Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428630
label
Comprehensive Strategies [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428630
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Comprehensive Strategies [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428630
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-013-013-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
512ffb250cd2b367
ocrText
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
TALKING POINTS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE WORKING GROUP
MEETING ON STRENGTHENING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 12, 1996
I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to join you this evening. I'd also
like to thank all of you -- from federal, state and local government agencies and from
non-governmental entities -- for all that you do for children and families everyday.
The goal of this meeting is to make all of you aware of what the Administration is
doing to strengthen children and families, to hear from you about creative strategies
you are using and the obstacles you are facing, and to look for ways that the federal
government can be a better partner.
As a society, our greatest challenge on the eve of a new century is to cherish our
children and strengthen America's families. We can't simply talk about family values.
We must act in ways that value families.
Most of us understand that there is nothing more important in this world than how we
raise and love our children. Parents have the primary responsibility for making sure
our children grow up in stable, loving, two-parent homes. Nothing can replace the
attention, encouragement and discipline of a parent.
But there is also much that we can do as a society to help parents and support
families. The question is how, as a society, do we build strong families, secure more
educational and economic opportunities for individuals, rid our neighborhoods of
crime, protect our environment, and nurture our children?
We can only do it through partnerships in which all segments
March 11, 1996
REMARKS AT WHITE HOUSE WORKING MEETING
ON PARTNERSHIPS FOR STRONGER FAMILIES
DATE:
Tuesday, March 12
TIME:
7:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Organization of American States
Washington, D.C.
FROM:
Jennifer Klein and Brenda Costello
I.
PURPOSE
The purpose of "The White House Working Meeting on Partnerships for Stronger
Families" is to discuss ways that the federal government can be most helpful to states
and localities attempting to develop community-based, comprehensive strategies for
children and families. The meeting is designed: (1) to make states and localities more
aware of existing federal activities; and (2) to get candid and constructive ideas from
the people on the front lines of policy and practice to help guide federal actions and to
build new partnerships to strengthen families. The Administration's view that
parents have primary responsibility for raising children is made clear in the
attached statement, and the meeting will focus in large part on what government
and community organizations can and should be doing to support parents.
In the panel discussion following your remarks, the Cabinet Secretaries and other
panel members will share with participants specific examples of what the federal
government is doing to promote partnerships with states and communities to improve
services for children and families.
II.
BACKGROUND
Development of the Working Meeting on Partnerships for Stronger Families.
This meeting builds on a meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for School-Based and
School-Linked Initiatives that was held by the Administration in July of 1994.
Participants in that meeting realized that strategies to improve education that
developed out of that meeting could be applied more broadly to services for children
and families. As a result, a Federal Working Group on Partnerships for Stronger
Families was convened made up of representatives from the Departments of Health
and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice Labor,
Transportation, Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture as well as
representatives from the White House offices of Domestic Policy, the National
Performance Review, and the National Economic Council.
Preparation for March 12-13 Meeting. The Federal Working Group on Partnerships
for Stronger Families met in January with representatives from local programs,
community organizations and foundations, city health and justice departments, and
state agencies and executive agencies. The group used a case study of the Sandtown-
Winchester Community Center in Baltimore, Maryland to look at how the federal
government can participate in and facilitate community and state efforts to improve
services for children. The Sandtown-Winchester Community Center was formed in
1990 as part of a revitalization effort in the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood of
Baltimore. Community-driven efforts have reduced crime, increased employment,
improved health and housing opportunities, and begun to stimulate the local economy.
March 12-13 Meeting. The March 12-13 meeting will continue this conversation and
press for action -- that can be done administratively -- in the following areas:
financing comprehensive strategies, building capacity, strengthening data and
information systems, streamlining bureaucracy, and improving accountability.
Every state has been invited and has been asked to bring an individual working in
education, an individual working in health, and a representative from the local level.
The following states will be represented at the meeting: Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia. In addition, there will be a
number of academics and private sector participants, including the Danforth
Foundation (that is supporting the meeting), the National Governors' Association, Bill
Galston, the Carnegie Corporation, and the National Research Council's Board on
Children and Families.
The meeting will consist of your remarks, a panel discussion with Cabinet Members
and other agency representatives, a series of small group break-out sessions on
Wednesday morning, and a town meeting moderated by the Vice-President on
Wednesday afternoon.
Panel Discussion. Each Cabinet official or representative will focus on one thing
their agency is working on to facilitate Partnerships for Stronger Families.
Secretary Cisneros: Reorganization of HUD
Secretary Riley: Ed-Flex Waivers
NOTE: The Department of Education has approved "ed-flex" waivers for five
states (Oregon, Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas). Under these waivers,
the state must waive its own statutory or regulatory requirements and is given
the authority to waive federal law without coming to the Department of
Education for permission.
Attorney General Reno: Blended Funding for Safe Futures Cites
Peter Edelman: Family Preservation
Ellen Haas: USDA's Team Nutrition Schools
Elaine Kamark: NPR's activity to enable Cabinet Agencies to achieve their goals
III.
PARTICIPANTS
Panel
Moderator - Carol Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros
Attorney General Janet Reno
Secretary of Education Richard Riley
Peter Edelman, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation at the Department of
Health and Human Services (for Secretary Shalala)
Ellen Haas, Assistant Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, USDA
(for Secretary Glickman)
Elaine Kamarck, Senior Advisor to the Vice-President and Director of the National
Performance Review
Audience
See attached list.
IV.
SEQUENCE
V.
PRESS
Closed.
VI.
REMARKS
Talking Points prepared by Jennifer Klein.
February 27, 1996
The Honorable Donna E. Shalala
Secretary
received
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
Dear Secretary Shalala:
As you know, the White House working meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for Children
and Families -- originally scheduled for November 14-15, 1995 -- was postponed due to the
partial government shutdown. The meeting has been rescheduled for March 12 and 13, 1996.
