we're trying to work with Selective Service on waivers to that. We're also trying to replicate a program that's in place in Florida to sort of expunge certain aspects of people's background records so that there's less of an impediment to jobs. You can do that on certain parts of somebody's record, not all of it, and so we have a task force of agencies that are working on the record-expunging process.
Okay. Thank you. I'll stop now, and Councilman Ortiz has some questions.
You know, we have a tremendously long list of witnesses to cover, so I'm just going to urge all of my colleagues on Council and all of the speakers to be very, very brief. We'd like to hear from everyone. 118 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671
All right. Miss Cooper, two questions. One is about the accessibility of day care. We have most of the day care centers, whether they be family and group day care homes and family child care and so on, at the present time, according to a study my staff is doing -- and Andy Goldenberg here is doing that with Kara Gerry (ph.) Of the Delaware Valley Child Care Council in my office -- are really at capacity. Now, Leona Smith referred to, one, the population that you're targeting in terms of the 7500, and I'd like you to speak to that a little bit. But once you identify that population and once they go into jobs, how are they -- there's two problems that you had, and you mentioned them both, and they were the aspect of the health care and the subsidized child-care facilities that may not be available for these 7500 individuals that you're targeting.
We did a study about a year and a half ago of all existing regulated centers to see if they -- what maximum capacity 119 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 would mean. And it was for a total of 2,000 additional kids could be added to existing centers. Now, that doesn't speak to homes or unregulated care. So I think that it perhaps would make sense for Council to ask for the child-care referral service that's operated by the state that manages the subsidy system to speak to that issue, because the city obviously does not fund or manage the child-care system, but it is a significant impediment. We work very closely with the state on this issue and have a good working relationship with --
Yeah, let's make the answers shorter -- we don't have the slots.
Yes. We do not have the 120 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 slots in regulated care.
Okay. The second question I have is, Rudolph Giuliani, the Mayor of New York City, has employed over 38,000 individuals in terms of welfare-to-work programs. And whether we like it or not, that has been one of his main claims to fame across the United States. But there has been studies that they have actually replaced a lot of formerly- unionized workers in slots that were vacated, where people retired and so on. And Leona Smith also spoke to this, and I saw you shaking your head in terms of -- 'cause I know where you're coming from. What are the city plans for welfare-to-work in terms of city jobs and whether we are going to be following the Giuliani model? And if we're not going to follow the Giuliani model, what model are we looking at? And how many jobs are we looking at in terms of public service jobs that we're going to be allocating in terms of the welfare-to-work situation?
In the transitional jobs 121 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 program that we put together, we worked very closely with both District Council 47, 33, and 1199-C, so that would be with all three, not both. But nevertheless, we will continue to plan together with the unions. We do not want to create the same situation in New York vis-a-vis the union or vis-a-vis the public assistance recipients. We are trying to look at jobs where people will actually learn skills as the basis for which we continue to expand any kind of public jobs program. We currently don't have any money at this point to expand public jobs programs. So the difference in New York is that Rudy Giuliani has control of the county welfare budget in New York City, 'cause that is the county. And we know that the state continues to plan -- and they talk to us regularly about this -- for an expansion in community service employment. And we hope that this will be a wage-based system which will put a set of certain incentives together and regulations that will, I think, protect from us building a New York City model. 122 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 I think people are testifying later that could speak to that more directly so that your time is saved a little bit here if that's okay.
All right, thank you. Actually, you know, we applaud the kind of love relationship that seems to exist between the Governor's office and the Mayor's office, but sometimes, when you need action, you've got to move more directly, and we hope that the city will prevail upon the Governor very quickly to make money available. There are two big surpluses around, and everybody talking about them. There's a surplus at the state level of hundreds of millions of dollars. There's a surplus at the city level of $169 million. I've yet to hear a word from any representative of the city or state government -- and Deputy Commissioner Heller will be on very shortly to testify. But I'd like to hear that we're actually using the surplus for very important purposes, the kind of purposes we're talking about 123 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 today. Please communicate the message. Thank you. (Applause.)
Can we have the next panel -- Mr. Nardone, Mr. Lucas, Miss Tucker. Miss Tucker, why don't you introduce yourself, and then have the other members of the panel and then proceed. Mr. Nardone is Deputy Manager Director for Special Housing, Mr. Lucas is Assistant Health Commissioner of the Department of Health, and Miss Tucker is a Deputy Commissioner of Health of the Department of Human Services. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us here.
And you have to give your name again. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: Good afternoon. I'm Maxine H. Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Human Services Children and Youth Division. Commissioner Reeves would have been here today, but she had a commitment that was schedule prior to this hearing. Again, as I said, I want to thank you 124 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 for the opportunity of being here. And what I'm going to try to do is very, very briefly highlight some critical points after my two colleagues have introduced themselves.
Good morning. My name is Mike Nardone, Deputy Managing Director for Special Needs Housing.
Good afternoon. My name is Mike Lucas. I'm the Assistant Health Commissioner for the Department of Public Health. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: Based on the number of families that have been possibly indicated that may fail to meet the work requirements for the 24-month time limit that's due in March, for those 26,000 families with 60,000 children, we are looking at conceivably having at least 426 of those children who may enter the child welfare system. It could be as high as 672. We have put a request in our budget to the state for FY '99 to service those additional children if that, in fact, becomes a reality. As of 9/30 of this year, we were purchasing in-home services for 7,508 dependent 125 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 children and 2,548 families, and another 8,140 children in placement, of which 88 percent of those children are eligible to receive TANF. Of the 1,275 children in placement -- of the 8,000 children in placement, 1,275 of them are living in kinship-care arrangements. We do not know at this particular time what the -- how many of those children will be affected by the TANF deadline.
Miss Tucker, we'll make your statement a part of the record. We had a briefing in which Commissioner Reeves was with us. She expressed a great deal of our questions, and she was really troubled because there were not a lot of answers that had been given to the Department, either by the state or the city or otherwise. But the one thing that really disturbed me out of it was when she spoke about the Federal Protection Act and the -- actually, the thing that -- the situation that Miss Leona Smith referred to, in which individuals, after 12 months, that have not be able to get either a job placement, whatever it is, that their children and their parental rights may be terminated of that child 126 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 that is currently within the DHS system and then all of the other children, even though they may not be in the system or whatever. And that is really a disturbing fact, and it's really something that Miss Reeves was incredibly concerned about and really shocked a lot of us, this little clause in there that really goes to the termination of parental access. Very few of us had been aware of it.