The purpose of this letter is to formally invite you to participate in a panel discussion on the
evening of Tuesday, March 12. We will start with a reception and dinner, beginning at 5:30
p.m. The panel discussion will follow at 7:30 p.m. and will end promptly at 8:45 p.m. We
will convene at the Organization of American States building, located on 1889 F Street.
The objective of the White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies - co-hosted
by the Domestic Policy Council, the National Performance Review, the U.S. Department of
Education, and the Institute for Educational Leadership - is to develop specific action steps to
improve service results for children and families. We are bringing together representatives of
various states and localities with extensive practical experience concerning the implementation
of a more community-based and comprehensive approach.
Your participation in the panel will provide participants with the opportunity to hear about
specific examples of what the federal government is doing to promote comprehensive
strategies for children and families. It is this discussion that will set the context for our work
the following day.
In preparation for March 12, the Domestic Policy Council meeting on Monday, March 4 will
focus exclusively on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and Families. Materials for that
meeting are forthcoming.
Please have the appropriate person on your staff contact Gaynor McCown, Senior Policy
Analyst here at the Domestic Policy Council, if you have any questions. She can be reached
at 456-5575.
In advance, my thanks to you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carol H. Rasco
Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy
March 11, 1996
A MEMORANDUM FOR CAROL H. RASCO
FROM:
GAYNOR McCOWN
SUBJECT: MARCH 12-13
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a general overview
of activities on March 12 and 13th with a specific emphasis on
your participation. Attached you will find the following:
Annotated Agenda
Reception Groups
Dinner Groups
Talking Points for March 12
Session One / Two Groups
Session Three Groups
Talking Points for March 13
The White House Working Meeting on Partnerships for Stronger
Families will begin with a very brief reception on Tuesday at
6:00 p.m. During the reception, each participant will be asked
to talk with at least four other people with the same color
badge. Specifically, participants will be asked to:
(1) Learn something about each other's work, and
(2) Discover what the other people hope to gain from
and contribute to the meeting.
If you are able to attend the reception your name badge will have
a purple dot. Therefore, you will speak with others (list
attached) who have a purple dot. Facilitators and staff will
mingle and help with pulling people into conversations.
The dinner will begin at 6:30 p.m. You will be seated (list of
others seated at your table is attached) at table # 14. There is
no formal program during the dinner but we have placed at least
one core meeting planning person at each table to serve as a
"table host" and facilitator as needed.
The panel discussion will begin promptly at 7:30 p.m. Please
note that the First Lady is scheduled to be there at 7:30 p.m. to
make some brief remarks before the panel begins. However, this
is subject to change. In addition to the First Lady, the
following principals have confirmed their participation:
Secretary Cisneros
Secretary Riley
Attorney General Reno
Peter Edelman
Ellen Haas
Elaine Kamarck
We have asked each panel member to speak for five minutes,
focusing on one activity their agency is engaged in to promote
partnerships for stronger families. On your talking points, I
have included the full names of each panel participants, their
titles and an indication of the topic in which they will focus.
The sequence of events for Tuesday evening will be as follows:
YOU will make some brief remarks.
**In setting the tone, YOU will outline the broad goals
for this initiative --Partnerships for Stronger
Families -- providing a context or the "glue" that ties
together the various related activities throughout the
administration.
YOU will introduce the First Lady.
The First Lady will speak for about 10 minutes.
***At this point, the First Lady is scheduled to leave
immediately following her remarks.
YOU will then call on each Cabinet official.
NOTE: Each Cabinet official will focus on one thing their
agency is engaged in to facilitate Partnerships for Stronger
Families. Following is a list of officials, in the order in
which they will speak, along with an indication of what they
will focus on during their presentation:
Secretary Cisneros: Reorganization of HUD
Secretary Riley: Ed-Flex Waivers
Attorney General Reno: Blended Funding for Safe Futures
Peter Edelman: Family Preservation
Ellen Haas: USDA's Team Nutrition Schools
Elaine Kamarck: What NPR is engaged in to better enable
Cabinet Agencies to achieve their goals.
Talking points for your presentation and introduction of the
First Lady are attached.
WEDNESDAY: MARCH 13, 1996
On Wednesday morning, we will begin the day in small groups. From
8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., we are allowing for introductions and
networking in the small groups. At 8:30 a.m. the session will
begin. In these groups, state and local participants will
outline, to each other as well as to other participants, key
aspects of their efforts to improve the lives of children and
families. What factors are essential to success? How could
changes in federal, state and local roles and relationships
enable greater success? Each group will have three states as
well as some diversity of governmental, foundation and other
representatives. I would suggest you participate in the small
group with the States of Indiana, Minnesota and Vermont. This
session will be facilitated by Richard Gross, Executive Director,
Council of Governors' Policy Advisors.
Session two will be in the same groups. Each group will now
focus on the draft "Framework for Federal Action." Are the major
issue areas the ones that are most significant to states and
communities? If not, how should they be revised? Which actions
are most important to fosters and support effective state and
community strategies for children and families?
Lunch begins at 12:00 p.m. and will be very informal (box
lunches) in the Indian Treaty Room.
Session three -- beginning at 1:00 p.m. -- will be broken down
into issue areas. I would like to suggest that you participate
in group one, which will focus on building capacity. Judy
Chynoweth will facilitate this session.
The Vice-President will moderate session four, the Town Hall
Meeting. The session begins at 2:30 p.m. and the Vice- 15
President's participation is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
However, there is a good chance he will be a little late.
Therefore, I have provided a list of people who you will call on,
along with specific questions for each one.
Following the Town Hall Meeting, there will be a short break. We
will reconvene for the final session at 4:00, which will be
facilitated by Elaine Kamarck. This session is an opportunity to
focus on specific action steps. Each person will be asked to
spend about five minutes writing one / two immediate steps they
will take. We will provide forms for them in their packets and
collect them as they are leaving the meeting. Elaine will spend
a few minutes focusing on next steps for the Federal Working
Group, facilitate a discussion and she will close the meeting by
inviting the states and localities to enter into partnership --
both formal and informal -- with the federal government.
The White House Working Meeting on Partnerships for Stronger
Families will adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
ELAINE KAMARCK
CAROL RASCO
ALICE RIVLIN
LAURA TYSON
LDT
SUBJECT:
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update regarding our ongoing efforts on Comprehensive
Strategies for Children and Families. Unfortunately, the government shutdowns and weather have prevented
us from staying on schedule but we want to take this opportunity to reiterate our interest in moving forward
and to indicate a new timeline. Please note that we have rescheduled the White House Working Meeting on
Comprehensive Strategies (previously scheduled for November 14-15) for March 12-13, 1996. More details
bout the meeting are forthcoming.
The National Performance Review, the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget and
the National Economic Council are all making it a top priority to encourage federal agencies to explore all
possible means to ensure that states and localities have the ability to pursue more comprehensive strategies
for children and families. Several different Administration initiatives -- including the Department of
Education's Working Group on Coordinated Services, the President's Prevention Council, HUD's Campus of
Learners Project, the Youth Initiative Working Group, the Urban Policy Working Group, DOJ's Juvenile
Justice Coordinating Council and other related reinvention efforts -- have provided us with ideas and
suggestions for moving forward. Furthermore, the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative
and the Administration's partnerships with Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia and soon Connecticut are
indicative of our commitment to changing the way government does business. Your input and support are
essential to this process.
In preparation for the White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families, a federal working group, comprised of representatives from your departments, has met several
times to begin discussing specific action steps the federal government can take. On January 26, we hosted a
discussion with individuals from the State of Maryland who have been working to implement comprehensive
strategies for children and families. Representatives from local programs, community organizations and
foundations, city health and justice departments. state agencies, and seven federal agencies participated in the
meeting. This meeting provided a wonderful opportunity for federal government participants to hear directly
from individuals whose programs and clients we are seeking to help. The substance of the discussion was
based on a case study and local participants' experiences with federal government programs. The meeting
closed with all federal participants indicating what they had learned and what issues they intend to address
as part of their contribution to the concrete steps the federal government will take. The next step is for each
federal agency to move forward on developing a specific plan for addressing issues identified.
We will have a follow-up meeting on February 14 to review agency plans and begin outlining an overall
administration agenda for intergovernmental partnerships. The work that results from these two meetings
will flow into the White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and Families
(previously scheduled for November 14-15) to be held in the early part of March. Please note that while
this meeting will be an opportunity to focus on all three levels of government, our primary interest is
highlighting the changes that can be made at the federal level within existing law. Some examples may
include: (1) inconsistent planning cycles or auditing requirements in federal categorical programs; (2) lack
of flexible federal funding to support services; (3) difficulties in accessing Medicaid reimbursement; (4)
conflicting confidentiality and eligibility requirements in education, health and nutrition programs; (5) lack
of easily accessible information about what funding is available to support comprehensive strategies.
The White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies will result in a document that is as
detailed as possible -- referring to specific action steps by the different levels of government and a strategy
and timeline for accomplishing our goals.
UPDATED TIMELINE.
Early-February -
Agencies Develop Action Plans
February 14- 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Final Federal Working Group Meeting to Refine Agency Plans
March 12-13
White House Working Meeting with States and Localities on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families
Early April --
Completed Document Summarizing Action Steps and Timeline
attachment: List of Federal Working Group Participants
cc:
Federal Working Group
TALKING POINTS FOR CAROL H. RASCO
PARTNERSHIPS FOR STRONGER FAMILIES
MARCH 12TH DINNER PANEL
I want to begin by welcoming you all here tonight. We were truly sorry that the last
meeting was cancelled due to the partial government shut-down but we're glad to be
with you here now. Many thanks for joining us.
I would like to begin with a special thanks to the Danforth Foundation for supporting
this meeting, which is being co-hosted by the Domestic Policy Council, the National
Performance Review, the Department of Education and the Institute for Educational
Leadership.
I also want to acknowledge the efforts of a few individuals who have worked hard to
prepare for the next couple of days: Margaret Dunkle, Director of the IEL Policy
Exchange, Barbara Dyer, a Public Policy Consultant, Jeanne Jehl, Executive Director
of the Working Group on Coordinated Services at the Department of Education,
Jeremy Ben-Ami and Gaynor McCown from the Domestic Policy Council and
Beverly Godwin from the National Performance Review.
We have invited each of you here to participate in this meeting because of the
significant and effective work you are doing at the state and local levels to enable
stronger families.
The purpose of the meeting is to get candid and constructive ideas from the people on
the front lines of policy and practice to help guide federal actions and to build new
partnerships that strengthen families.
I want to emphasize that this is a working meeting. Therefore, some of the documents
you have received in your packet are working drafts which we intend to improve upon
based on what we learn tonight and tomorrow.
But our work will not end tomorrow. These two days of meetings are part of an
ongoing effort of the Clinton Administration.
There is a Federal Working Group on Partnerships for Stronger Families -- comprised
of representatives from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education,
Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Commerce, and the
Department of Agriculture as well as representatives from the White House offices of
the Domestic Policy Council, the National Performance Review, and the National
Economic Council -- that has been meeting and will continue to meet and follow on
what we learn here.
This meeting and the work of the Federal Working Group build on a White House
meeting held in the summer of 1994 on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families and many other activities the Clinton Administration has been engaged in
since.
It is our hope and indeed expectation that this meeting will give us the opportunity to
begin thinking about some concrete and important steps toward building additional
partnerships -- both formal and informal -- to enable all people to make the most of
their lives through stronger families.
But, in order to get from here to there, we will need thoughtful and candid input from
all of you.