Yes, it is. And what I brought along today for Council are copies of a recent brochure we have put together in terms of trying to educate the parents of children who are already in our system as well as educate the parents where potentially the children may come in our system. There are four groupings of children that are impacted at this point. Certainly, the first group, where the time clock of 12 months is running, has to do with children who came into the child welfare system in out-of-home placement as of November 19, 1997, which is the date that the law came into effect. As of the end of October, of those children who came in on or after, there 127 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 are 2100 of them who are still in out-of-home placement. The law requires that for those children who have come in on or after that date, that there is a 12-month time clock that says that there must be a permanent plan for these children, and that permanent plan has to be either children returned to their own homes with their families, or that we will show cause as to why their parental rights should not be terminated and those children adopted. So that's one group of children. The children who were in placement prior to November --
But that impacts on all the other siblings that that mother may have in the home, even though they may not be in placement with DHS. That's what Miss Reeves told us. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: This law only affects those children who are in out-of-home placement, not the children who are already at home. And, hopefully, we will all do everything we can to support those parents in a way they need 128 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 to be supported to take care of their own children. I have some brochures that we'll try to get to parents. Now, the critical piece is that there are three other groups of children in which a deadline will affect them. By May 30th of 1999, the first third of children who have been in care the longest, who have been in care out of 10 months, must have a permanent plan for those 11 children, or their parental rights may be 12 terminated. 13 Now, one of the requirements that not 14 only the Department has to be a part of, but we as 15 a human service system have to be a part of, is 16 that if those families have not received the 17 services that they need to be able to take their 18 children home, then we cannot just automatically 19 terminate their rights. 20 But if we've provided the service -- 21 and when I talk about "we," I talk about the 22 collective we. If it's drug and alcohol, if it's mental health or what have you, if we have offered the service, and families or parents, for whatever the reasons, have not taken those services, then 129 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 their personal rights will be terminated. And I think I have to be very honest with you, the law does not allow us to do anything different. The next third of children --
Would you go over that last statement again? The law does not allow you to do anything different as to what? COMMISSIONER TUCKER: If the services that the parents need in order to take their children home and take 'em home and keep 'em safely, if the service had been provided, or the opportunity for the services had been offered, and parents have not taken advantage of them, then the law does not give us any leaveway (sic) in not terminating the parents' parental rights.
I just think the Department ought to be very, very careful to make sure that the paperwork is accurate and that parents have been communicated with frequently so that you have a full record of a parent refusing. Because my experience with various agencies is not one that gives me confidence that they will really know whether or not the parent had full opportunity to utilize those services. 130 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 I hope you don't follow the examples of the Water Department and the gas company, which send out letters to people who often can't read, does absolutely nothing to check on the actual status, and then draws the conclusion that the people have not taken advantage of benefits offered to them. We will be demanding that in any case in which you find that a parent has not taken advantage of services, that there be a complete record establishing the number of efforts made, the outreach efforts, if the folks are folks that don't know English, that the Department has taken the steps to make sure that there were people who spoke the language of the people involved. So I'm hoping that before any rights are terminated, that all of these steps be taken. And I would hope that you develop a system which enables to you inform the Council of your proposed actions before they are followed out. Because we're going to be watching very, very carefully. We don't want homes broken up or not fully united as a result of a provision in the law that may be a technical provision and that may not 131 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 be in the best interests of everyone. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: You're absolutely right. One of the things that we have begun to do already is to, in terms of trying to publicly educate not only the parents but publicly educate those who provide service with the parents or who even know the parents, by putting together this brochure, which is also -- this brochure is in Spanish as well.
Well, I can just tell you, Miss Tucker, that if any parents' rights are terminated, that probably a hearing will take place as quick as we can put it together, probably within 48 hours. (Applause.)
Because this committee's going to be a continuing committee, and we're going to continue to recess for just a few days at a time so that we are in a position to act immediately. And I hope all of these City departments take notice. I've discussed this with my co-chair, and she has agreed that this committee has to be 132 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 an ongoing, continuing committee.
Miss Tucker, could you just answer, under what authority does this action take place in terms of terminating parental rights? COMMISSIONER TUCKER: We have to provide the documentation to the Family Court Juvenile Division. We're in court a minimum of every six months to report to the court what actions we have taken in terms of planning for children, planning either for them to go home or planning some other permanent placement. So it is clear that the final decision about whether or not a parent's parental rights are terminated rests with the Family Court judge that hears the case based on the information that has been provided by the Department in terms of the services that have been provided and the outreach that we have made. 133 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 This piece of legislation, more than any piece of legislation in my experience, definitely challenges everybody to present the documentation. If you don't have the documentation, then the actions will not occur.
Who works with the parent? Is that your department, or are there other agencies that work with the Department? And who's coordinating that mother or father who is responsible for getting these services? Who's paying attention to that individual to make sure that they get adequate information to know where they're going to get the services and all of that? COMMISSIONER TUCKER: Ninety-five percent of the services to children in out-of-home care are provided through our contracted agencies. So it's the contracted agencies who are responsible for the direct day-to-day work with the parents and for the outreach to those parents. The Department's role in this is a case management one. In other words, we provide the oversight, we monitor whether or not the services for which we contracted for for those families are 134 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 actually provided. Every six months, we do family service plan revisions. We get quarterly reports from the agency to track what kinds of services and whether they're appropriately done. So we should be having a face-to-face with parents and age-appropriate children at least every six months in preparing for that court hearing, which, as I said, we must go to court a minimum of every six months to report out what we and the private agencies have done in providing the needed services for those families.
Could I go to Mr. Lucas? He hasn't been heard yet, but I just wanted to ask you a question because the services provided because a lot of parents probably -- I'm not saying all of them are, but probably have some substance abuse. COMMISSIONER TUCKER: Absolutely.
Okay. Are there enough dollars to provide the services to these families -- I mean to these individuals, to these parents to get the services they need to address the substance issue? 135 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671
Mark Bencivengo is here. He might be the appropriate person to address that question.
Yes, because it all ties in with the requirement to receive the services and the ability of the agencies to deliver and also in view of the cutback of the HMOs and health providers to provide one-shot service -- COMMISSIONER TUCKER: That's right.
Madame Co-chair, could I interrupt at this moment? At 1 o'clock, this hearing is going to end today. It's going to be recessed until Monday, at 10 o'clock a.m. Among the witnesses who are scheduled to testify today, if they prefer, they can go to the staff table in the back and tell what is the best time. We hope that the hearing on Monday will run from 10 o'clock till p.m., but we're 25 not going to be able to hear all of the 136 1 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 witnesses. We'd like to know from Dr. Heller, whether she prefers to be heard Monday rather than today. And any other witnesses that are schedule. We're sorry but we want everybody to be heard, and we need all of this information, but there's a Finance Committee scheduled at o'clock, there's an Economic Development Committee scheduled at o'clock today. But we're hoping that you're going to be able to accommodate yourself to everybody's need so that we can, you know, get a full hearing on everything now. But be prepared for continuing hearings, if necessary, even on a daily basis until we find some solid answers to the questions that are being raised and discussed today. Thank you. Any witnesses who prefer Monday to today can just go to the staff table now and sign up for that. Okay? Sorry, Councilwoman Tasco. Mr. Lucas, I think, directed a question to you. 137 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 And to the gentleman, identify yourself for of the record first.
My name is Mark Bencivengo. I'm Assistant Health Commissioner with responsibility for the drug and alcohol programs within the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. In response to your question regarding sufficient substance-abuse treatment capacity and dollars -- I think that was the thrust of the question -- dollars to service this population, we believe that the majority of these women will be Medicaid-eligible; i.e., they will be enrolled in Health Choice. And I'm on the board of CBH, as is Commissioner Reeves and, of course, Commissioner Richman and Deputy Commissioner Covone, and we've worked with Judge Ransom in Family Court to have an assessor down there and to make a linkage for services with CBH, and that CBH will place these individuals into drug and alcohol treatment services. And as an entitlement, CBH would then pay for the services while the woman or man is in treatment. 138 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671
All right. I'm going to ask this panel -- I don't like to do it, but I don't think we have any choice. The Deputy Commissioner of Human Services -- I think still call it the "Department of Welfare" at the state level -- cannot be here on Monday, and I think very important we hear from her now. I would ask this panel to come back Monday at 10 o'clock. Thank you. We'll continue with your testimony and the questioning on Monday. (Commissioner Sherri Heller comes forward.)
Commissioner Heller, I want you to know that with the special attention being given to you and the state representatives today, it means that the special attention is going to continue to be focussed on the state as well as on the city on a continuing basis so that coming forward now may be a mixed blessing for you. Because we think that everybody's feet, including our own, have to be held to the fire until get away from cataclysmic events that may otherwise occur. Commissioner, why don't you introduce 139 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 yourself and have each person at the table introduce themselves, and then you can proceed in the manner you wish. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Thank you very much, Councilman.
But this will be the last panel that's going to be heard today. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I appreciate your courtesy very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be back here today. I appreciate the many remarks this morning acknowledging the strong partnership and cooperation we've had the city and the Private Industry Council since the time I was last here.
Well, we want that partnership to continue and to be strengthened. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Great.
But it's got to produce results. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Understood. My name is Sherri Heller. I'm the Deputy Secretary for Income Maintenance at the Department of Public Welfare. I have with me Mr. David Flori (ph.), 140 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 who's the Director of the Bureau of Employment and Training Programs at the Department; and Mr. Don Jose Staval (ph.), who is the Executive Director of the County Assistance Office of Philadelphia. I have provided you with copies of very extensive testimony, which I'm not going to read because I know that's not the way the day is going for you.
You've heard the testimony today. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Yeah. Let me skip through parts of it and draw your attention to the importance of the graphs that you have in front of you because there is some data that speaks to some of the questions that were raised today.
Excuse me, can everybody hear the commissioner's voice clearly? Okay, I want to make sure everybody hears it because she is the top-ranking state official with the responsibility for carrying out this program. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I just want to draw your attention, skipping right over the prose 141 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 to make this easy.
Could you just hold a minute till that awful noise. . . COMMISSIONER HELLER: Certainly, of course, of course.
Go ahead commissioner. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I want to point out the nice graph on of the testimony. We've shown you the case load reduction of about percent in the cash assistance cases 13 Philadelphia since welfare reform began in 14 Pennsylvania. 15 I think significantly, of the 64,000 16 adults who were receiving temporary assistance for 17 needy families or TANF cash assistance in Philadelphia, when the 24-month clock so-called began in March of '97, 61 percent have not been on continuously, 61 percent are not subject to this work requirement deadline we've been describing on March 3rd of '99. About 25,000 adults have received TANF continuously and remain subject to that deadline. You can see the case load reduction has 142 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 been pretty steady in Philadelphia since we began. But we don't -- as you point out, results are what matter. And we don't like to measure our success just in terms of case load reduction. We have been trying to follow more closely job placements, and you see job placements in Philadelphia also on that graph. As you can see, job placements in Philadelphia continue at a good pace of some 1500 to 2200 job placements a month this year. 45 an hour. And in Philadelphia, we're doing slightly better than that. 93 this year. 93 an hour for these jobs, if you add in the equivalent of medical-assistance, food stamp benefits, and the other benefits that continue after people leave cash assistance, it's the 143 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 equivalent of about a $12 hour job. The jobs that Philadelphia TANF recipients are getting hired for have been in a variety of field -- over 1200 medicine and health occupations, plus another 2600 at-home health care or geriatric care, 1900 in education-related fields -- I'm going to skip over some of these just for time, but there's a lot of data here for you. There were 7700 as cashiers and tellers and another 1,000 in bookkeeping and accounting, 2300 cooks, waiters, and restaurant personnel. 1300 manufacturing, welding, and construction jobs. There were placements at Westin Suites, Bayada Nurses, UPS, Argon Bright Security, Penrose Management Corporation, Mellon Bank, Genesis Elder Care, and numerous other Philadelphia companies. In Philadelphia right now, of course, not everybody who got a job right off the bat got a job that pays well enough to close the cash-assistance welfare care. Right now, about 9,000 current cash-assistance recipients in Philadelphia are working in paid jobs while also getting cash assistance. About 7,000 are in 144 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 education and training programs while receiving cash assistance in Philadelphia. About 600 Philadelphia TANF recipients are studying for advanced degrees while on cash assistance in Philadelphia. That 600 represents more than half of the 1100 TANF recipients enrolled in higher education statewide each month. My assessment, to summarize, is that the progress made by cash-assistance recipients in terms of movement into employment in Philadelphia so far and statewide is good, and we can probably attribute the progress to date to three factors: program and policy changes, which we won't go into at length for time's sake here; an economy that's doing pretty well and in which employers, as you heard Miss Cooper say, are hungry for reliable attending entry-level personnel; and I think the rather energetic and creative work done by Mayor Rendell and his staff and the Private Industry Council to get a consistent message out -- much more so than when I was here last time. I think we have a very consistent message going out in Philadelphia to TANF recipients and to employers alike. And the 145 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 message is quite straightforward.