As many of you know, the Clinton Administration has already entered into several
federal / state partnerships and federal / local partnerships.
These partnerships are a wonderful example of this Administration's reinvention effort,
which is a big and important part of President Clinton's domestic policy agenda.
Federal agencies are working together, more than ever before, to help enable States
and communities to meet the needs of their families.
One of the most exciting aspects of our efforts is that, in the interest of economic
development and neighborhood revitalization, the focus is not just on bringing capital
into the area. Children and families who live and work in the communities are at the
forefront. Therefore, community residents, schools, religious and other community-
based organizations are directly engaged in the process.
Issues affecting children and families are not and should not be marginal issues when
discussing economic development. Our notion of who we are as a people and what
we stand for as a nation depends on the strength of our communities and that depends
to a large extent on how we treat our children and families. President Clinton and the
First Lady have made investing in the future of children and families central to the
policy mission of this country. When families flourish, communities and nations will
flourish.
With the general philosophy that children are best served in the context of strong
families and strong families make up strong communities, this Administration has
worked hard to enhance and compliment the existing efforts in communities and to
develop and implement comprehensive strategies for neighborhood revitalization.
We look forward to hearing from you. Meanwhile, we would like for you to hear
from several Administration officials about some of the specific things we have been
up to.
The panel participants tonight are:
Richard Riley
-- the Secretary of Education
Henry Cisneros
-- the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Janet Reno
-- the Attorney General
Peter Edelman
-- the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation,
HHS
Ellen Haas
-- the Assistant Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services, USDA
Elaine Kamarck
-- Senior Advisor to the Vice-President and Director of
the National Performance Review
We are grateful to all of you for taking the time to join us.
I would now like to introduce our first speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, a champion
for children and families, the First Lady of the United States -- Hillary Rodham
Clinton.
NOTE: The First Lady will speak for approximately 10 minutes. Following the First Lady's
remarks, panel participants will speak for no more than five minutes each to highlight one
thing their department is doing that effectively promotes partnerships for stronger families.
Attached is a list of panel participants, along with the topic they will focus on. Following the
presentations by each panel participant, the audience will have an opportunity to ask
questions. There will be a microphone available on the floor.
Secretary Cisneros:
Reorganization of HUD
Secretary Riley:
Ed Flex Waivers
Attorney General Reno:
Blended Funding for Safe Futures (or Comprehensive
Communities)
Peter Edelman:
Family Preservation and Support
Ellen Haas:
USDA's Team Nutrition Schools
Elaine Kamarck:
What NPR is engaged in to better enable Cabinet Agencies to
achieve their goals.
NOTE: If things go as scheduled, we will have 25 minutes left
for questions from the audience. YOU will moderate.
As of 3/11/96
WHITE HOUSE WORKING MEETING ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
PARTICIPANT LIST
STATE PARTICIPANTS
ARKANSAS
Don Crary
Executive Director
New Futures For Little Rock Youth
209 W. Capitol
Little Rock, AR 72201
tel: 501-374-1011
fax: 501-688-8342
COLORADO
Patricia Gabow, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Denver Health and Hospitals
777 Bannock Street
3rd Floor - Administration
Denver, CO 80204 - 4507
tel: 303-436-6600
fax: 303-436-5131
Donna Good
Senior Assistant to the Mayor
City and County of Denver
1437 Bannock Street
Room 350
Denver, CO 80204
tel: 303-640-2358
fax: 303-640-2329
Barbara McDonnell
Executive Director
Department of Human Services
1575 Sherman Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
tel: 303-866-5096
fax: 303-866-4740
CONNECTICUT
Nicholas Carbone
President
Connecticut Institute of Municipal Studies
State Capitol, Room 417
Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
tel: 203-240-0291
fax: 203-240-8309
Dennis King
Executive Assistant for Urban Affairs
Executive Offices of the Governor
State Capitol of Connecticut
Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
tel: 203-566-4840 x331
fax: 203-524-7396
INDIANA
Cheryl Sullivan
Secretary
Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
402 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 7083
Indianapolis, IN 46207-7083
tel: 317-233-4452
fax: 317-233-4693
Dianna Wallace
Step Ahead/Quality Director
Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
402 W. Washington St.
P.O. Box 7083
Indianapolis, IN 46207-7083
tel: 317-232-1684
fax: 317-233-4693
IOWA
Sally Titus Cunningham
Deputy Director for Services
Iowa Department of Human Services
Hoover Bldg., 5th Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319-0114
tel: 515-281-6360
fax: 515-281-4597
Harriet Johnson
Vice President
IES Utilities, Inc.
200 1st Street, SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
tel: 319-398-4411
KENTUCKY
Lois Adams-Rogers
Deputy Commissioner of Learning Support Services
Capital Plaza Tower - 17th Floor
500 Mero Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
tel: 502-564-3301
fax: 502-564-6952
email: [email protected]
Ed Reidy
Deputy Commissioner
Learning Results Services Bureau
1932 Capital Plaza Tower
500 Mero Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
tel: 502-564-2256
fax: 502-564-7749
email: [email protected]
Robert Sexton
Executive Director
The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence
P.O. Box 1658
Lexington, KY 40592-1658
tel: 606-233-9849
fax: 606-233-0760
MARYLAND
Patrick M. Costigan
Vice President and Director of Neighborhood Transformation
The Enterprise Foundation
Neighborhood Transformation Office, Third Floor
218 West Saratoga Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
tel: 410-727-8535
fax: 410-727-8620
Tom Coyle
Assistant Commissioner for Maternal, Infant Care and
Special Projects
Baltimore City Health Department
303 East Fayette Street, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-396-9994
fax: 410-347-7602
Linda Ellard
Area Director, Area 1
Baltimore City Department of Juvenile Justice
321 Fallsway
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-333-6877
fax: 410-333-2888
Sherri Killins
Chief of Operations
Empower Baltimore Management Corporation
111 South Clavert Street, Suite 1550
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-783-4473
fax: 410-783-0526
Teresa Knott
Project Administrator for Student Assessment
Maryland Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street, Seventh Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-767-0643
fax: 410-333-0052
Janis Parks
Director
Family Preservation Initiative, Inc.
2330 St. Paul Street, Second Floor
Baltimore, MD 21218
tel: 410-396-7140
fax: 410-243-1161
MINNESOTA
Linda Kohl
Director of Minnesota Planning
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
tel: 612-297-2325
fax: 612-297-2820
email: [email protected]
Barbara Columbo Nerness, R.N., J.D.
Assistant Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Health
717 Delaware Street, SE, Suite 260
Minneapolis, MN 55414
tel: 612-623-5462
fax: 612-623-5794
email: [email protected]
John Petraborg
Deputy Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Human Services
444 Lafayette Road, Second Floor South
St. Paul, MN 55155
tel: 612-296-6993
fax: 612-296-5868
email: [email protected]
MISSOURI
Frank Muehlheausler
Principal
Clay School
3820 N. 14th Street
St. Louis, MO 63107
tel: 314-231-9608
fax: 314-231-1660
Tim Person, Jr.
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
City Hall, Room 200
1200 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63108
tel: 314-622-3201
fax: 314-622-4061
Steven Renne
Deputy Director
Missouri Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 1527
Broadway State Office Bldg.
Jefferson City, MO 65102-1527
tel: 314-751-8082
fax: 314-751-3203
Linda Thompson
Special Secretary
Maryland Office for Children, Youth and Families
301 West Preston St., Suite 1502
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-225-4160
fax: 410-333-7549
NORTH CAROLINA
C. Robin Britt, Sr.
Secretary
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
101 Blair Drive
Raleigh, NC 27603
tel: 919-733-4534
fax: 919-715-4645
Cathy A. Lawrence
Executive Director
Warren Family Institute
105 South Front Street
P.O. Box 619
Warrenton, North Carolina 27589
tel: 919-257-1134
fax: 919-257-2277
email: [email protected]
OHIO
Penny Jordan
Vice President
National Head Start Center
668 Euclid Ave., Suite 700
Cleveland, OH 44114
tel: 216-696-9077
fax: 216-696-0770
Carol Rehm
Coordinator, Family and Children First
Lucas County
1 Stranahan Square
Toledo, OH 43604
tel: 419-246-4613
fax: 419-246-4614
VERMONT
Cornelius Hogan
Secretary, Agency of Human Services
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-1204
tel: 802-241-2220
fax: 802-241-2979
email: [email protected]
Judy Jerald
Executive Director
Early Education Services
The Parent Child Center of Windham County
218 Canal Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
tel: 802-254-3742
fax: 802-254-3750
WEST VIRGINIA
Steve Heasley
Financing and Program Consultant
Governor's Cabinet
Bldg 1, Room 9
1900 Kanawha Blvd East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
tel: 304-558-0600
fax: 304-558-0596
email: [email protected]
Sue Sergi
Commissioner, Bureau for Children and Families
Department of Health and Human Resources
Bldg 6, Room 617
1900 Kanawha Blvd East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
tel: 304-558-1037
fax: 304-558-4194
DANFORTH FOUNDATION
Robert Koff
Program Directors
The Danforth Foundation
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1080
St. Louis, MO 63105
tel: 314-862-6200
fax: 314-862-2003
email: [email protected]
THE RENAISSANCE INSTITUTE
Linda Lader (Jennifer Wolf)
President
The Renaissance Institute
1026 16th Street, NW, #201
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel: 202-638-1929
fax: 202-638-4141
OTHER PARTICIPANTS
Judy Langford Carter
Executive Director
Family Resources Coalition
200 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1520
Chicago, IL 60604
tel: 312-341-0900
fax: 312-341-9361
email: [email protected]
Gail Christopher
President
Gail C. Christopher Enterprises, Inc.
1400 Shepherd Street, NE - Suite 277
Washington, D.C. 20017-3023
tel: 202-269-5947
fax: 202-269-0417
email: [email protected]
birthdate: 7/12/50
Judy Chynoweth
Executive Director
Foundation Consortium
1321 Garden Highway
Sacramento, CA 95833
tel: 916-646-3646
fax: 916-922-4024
Tony Cippollone
Associate Director
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
701 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: 410-223-2990/2926
fax: :410-223-2927
James P. Connell
Director of Research
Institute for Research and Reform in Education
710 Glengarry Road
Philadelphia, PA 19148
tel: 215-242-2060
fax: 215-242-2257
Angela Covert
Program Officer
The Atlantic Philanthropic Service Company
20th Floor 521 5th Ave.
New York City, NY 10175
tel: 212 916-7306
fax: 212 922-0360
Margaret Dunkle
Director, Policy Exchange
Institute for Educational Leadership
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 310
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel: 202-822-8405
fax: 202-872-4050
Barbara Dyer
Public Management Consultant
131 12th Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
tel: 202-546-9712
fax: 202-544-0466
birthdate: 10/11/51
William Galston, Ph.D.