Jobs are available, parents who have been on welfare make reliable employees, and the personal and financial rewards for going to work are real and substantial. I want to draw your attention -- I'm going to skip here a little for time's sake -- to the little picture on , which represents the ways in which the Department of Public Welfare purchases education and training services. We refer to this as our continuum of employment and training services, and we buy some services for people who are not particularly job-ready, very intensive case management and education and training services like Single Point of Contact, all the way to the Rapid Attachment programs that we purchase for people who are more job-ready and who need a couple of months perhaps of job search assistance. I want to emphasize to you that we purchase employment and training services all along this continuum, depending on what the individual needs of the clients are. In fact, if you look at the chart on 146 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 the bottom of -- I'm skipping a lot of text here, but I think the pictures tell the story -- you can see that we have changed the amount of money we have spent in each of these categories over time. So when I came to talk to you last time, we were spending some new money on so-called Rapid Attachment services -- you know, helping people do job search assistance, six or eight weeks of assistance. And that got a lot of attention at the hearing last time I was here. But, as you can see, we increased our investment in Rapid Attachment services in Fiscal Year '97-'98. In Fiscal Year '98-'99, sharply reduced the amount of money being spent on these job search assistance programs; and, instead, increased the amount of money that we've been spending all along on very intensive education and skills training programs for more needy individuals. In other words, the money that was saved in the early going because some people got Rapid Attachment help and got jobs quickly was put back into the education and training program to 147 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 provide more intensive services for people who needed more services. " We're planning services that help people who got entry-level jobs so they don't get stuck at that first level on the career ladder. That's pretty much -- oh, I should say something about transportation and child care because I know there was a lot of discussion on that and because Councilman Ortiz asked me to in his invitation. We are providing transportation allowances for about 6500 cash assistance clients a month in Philadelphia now. These are transportation allowances that support clients in training programs and those who are looking for work. We also purchased SEPTA transpasses for clients at all 19 County Assistance District Offices, about 1800 of them a month, up from 600 when we began this year. There's been a lot of discussion on child care, so I'll just mention briefly that DPW 148 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 upset over $43 million just for TANF families making the transition from welfare-to-work last fiscal year -- last year. That $43 million represented an increase of over million above 6 the prior year. 7
But, Commissioner, 8 isn't it true that it doesn't really matter what you're spending; what's important is how much of a need are you meeting. As a result of that, can you tell us, for example, that there will be sufficient day-care programs for everyone for whom it's necessary in order for that person to go to work. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I am not able to give you the kind of 100 percent assurance that you like. I can tell you that right now, on the Philadelphia TANF case load, fewer than 200 clients are claiming exemption from their work requirements on account of inability to find appropriate child care. As you may know, there's extensive work going on in Philadelphia to do needs assessment, which will get more at the kind of sophisticated question I think you're asking about, whether 149 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 care's available at night, when the good job is on the night shift. I think there's still questions like that out there left to answer.
Miss Cooper, could you come forward for just a moment? (Donna Cooper returns to the witness table.)
You just heard the statement of Commissioner Heller that there are only 200 people in Philadelphia who say they need day care for which day care has not been provided. Is that in line with your understanding as to the situation in Philadelphia? And then Councilwoman Blackwell has the additional question of who's paying for it and how is it being handled financially? Is that right, Councilwoman Blackwell?
Sure. Child care is a state-funded system with a participant co-pay. The experience that we have, I think Deputy Secretary Heller must be correct, that only 200 150 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 people have claimed exemption as a result of child care. However, there are, in our understanding, significant numbers of people on waiting lists for regulated care. Whether people are able to then find an unregulated care provider, either a family member or a neighbor or something like that, is another question, but there are waiting lists in the city, in certain parts of city for regulated care providers. And there continues to be problems with off-hour care. Sometimes the public assistance recipient is paying directly for that -- you know, you have to $15 for every hour you're late, just like in a private day care system. So lots of times people are able to use a subsidized care and then they pay out of their pocket for when they have to come late because their work shift ends late. What we find when we interview people who went through either Spot, the PIC program, Rapid Attachment, or Community Solutions, who did not keep their jobs, the number one reason that they said they could not keep their jobs was 151 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 because of issues associated with child care. And that's a big issue, you know, that's associated with child care, a huge category. It could mean a lot of things. But I think it would be correct to assume that if we successfully continue to move thousands of people into the workforce, we will encounter bigger and bigger child-care problems.
Well, I'm just wondering, is there a way of your working with Commissioner Heller and her staff? And when I say "you," I mean whatever other folks are needed from Philadelphia.
To make sure that realistically the problem is sharply decreased, and we'd like to see it eliminated. In other words, if the only thing stopping someone from taking a job is day care, it seems to me be the falsest kind of economy to deny that person day care. And that's the kind of question we're trying to direct our attention to. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I think Miss Cooper will agree that the kind of communication 152 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 you're describing is, in fact, happening in Philadelphia.
Good. COMMISSIONER HELLER: If these clients are having trouble with child care, it's not for a lack of resource. I want to mention that what we're spending this in year in Philadelphia for child care represents another $20 million increase over the $8 million that we increased, so it's not for lack of resources. There are -- let me be the first to point out to you -- some gaps in the child-care system because of sort of ancient regulations that we're trying to change. So, for example, I know you know about this, we could have an example where somebody gets a job, it's a good enough job to go off cash assistance and stop that clock from ticking. She gets guaranteed transitional child care for 12 months, then it's up, and she goes on a waiting list, okay? That's the kind of client that Miss Cooper's describes. Those kind of artificial rules like that 12-month limit on transitional child care, we 153 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 have proposed regulations to change, and we have every expectation that those changes will be in place this winter.
Councilman Cohen, what might be useful is to, when you come back on Monday, I assume there will be a set of people who are experts in the field of child care that would also perhaps describe what other states are doing to expand the pool. Pennsylvania is spending more money. But, again, as the Mayor pointed out, if we are successful with Greater Philadelphia Works, I think we're going to hit a pretty serious child-care problem within regulated care.
All right. I think that's a very fine point. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Yeah, it is a fine point. And I imagine you'll hear -- you should ask everybody this question, not just the bureaucrats like Donna and me.
We should ask whom? COMMISSIONER HELLER: The moms you talked to as well. Because in our experience in talking to clients, we find that some very much 154 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 want the reliability and so forth and the early childhood expertise that come associated with regulated care, especially if they're on night shift and it's time for their baby to sleep and so forth, seek out neighborhood care, and are very interested in pursuing training for neighborhood and neighborhood and relative caregivers so that they get good quality care in those environments as well. So when you look at the child-care availability issue, you have to look at regulated and unregulated care. Shall I keep going, or are we having questions here?