School of Public Affairs
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
tel: 301-405-6347
fax: 301-314-9346
email: [email protected]
(only on 3/13)
Richard Gross
Executive Director
Council of Governors' Policy Advisors
400 North Capitol St., Suite 390
Washington, D.C. 20001
tel: 202-624-5386
701 258-3569
fax: 202-624-7846
birthdate: 5/27/47
Cheryl Hayes
Executive Director
The Finance Project
1341 G Street, NW - Suite 820
Washington, D.C. 20005
tel: 202-628-4200
fax: 202-628-4205
Nancy Hoit
Advisor to the Vice President on Family Policy
1175 Main Street
Hingham, MA 02043
tel: 617-749-5563
fax: 617-749-5638
Neal Johnson
Executive Editor, The Public Innovator
National Academy of Public Administration
131 12th Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
tel: 202-347-3190
fax: 202-347-3252
Judy Jones
Senior Advisor
Carnegie Corporation of New York
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
tel: 212-371-3200
fax: 212-754-4073
Anne C. Kubisch
Director
Roundtable on Comprehensive Community
Initiatives for Children and Families
The Aspen Institute
345 East 46th Street, Suite 700
New York, NY 10017-3562
tel: 212-697-1226
fax: 212-697-2258
John Kyle
Program Director, Children and Families in Cities
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
tel: (202) 626-3000
fax: (202) 626-3043
Rhonda Lauer
Associate Superintendent
Office of Schools
21st and the Parkway
Philadelphia, PA 19103
tel: 215-299-7840
fax: 215-299-3472
Catriona Macdonald
Senior Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Steny Hoyer
1705 Longworth. H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
tel: 202-225-4131
fax: 202-225-4300
Jennifer Miller
Annie E. Casey Foundation
701 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
tel: (410) 223-2938
fax: (410) 223-2956
Mark Popovich
The Alliance for Redesigning Government
1120 G Street, NW
Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20005
tel: 202-347-3190
fax: 202-347-3252
birthdate: 12-29-54
Thomas A. Shannon
Executive Director
National School Boards Association
1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
tel: 703-838-6700
fax: 703-548-5613
email: [email protected]
Dr. Carl Stenberg
Dean of the Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts
University of Baltimore
1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-5779
tel: 410-837-5361
fax: 410-837-5336
email: [email protected]
Elizabeth Stief
Senior Policy Analyst
National Governors' Association
444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267
Washington, D.C. 20001
tel: 202-624-7873
fax: 202-624-5313
Jule M. Sugarman
Chairman
Center on Effective Service for Children
2555 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20037
tel: 202-785-9524
fax: 202-833-4454
Damian Thorman
Kauffman Foundation
4900 Oak Street
Kansas City, MO 64112
tel: 816-932-1401
fax: 816-751-6866
Ian Riekes Triveres
2100 F St., NW, #203
Washington, DC 20037
tel: 202-496-2208
fax: 202-994-6102 attn: Kathy
email: [email protected]
Laura DeKoven Waxman
Assistant Executive Director
The US Conference of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
tel: 202-861-6707
fax: 202-293-2352
email: [email protected]
FEDERAL PARTICIPANTS
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Michael Fishman
Acting Director of Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Department of Agriculture
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
tel: 703-305-2017
fax: 703-305-2576
Ellen Haas
Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services
Department of Agriculture
14th and Independence Avenue, SW
Room 240E
Washington, D.C. 20250
tel: 202-720-7711
fax: 202-690-3100
Colin Hefferan
Acting Administrator
USDA-CSEES
Department of Agriculture
Room 305A
Jamie L. Whitten Building
Washington, D.C. 20250-2201
tel: (202) 720-4423
fax: (202) 720-8987
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Secretary
Department of Education
600 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-401-3000
fax: 202-401-0954
Judy Heumann
Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Department of Education
330 C Street, SW, Rm. 3006
M.E.S. Building
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-205-5465
fax: 202-205-9252
Jeanne Jehl
Executive Director
Working Group on Comprehensive Services
Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Portals Building, Rm. 604
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-260-1854
fax: 202-260-7767
email: [email protected]
Jim Kohlmoos
Assistant to the Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Portals Building, Rm. 4000
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-401-0113
fax: 202-205-0303
Tanya Oubre
White House Fellow
Department of Education
600 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-205-0687
fax: 202-401-3095
Terry Peterson
Counselor to the Secretary
Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW, Rm. 6133
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 401-3414
fax: 205-5377
email: [email protected]
Sue Ross
Department of Education
600 Independence Ave., SW 20202
tel: 202-401-1265
fax: 202-401-3036
Gerald Tirozzi
Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Portals Building, Rm. 4000
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: 202-401-0113
fax: 202-205-0303
Judy Wurtzel
Special Assistant to the Undersecretary
600 Independence Avenue, SW, Rm. 5164
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: (202) 401-3281
fax: (202) 401-3095
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
The Honorable Donna E. Shalala
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-690-7000
fax: 202-690-5673
Jo Ivey Boufford
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Rm. 716-G
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-690-7694
fax: 202-690-6960
Angela Duran
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Rm. 415F
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-690-5883
fax: 202-690-6518
Peter Edelman
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Rm. 615
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-690-7858
fax: 202-690-7383
(only on March 12)
Olivia Golden
Commissioner
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Mary E. Switzer Building, Rm. 2026
330 C Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-205-8347
fax: 202-205-9721
Ann Segal
Deputy to the Deputy Assistant Secretary
Human Services Policy
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Hubert H. Húmphrey Building, Rm. 404E
Washington, D.C. 20201
tel: 202-690-8410
fax: 690-6562
Linda Sizelove, Co-Director
Office of Medical Services in Medicaid Bureau
H.C.F.A.