Thank you. Yeah, these are big questions because mothers are really, really suffering. And, for example, I understand that even in a lot of jobs, they have to track folks for 90 days, and who knows if people will even be working after 90 days. We've got problems, for example -- and I know we'll talk about this Monday -- in the whole traditional housing phase, let alone that we 155 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 don't have enough dollars for just homeless beds. But the way it's happening is that a person goes from welfare to traditional housing. After they serve that time, they're told to take out their savings, which they had to save, so they take out a thousand dollars, which makes them ineligible for shelter, and then they don't have anyplace to go. So they're back in shelter, and everybody's stuck. We spent all this extra money because we don't have that next phase. And Commissioner Tucker and others have talked about this really, really severe problem. Mothers are really afraid of losing their children because they don't have work and the implications of this. Are we really doing like 25,000 jobs a year at 2200 a month? Are we really doing that even for those who don't pass literacy tests and can't read up to 8th grade? Are we really doing -- giving what's happening in March, are we expected to do that this year? Are we realistically doing these jobs, and do the records say these people have been 156 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 retained? COMMISSIONER HELLER: I heard about five questions there. I'll do my best, and you tell me if I'm unresponsive on any of them.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER HELLER: First, I think it's important to make a distinction between the Adoption and Safe Families legislation, which there was some discussion here this morning about termination of parental rights, and the welfare reform legislation. Both of them have deadlines of sorts coming up, and so I think there's some -- I would hate to see there be too much confusion between them, and so I'm not prepared to talk about the Adoption and Safe Families Act, but it is distinct from that.
But doesn't that tie into the whole issue of the welfare reform? And is there any discussion between the two entities to see where there's a clash? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Well, certainly within the Department of Public Welfare, there's a lot of discussion about that. I spend a lot of 157 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 time talking to my colleagues. I think you make a good point, Councilwoman. We have worked in a world where all of these systems have sort of walls between them so that if a given family had housing issues to deal with, drug and alcohol issues and health-care issues to deal with, job training and welfare issues to deal with, child-care issues, and what's happening is that welfare reform has sort of changed the world so that families can't live like that anymore. The agencies have to be -- the plan, in other words, that the children and your agency might develop for a family to stay together has to be compatible with the plan that we develop in the welfare office for moving towards financial sufficiency or else the family gets caught in the middle, and that's the kind of thing you were describing, and housing as well.
I don't want to take her question, but this is very important. What is happening on the state level to bring those departments together to talk about this? Because if you have the Adoption Act and you have 158 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 the welfare reform, and the departments aren't talking, somewhere or another, something's going to happen and somebody's going to get hurt. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Right.
Who can make that happen? COMMISSIONER HELLER: The people who can make that happen are Deputy Secretary Joanne Lower (ph.) In the Office of Children, Youth and Families, and myself. And I can assure you that the Secretary of Public Welfare, Feather Houston, had created an environment which ensures that that happens. I mean, none of us can do anything until we understand the impact that it's having on the other office; or better yet, the impact of what we're doing on a given family's ability to deal with what's happening also in their lives. And you see all kinds of -- I mean, this juncture between children and youth services and welfare reform is only one of them. You'll see, for example, that we in welfare reform are very involved with the experts in domestic violence. 159 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 I mean, think about the interaction there, okay, where you have a woman trying to move toward financial self-sufficiency and perhaps an intimate partner who wants to remain in control. There can be real dangers associated with this move from welfare to work. Substance abuse is another. You have a lot of people who say, Oh, I can get a job, I'm going to go right out there and I'm going to get a job. And they might have even been in our early statistics, but they have addictions they haven't acknowledged yet, and they're going to lose those jobs if we don't do a good job of coordinating services. These kinds of discussions are ones that we are involved in all the time. So I don't think we're being -- I don't think we're ignoring those issues at all. I do want to talk to you a little bit about -- you talked about the 90 days job retention. Our early contracts of Rapid Attachment made final payments to the people whose services we bought if jobs were retained for 90 days, but those are not the only contracts we have 160 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 in our continuum of services. For example, we have the Community Solutions program, in which there's a lot more money invested here in Philadelphia, where the final payment is not made unless job retention is for a year, months. Plus the contractors don't 8 get paid unless the jobs are a certain amount per 9 hour, and 50 percent of them have to have medical 10 benefits. 11 So I don't -- that's why I said in the 12 beginning that the statistics aren't as meaningful as the way we're thinking about the program.
Miss Heller, may I raise this? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Please.
I think it's very important that at the hearing Monday, it would be wonderful if you could be here, but if you could not be, could there been knowledgeable people from your staff here? Because I understand that the questions and answers are raising concerns in the advocacy community, and I think it would be good because I think a lot of different things have to coming 161 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 together. And certain walls that you referred to kind of have to be broken down, and we've got to have a communication that permits us to achieve the results. Would it be possible for you -- and maybe you can change your schedule? 'Cause we'd love to have you back, but we need to have representatives from your department. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I'll certainly ensure that knowledgeable folks are here to make sure it's a productive session.
Good. And if it's possible for you to be here too. We just urge upon you or Feather Houston, with whom I sat for many years on the SEPTA Board. So maybe you can speak to her and tell her, for Auld Lang Syne reasons, maybe she or you ought to be here. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I appreciate your making us feel so appreciated.
Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Just to finish up the remaining points of the testimony.
Right. And then I think we're going to have to call it a day. 162 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 COMMISSIONER HELLER: Okay.