C4-14-15
7500 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21244
tel: 410-786-3255
fax: 410-786-3252
birthdate: 1/31/51
Sally Richardson
Director, Medicaid Bureau
7500 Security Avenue, Room C4-26-14
Baltimore, MD 21244
tel: 410-786-3870
fax: 410-786-0025
Ann Rosewater
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Administration for Children and Families
370 L'Enfant. Promenade, SW, 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20447
tel: 202-401-5180
fax: 202-205-3848
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Honorable Henry Cisneros
Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th St., SSW
Washington, D.C. 20410
tel: 202-708-0417
fax: 202-619-8153
Andrew Cuomo
Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, SW, Rm. 7100
Washington, D.C. 20410
tel: 202-708-2690
fax: 202-708-3336
Bruce Katz
Chief of Staff
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, SW, Rm. 10000
Washington, D.C. 20410
tel: 202-708-2713
fax: 202-708-2476
Michael Stegman
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, SW, Rm. 8100
Washington, D.C. 20410
tel: 202-708-1600
fax: 202-619-8000
email: [email protected]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The Honorable Janet Reno
Secretary
Department of Justice
Constitution Ave. and 10th St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
tel: 202-514-2001
fax: 202-514-5958
Shay Bilchik
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Rm. 742
Wasshington, D.C. 20530
tel: 202-307-5911
fax: 202-307-2093
Reggie Robinson
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Dept. of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Rm. 1300
Washington, D.C. 20530
tel: 202-307-5933
fax: 202-514-7805
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J.D. Hoye
Executive Director
School-to-Work Office
400 Virginia Avenue, SW
Suite 210
Washington, D.C. 20202
tel: (202) 401-6222
fax: (202) 401-6211
Josephine Nieves
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Rm. N4459
Washington, D.C. 20210
tel: 202-219-6236
fax: 202-219-7190
email: [email protected]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Judith Burrell
Special Assistant to the Secretary
Dept. of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW, Rm. 10200
Washington, D.C. 20590
tel: 202-366-6524
fax: 202-366-7952
email: [email protected]
Gordon Litton
Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
400 7th Street, SW, Rm. 9328
Washington, D.C. 20590
tel: 202-366-4040
fax: 202-366-9854
DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL
Carol Rasco
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
White House, West Wing, Second Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2216
fax: 202-456-7028
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
White House, OEOB #218-A
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2216
fax: 202-456-7028
Julie Demeo
Special Assistant to the Domestic Policy Advisor
White House, West Wing, Second Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-5392
fax: 202-456-7028
Diana Fortuna
Senior Policy Analyst
White House, OEOB #224A
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-5570
fax: 202-456-7028
Chris Jennings
Special Assistant to the President for Health Policy Development
White House, OEOB #212
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-5575
fax: 202-456-5542
Jennifer Klein
Senior Policy Analyst
White House, West Wing
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2599
fax: 202-456-2878
Gaynor McCown
Senior Policy Analyst
White House, OEOB #210
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-5575
fax: 202-456-7028
email: [email protected]
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ken Apfel
Associate Director, Human Resources
Office of Management and Budget
White House, OEOB #260
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
tel: 202-395-4884
fax: 202-395-5730
The Honorable Edward DeSeve
Controller
Office of Management and Budget
White House, OEOB #349
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
tel: 202-395-3585
fax: 202-395-3047
Nancy-Ann Min
Associate Director, Health and Personnel
Office of Management and Budget
White House, OEOB #262
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
tel: 202-395-5178
fax: 202-395-7289
Katherine Wallmann
Chief Statistician
Office of Management and Budget
White House, NEOB #10201
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20503
tel: 202-395-3093
fax: 202-395-7245
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Paul Dimond
Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
National Economic Council
White House, OEOB #225
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2800
fax: 202-456-2223
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT BOARD
Sheryll Cashin
Staff Director
Community Empowerment Board
Office of the Vice President
White House, OEOB #564
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-5369
fax: 202-456-9054
email: [email protected]
Margaret Pugh
Policy Coordinator
Community Empowerment Board
Office of the Vice President
White House, OEOB #564
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-9039
fax: 202-456-9054
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Marsha Hale
Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs
White House, OEOB #106
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2896
fax: 202-456-2889
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
Elaine Kamarck
Senior Policy Advisor to the Vice President
White House, OEOB #271
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2816
fax: 202-456-6429
Wendy New
Special Assistant
Office of the Vice President
White House, OEOB #271
Washington, D.C. 20500
tel: 202-456-2816
fax: 202-456-6924
(only on March 13)
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Judi Gold
National Performance Review
750 17th Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
tel: 202-632-1182
fax: 202-632-0390
Beverly Godwin
National Performance Review
750 17th Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
tel: 202-632-0374
fax: 202-632-0390
email: [email protected]
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Cynthia M. Taeuber
Director, Customer Liaison Office
Bureau of the Census
Washington, DC 20233
tel: 301-457-2479
fax: 301-457-2642
email: [email protected]
(only on March 13)
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Katherine Abrahams
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics
2 Massachusetts Ave, NE, Rm 4040
Washington, DC 20212
tel: 202-606-7800
fax: 202-606-7797
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Duane Alexander
Director,
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development
Bldg 31, Room 2A03
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892
tel: 301-496-3454
fax: 301-402-1104
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
Jeanne Griffith
Acting Commissioner,
National Center for Education Statistics
555 New Jersey Ave, NW
Room 400F
Washington, DC 20208-1828
tel: 202-219-1828
fax: 202-219-1736
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR JEREMY BENAMI
GAYNOR McCOWN
FROM:
PAUL DIMOND
SUBJECT:
DRAFT STATEMENT ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
CC:
LAURA TYSON
GENE SPERLING
I am sorry if I missed commenting on any earlier version of the draft statement,
"Comprehensive Strategies for Children and Families." There is much to admire in the draft
in its effort to flesh out the President's State of the Union call to "all of us" -- media,
schools, teachers, communities, churches synagogues, business, government -- to "accept
responsibility to help our children to make it and to make the most of their lives and their
God-given capacities." Nevertheless, I hope that you will consider three issues in any revision
before finalizing the statement -- (1) the President's call for greater parental responsibility,
(2) the President's call for empowering parents with greater opportunity to meet this
challenge, and (3) the President's call for greater federal responsiveness and flexibility to
"enable people to make the most of their own lives." I recommend that you consider these
three issues so that the draft reflects for families and children the twin aspects of his State of
the Union: "Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both."
1. Parental Responsibility. You may want to consider how to weave into the draft the
President's State of the Union message with respect to greater parental responsibility. The
following points from the State of the Union may be relevant:
the importance of teen pregnancy prevention and the private organization that is
forming in response to the President's call
the President's challenge to parents to work harder to stay together as a family in order
to do better by their children
the President's challenge to fathers who do separate from mothers to continue to help
support and nurture their mutual offspring and to be subject to the toughest possible
child-support enforcement
the President's charge that it is the most basic human duty of both parents to take
personal responsibility to do the job of raising their children to the best of their ability.
2. Empowering Parents to Meet their Parental Responsibility. Beyond just challenging
parents to take greater responsibility, the President also called for empowering parents with
greater opportunity with which to meet this challenge:
that is the core of his defense of the individual entitlement for Food Stamps and
Medicaid and of the expanded EITC, housing vouchers and Pell Grants for low and
moderate income families
that is one of the prime reasons for our proposals for Child Credits, Education Tax
Deduction, expanded and more flexible IRA, a G.I. Bill for America's Workers, raising
the minimum wage, and providing income contingent student loans for working
families.
Failure to include these pro-family components in the draft runs some political risk: in our
desire to make federal grant programs that don't go to individuals more responsive, we may
by omission undercut our defense of federal support that goes directly to parents to help them
meet their primary responsibility to do the very best they can in raising their own children.
3. Federal Responsiveness and Flexibility. Finally, I urge you to consider recasting the
federal role with respect community-based strategies for families and children: to shift the
emphasis from a federal "vision" for "comprehensive strategies for children and families" to
the federal government being responsive to local strategies for strengthening families and
children. I believe that this shift in emphasis will help protect the President from attack in
this political season by those who will claim that any "vision for comprehensive strategies" is
an attempt to substitute "government" for a family's "own values" and "parental rights" in
making decisions about how best to raise their own children.
I believe that we can avoid this potential for political attack by eliminating reference to
"Vision Statement" and "Comprehensive Strategies" from the title of the draft and substituting
instead "Strengthening Families and Children." This title could also more easily
accommodate brief additions of the parental responsibility and family empowerment messages
in the body of the draft text.
If this makes sense, then the third bullet in the draft could be revised as follows:
Serve Families and Communities. To enable families to help children succeed in
school and grow up healthy, we recognize that families, children and communities do
not come in neat, separate, "one size fits all" pieces. Rather than drawing rigid
boundaries between services and supports for families, the federal government must be
able to respond flexibly to the diverse strategies of local communities and families.
Each member of a family must be seen and served in the context of that family and
the supporting community, not as isolated individuals with isolated problems.
Similar minor revision of the other draft text bullets may be considered. You could then
conclude with support for the pending Community Flexibility Bill which will permit the
Administration to offer the type of flexibility and responsiveness outlined in your draft.
Let me know if I can be of any assistance if these three suggestions make sense to you.
TO:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
FROM:
Jennifer Klein
DATE:
2/29/96
RE:
Federal Working Group on Comprehensive Strategies
I thought you might be interested in this new "Federal Working Group on
Comprehensive Stategies for Children and Families." It will bring federal officials together
with state and local officials, practitioners, non-governmental organizations and academics to
identify problems with the federal government's role in implementing comprehensive
strategies for children and families and to develop concrete steps to address those problems.
I am planning to attend the working group meetings. If you have any interest in
speaking at the March 12-13 meeting, they would love to have you. The Vice President is
coming one of the days.
cc:
Melanne Verveer
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 27, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO FEDERAL WORKING GROUP ON COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
FROM:
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Gaynor McCown
SUBJECT: Materials for March 4 Meeting
Thank you very much to all of you who have submitted materials since the last working group meeting.
The schedule for the next two weeks is hectic:
Monday, March 4 -- 4:45 p.m.
Domestic Policy Council Meeting
Cabinet Secretaries will be meeting with Carol Rasco, Elaine Kamarck and Alice Rivlin to review
the initial vision statement and action plan and to discuss the
status of the Oregon and Connecticut efforts.
Wednesday, March 6 -- 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Federal Working Group Meeting
Room 450 -- OEOB
Federal Working Group will meet to review the direction given by the
Cabinet members and to continue to work on the draft vision statement and
action plan in advance of the Working Meeting the following week.
Tuesday and Wednesday March 12-13
White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies
Attached please find two documents:
(1)
Draft vision statement
(2)
List of attendees at March 12-13 White House Working Meeting
on Comprehensive Services
Please review the vision statement and get any comments back to us by Thursday at noon. We apologize
for the short review time but we intend to circulate it to the Secretaries by the end of the day on Thursday
for the Monday meeting. In addition to the vision statement and the list of attendees, we will also give
them an outline of the action plans submitted to us by each agency. Please note that the vision statement
and the outline of the action plan are both working drafts and we will indicate that to the Cabinet
Secretaries.
In preparation for the meeting next Wednesday, we will send you a copy of the outline as well as a more
detailed version of the draft action plan. You should plan to come to the meeting prepared with any edits,
additions or objections. Many thanks for your cooperation.
THE OREGON OPTION
An Intergovernmental Partnership for Results
SUMMARY
Proposal: In July 1994, Oregon's governor and county and city government officials
proposed a special partnership and long-range project with the federal government to test
fundamental redesign of the intergovernmental service delivery system to achieve results.
Purpose: to encourage cooperation among federal, state and local entities to redesign and test
an outcomes-based approach to intergovernmental service delivery.
Why Oregon? Using its pioneering efforts in benchmarking as a base, Oregon is uniquely
suited for an experimental demonstration to develop an outcome-based approach to
intergovernmental services. The State and local governments have several years experience
using an outcomes model for establishing long-range vision, setting public priorities,
allocating resources. designing services, and measuring results. The Oregon Legislature has
adopted the "Oregon Benchmarks." Nonprofit organizations. businesses, and civic groups in
Oregon are aligned to a benchmark process with State, county and local jurisdictions.
Principles to Guide Partnership. The Oregon Option is based on principles advanced by