Let me say, Madame Chairwoman, that we know we worry Don Staval to death. He has an excellent reputation in our town and he works with community groups, so we don't want to unduly pressure him. But we're really concerned about -- we're really fearful of what we see happening very early in the year in the year, in March, of our own quality-of-life bills, of the convention coming here and what else that means for poor and homeless people, and for our lack of new homeless dollars, notwithstanding mental health and DNA funds, we don't have any new homeless dollars. So all of those things impact us greatly. And when we see that we're going to see 25,000 new jobs a year, it sounds great, but we haven't heard here locally about any job training for those people who absolutely can't read at the minimum level. And what do we do? You know, we all kind of feel that we're stuck. These mothers are afraid. They don't want to lose their children. We know that DHS has their regulations, and we 163 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 know that we've got a serious employment problem, a serious housing problem. Notwithstanding all the great things are city is, I think we've come a long, long way, but I don't want us to turn around and go backward during these tough times. So we try to appeal to those of you who are at a state level and who can -- who are able to hear us and impact on decisions that affect us locally. COMMISSIONER HELLER: I certainly concur with about what you said not going backwards when we get under pressure. I would concur with Ms. Greco's remarks, from the Private Industry Council, where she said that we're in this together; we all win or we all lose together. I don't think any of us can ignore the kinds of concerns that you're talking about and succeed. Let me just say -- perhaps I can close. You gave me a hint of what I should say since I only a few minutes left. Let me focus for a minute on this March date that's riveting everybody's attention. As 164 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 you probably know, we have state regulations and case law which are very prescriptive about the kind of notices and the kinds of individualized reviews of cases we have to do before anyone loses cash assistance benefits. So there's not going to be some automatic cutoff where thousands of people lose benefits all at once because they aren't working for hours a week in March. 11 Every case that appears in our records, 12 where the adult is not doing the requisite number 13 of activity, will be reviewed before anything 14 happens. There's procedures that we go through to 15 figure out why it's happening. People have an 16 opportunity to correct the situation. 17 So it's not as though all of a sudden, 18 on March 4th, there's going to be a looming loss 19 of benefits for thousands of people. Cases will 20 be called in, reviewed individually before people lose benefits. What we are going to be looking for -- well, let me say what we're going to -- we'll provide as much guidance and as many supports as we possibly can, but clients are expected to take 165 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 personal responsibility for meeting this work obligation. They're expected to make specific plans to meet the work requirement and to move towards self-sufficiency, and they're expected to follow the steps in those plans. Clients who do not take those steps will lose cash-assistance benefits, but clients who come in and explain their reasons and take steps to remove the obstacles to meeting the work requirements will not lose benefits. So I think we're working on a very reasonable individualized process that will take some time. It won't happen all of a sudden in March. Of course, if there is a decision for people's benefits to be cut, those decisions are appealable. And there's a separate process for that as well. Let me just close, then, with a plea for your help, if I might.
One of the -- I've spoken to you about some pieces of unfinished business. One of the pieces of unfinished business is to fix the child-care regulations. Another piece of unfinished business is for us to 166 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 complete work on alternative work activities for those people who didn't find separate independent employment. But perhaps the most important piece of unfinished business is to consistently get the word out about how important it is for people to not wait till March to take action, to come into the County Assistance Office and see what the -- we have thousands of vacancies in our training programs. And Greater Philadelphia Works has more, as you heard.
Commissioner, could I interrupt you for a minute? COMMISSIONER HELLER: By all means.
I'd like to ask Mr. Richard Weishaupt to come forward for a moment because I'd like to have a clear indication. On one hand, we're told cataclysmic events are going to occur in March, unless many things happen. And your testimony is to the contrary. Mr. Weishaupt, you heard Commissioner Heller's statement about the hearing process that's needed, that there will be no drastic 167 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 cutoff of large numbers of people. Could you identify yourself for the record and state your agreement or disagreement. We're trying to bring the issues to a head so we know what we have to dealing with.
Good afternoon. My name is Richard Weishaupt. Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Good afternoon.
Well, part of the problem is that it's November 10th, and the new program goes into effect in less than four months. We're still in the planning phase, and we still don't know what's going to happen. We still don't even know where the work activity is going to come from for 25,000 people in the City of Philadelphia. We do know that large numbers of them will probably not have 20 hours of work activity by March 3rd lined up. And the -- we're deathly afraid that even if a small percentage of people, for one reason or another, don't get their mail, don't respond to a letter saying, Hey, you know, you're in trouble, you haven't done your 20 hours, 168 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 come in. Every time that someone doesn't come in on time, maybe because their kid was sick or maybe because they overslept or maybe but they didn't read the letter or maybe because they just didn't want to come. Every one of those families is going to be cut off assistance, and they cannot get back on for at least 30 days under the plan that Deputy Secretary Heller is contemplating. And you heard Mayor Rendell talk about how, Well, if there was 400 people that that happened to, it would cost us you know $2.5 million in child welfare services, plus another million in health services. If the situation of people being sanctioned stays at the current level, the number will be four times higher than what the Mayor is estimating. And if it goes up to 10 or 12 percent, it will be 5 or 6 times higher. So we're looking at a very, very serious possibility. And I don't want -- I will consider it a personal failure if any family in Philadelphia is denied the means to survive because of missing an appointment or getting 169 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 sanctioned. But we're not talking about one child or one family; we're talking about, even under the best of scenarios, hundreds of families. And to tell you the truth, we need to work collectively around the clock to make sure that people are not sanctioned, penalized for failing to comply with these work requirements. I think that Americans of all different income levels want to work, want to be self-reliant, and that we need to do lots more to help them rather than punish them.
Commissioner, can we take this point to recess the hearing? COMMISSIONER HELLER: No, no, I think I need to respond.
Oh, would you like to speak on it now? COMMISSIONER HELLER: It would be appropriate to respond. I'll be brief.
Okay, because I think we're getting to the crux of situations that have to be dealt with, and this Council wants to be in a position to assist all the parties. I don't think we want a single 170 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 Philadelphia to go without food or shelter as a result of the application of laws. We've just got to make sure that that doesn't happen. (Applause.)
Commissioner Heller. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Okay, a couple quick points to respond. One, we have regulations in place. We have had and we continue to have regulations in place which enable people who miss appointments for good cause to not be sanctioned. So I think to throw up the specter of people losing their means of sustenance because of a circumstantial event really misrepresents the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, I confess to you, I'm of two minds as to whether to close on a very reassuring note or to echo the note of alarm you heard from Mr. Weishaupt. On the reassuring part, I stand by what I said -- you're not going to see massive cutoff of benefits in March. Every case will be individually reviewed, and we will be examining to see whether the client, whether the mom, the 171 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 family member -- we won't be artificial and just say "client" -- is actively trying to become self-sufficient; planning for self-sufficiency and taking the steps in her plan. I don't want to be overly reassuring on the other hand, because to be frank, I'm worried about the people who are just waiting to see what happens. I would like to see them come in now. We have vacancies, we have training programs, we have job search assistance for people. And if they just sit around and wait to see what happens, they will get caught up sort and there will be some consequences like lost benefits that we don't want to see. So I think the appropriate note is to say there's not going to be chaos in March. Every circumstance will be reviewed individually. On the other hand, for people who cannot, or will not, respond to the message and take advantage of the opportunities that we can make available, there will be lost benefits.
Well, can I ask one other participant to join the group -- Ed Schwartz, former Councilman Schwartz. 172 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 I just want to close on a note which is a good note for beginning Monday. We want to nail down this question. For example, Commissioner Heller, Commissioner Heller? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Yes.
It strikes me -- I don't know who's going to be right, but I think we'd like to see that before somebody's cut off, some agency, some advocacy group -- maybe the community legal service -- somebody ought to be notified so that before the effective date of cutoff, if there's any sounds reason why the person should not be cut off, even though the record, you know, appears that a cutoff would be justified, some procedure like that might be able to be worked out. And I just raise that for your thinking. I don't ask you to give me an answer to that. (Ed Schwartz comes forward.)
Mr. Schwartz, if you could briefly join this discussion. Just identify yourself. It's former Councilman Schwartz, but identify yourself. I'm told you're entitled to 173 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 use that title.
I am former Councilman Ed Schwartz, Head of the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. We've been paying very close attention to these issues and have organized a sizeable coalition around it. I have a few comments. One, March is the beginning of a process -- not the beginning and end of a process; meaning that people's 16-month or 24-month consecutive limit continues to run out on March 4th and 5th and 6th. So to ask what happens in March and say, Well, we're not going to have chaos in March doesn't really address what we're facing. In 1981, when the Reagan budget passed, there were no homeless people lying in the streets. When I served on City Council, there were 4,000 and 500 people in the streets. And if 174 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 we said that in 1981, we would have looked like maniacs, but that's where it was. Now, the one thing that was obscured this morning that I don't think you yet maybe fully understand -- Commissioner Heller had certainly referred to it -- the State Act 35 has a very precise definition of work that is much more restrictive than the federal definition of work-related activities. Under the federal definition, you can continue to pursue job training, vocational education, and certain other things while looking for a job as work-related. But the state's definition, passed by the legislature, that defines this for Pennsylvania, is that people must be working -- work, what you and I would call a job for hours a week. Starting March 3rd, that 19 begins, all those with 24 months. 20 Now the number of people who will be vulnerable to that has shifted around in these projections for the last six months per year. The most conservative number that we've heard is 15,000 in Philadelphia will be eligible, will be vulnerable to that as of March 3rd. 175 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671
I know he said 26, but I'm using the cautious number that's been given most recently because they can exempt a certain number of people and all of this.
Well, I know. I'm just saying what the state has said. And 15,000, by the way -- I mean, we get used to these numbers as is if -- 15,000 is 2/3 of the entire workforce of the City of Philadelphia. So 15,000 would be alarming enough, and it's obviously going to grow. Now, we have one of two choices here. You can either believe that somehow, all of these placements processes are going to yield enough reduction in the vulnerable people by March 3rd, that we won't have a problem. I don't believe that. Or we can do what the job policy network is asking and what we enjoin and others are asking is for the state legislature to revisit its definition of work and include education and looking for work request. If that happened, then 176 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 we would be able to solve the problem. What we hear here is that we're not going to change the definition of work, but there's going to be some kind of grace period of good intentions on the part of the recipient where we won't sanction them. But how long can that go on? Is the Welfare Department in Philadelphia going to endlessly disobey the law? The law requires that people work for hours a week. 12 And here is the conundrum that the 13 state is faced with. We are a work-first state. 14 Every other state with the work-first philosophy 15 has added a huge workfare program to go along with 16 it. So they guarantee a job. 17 As Councilman Ortiz points out, 38,000 18 people in the city of New York are working for the 19 city, under workfare. And the welfare reform 20 advocates with whom I met last summer there are focussed entirely on workfare. What shoe we are all waiting to hear drop is the so-called work net program which is, in fact, described very generally here. There will be no way of solving this problem unless they 177 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 change the law, in which case all sorts of education and training become eligible without a massive community service jobs component that permits people to work hours a week. There may 6 be grace periods that they're willing to provide 7 for good intention. 8 If they say they'll provide that good 9 intention forever, as long as somebody seems to be 10 trying to, you know, get a job, then, of course, 11 they've found a way out from under what the law 12 requires. But the law requires that everyone who 13 reaches welfare for 24 consecutive months ends up 14 having to work 20 hours a week. 15 And what's marvelous about these 16 statistics that I was looking at is that if you 17 add up the number of people who got placed in 18 jobs, that's 24,215 over the 19 months they're 19 looking at. The case load itself dropped by 20 significantly less than that. So the questions are --
Well, but I'm just using real numbers as opposed to the percentages. The 178 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 24,000 -- the real case load drop was about or 11,000, something like that. So that means one of three things. It means that new people were coming on welfare to uptake the case load, and some of that is there. It means that some of these people are working at jobs whose income is so low that, in fact, they're still receiving TANF under the earned-income disregard because that disregard means you still get federal welfare money and, therefore, you're still on welfare, as far as the federal law is concerned, and your five-year clock is still ticking placed. Or it means a certain number of these people are placed in jobs and, in fact, they ended up back on welfare two, three months later. So if we're really looking at what we're up against, we have to look at the reduction in the case load. The fact is, as of March 3, 1997, we needed to reduce the case load by 890 a month in order to reach the goal of percent of people, with just about everybody off of welfare in months by the year 1002. And we are, not even in 179 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 these best of times, doing that. But the bottom line for March 3rd is, a law has been passed, and we should forget the word "welfare." People who are working are not on welfare. So what we're talking about is a workforce expansion program. We are expanding the workforce by another 50 to 60,000 people over the 5-year period who right now, as welfare recipients, weren't even counted as part of the workforce. So we're expanding this workforce by anywhere from to 25,000 people by March in 15 part-time jobs.
And if there are not the jobs available for them in the government or the private sector --
Councilman, let me give Commissioner Heller the last word for today.
And then we're going to be recessing till 10 o'clock on Monday. Commissioner Heller, is there anything 180 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 you want to say? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Sure. I think the most important thing to do is to correct a slight factual inaccuracy that might mislead people.
All right. COMMISSIONER HELLER: It is not the case that the only hours of work activity that maintain eligibility after months of cash 11 assistance is a job. That is not correct, okay? 12
What else is there? 13 COMMISSIONER HELLER: Work activity 14 could include subsidized employment. 15
That's a job. 16 COMMISSIONER HELLER: Paid or unpaid 17 work experience. 18
That's a job. 19 COMMISSIONER HELLER: Community 20 service. 21
That's a job. 22 COMMISSIONER HELLER: I thought I was 23 going to get the last word here, my friend. 24
Not in misleading people, you're not. 181 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 COMMISSIONER HELLER: And --
Not while I'm sitting here, you're not going to continue to mislead these people. That's all work. You see, they've got different definitions. A job is somebody that's an employer that pays you. This is all work, as opposed to sitting in a classroom, going on a job search, or going on job training. COMMISSIONER HELLER: No, it's a -- okay, no --
Are any of those three activities -- looking for a job, job training or vocational education are any of those considered work under the state law? Are they? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Let's clear up the --
No, you've been sitting here for two years misleading this city with statistics that, in fact, don't make any sense. (Applause.)
I assure you, Madame, I know at least as much about all of this as you do and ran programs of this magnitude. So you're not 182 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 going to get away with it here. Does job training, vocational education, or job search count as "work" under Act 35? COMMISSIONER HELLER: Let me be as precise as I can. A work activity looks more like a job than it does like classroom instruction; there is no ambiguity about that, all right? Work experiences provided in the context of an educational program will count. So, for example, anybody who would come into the County Assistance Office now and sign up for a Community Solutions education program, a Single Point of Contact education program, or any of the other contract that DPW has with education and training providers, would, as part of that contractual arrangement, include hours of work 20 activity, subsidized employment, internship sorts of activities, so that a person does not have to choose between such an education program and meeting the work. There is no ambiguity, however, that that's a lot of hours for a single parent to do 183 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 the hours of work activity and to get education is hard. That's why it's so important that people come in before their 24 months are up and take advantage of the education and training programs that we have to offer.
And all I am saying in 8 response to that is that the programs that are 9 being described are those that are 35-hour-a-week 10 programs so they include 20 hours of community 11 work experience. I am running that program, so I 12 know what it looks like. It's not under their 13 contract. We have a program where recipients work 14 for 20 hours a week, so we're qualified under 15 this. 16 But the difference between the federal 17 law and the state law is that somebody sitting in 18 a classroom training program for vocational 19 education, preparing to be something else, but 20 they're sitting there, under the federal law, that is still qualified as a work-related activity. And under the state law, it is not qualified. So all of the PIC training providers were brought together a month ago by the PIC, and they were told by the PIC that if they were 184 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 running training programs, they had to completely throw out their classroom models. (Applause.)
And it turn on its head in order to be able to accommodate hours a week 7 of work. 8 So that's what I'm saying. And we have 9 just heard in response to that, again, obscuring 10 what's going on, that we are running certain 11 programs that involve 20 hours a week. 12 But that's not what we're up against. 13 We're up against 15,000 people who need to be 14 working 20 hours a week under some arrangement, 15 whatever else they do. And who is supposed to 16 provide those jobs, as Councilwoman Tasco asked? 17 I've spent most of my quarter looking 18 at economic development. I'm on the architect 19 program, and I can tell you from that experience 20 that there is not a shred of possibility that enough jobs will be created in the City of Philadelphia alone to accommodate this workforce, so it's time to stop obscuring the magnitude of the problem. The city is involving this program for 185 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 precisely 750 people at any given moment. That is the number of people who, at any given moment, are going to be working in the public works part of it. Everyone else is looking for work. Those 6,000 people a year, they're all looking for work. And if their 24-month time limit expires as of March 3rd of next year, you know what, they've got to be looking for work while they're working for hours a week. 11 So we, again, are all very interested 12 in what the work net program will look like, 13 because that is where, in fact, the state is 14 talking about responding to the problem, which is 15 to create a framework for community service work 16 that gives people 20 hours a week of work 17 experience. 18 And, by the way, not only don't I have 19 I have a problem with that; I have been running 20 that program for five years. And I don't have this view that a person who is working for our communities, working for the good of the community or the city, is doing something other than work or a job. We are expanding the workforce, and it 186 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 seems to me, we need to expand what we mean by "work." (Applause.)
And that is anything that involves improving the value of our life in the community. And that's something that neither the city program nor the state program has yet come to grips with.
Commissioner Heller, I think this is a pretty good place to stop the discussion today. We'd like to know, from the state's point of view, whether you believe Councilman Schwartz is right. If he's right, then we would hope that there would be a recommendation from the Governor to the State Legislature to change the state law. If it's not right, then we'd like to understand why he's not right. COMMISSIONER HELLER: Yeah. I think the gentleman made about 15 points in his remarks, so it's impossible for me to just give you a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down about whether I agree. Let me reassure you, however, that 187 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 there is no intention to obscure what the requirement is, all right? Work activity, whether it's paid or unpaid, looks like work; it don't look like classroom instruction. And the General Assembly, in Act 35, was unambiguous that they expected people who remain on cash assistance longer than months to 9 be doing some sort of work activity to remain 10 eligible for those cash-assistance benefits. 11
Mr. Chairman, Madame 14 Chairwoman, obviously, I think, as the Mayor 15 stated and I stated, this is probably the biggest 16 public policy problem that we're going to be faced 17 as a city within the next five years. 18 We as a legislative body, as the Mayor 19 again stated, have not looked at this in any 20 in-depth form. We looked at it a year and a half 21 ago, we looked at it today. 22 Meanwhile, throughout the whole period 23 of time, notwithstanding the fact, our homeless 24 program has not been reformed, we have not looked at how we are spending that type of money. 188 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 We approved a sidewalk behavior bill, that if this goes through and the effects of this reform happen, we are not going to need a sidewalk; we're going to need a highway behavior bill, because that's what's go to be happening. (Applause.)
Our answers to the problem have been to put into place legislation prohibiting things instead of looking at the way that we can resolve the issues of employment, joblessness and training that we have. And I hope -- I hope that -- this is not the end because we should have had -- I've had -- I have seven pages of questioning for you here, Madame Secretary, which we're not going to get into because of time. So I would hope that we continue this hearing immediately, that everybody comes back, they we do what the Mayor said, that we keep on doing exactly what we did today -- clarifying, taking the obscurity out of this issue, the obfuscation that has happened on the issue, to take the semantics out of it. A job is a job is a job is a job. 189 PUB. HEALTH/HUM. SVCS. AND LAW & GOV'T. - RES. 960671 And that's what we should be looking at. And a living-wage-paying job is a job. (Applause.)
So I would hope, Mr. Chair, that we have the proximate hearing, and that nothing else is scheduled, so that the people can come in here, so that the Secretary can come back, so that everybody can get a full understanding, and the City Council can get a full understanding of this so that we don't have six hearings in one day.
The joint committees stand in recess until Monday morning, at 10 o'clock. Thank you. (Adjourned at 1:35 p.m.) - - - 190 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 Tuesday, November 10, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: JOINT COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AND LAW & GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION NO. 960671 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter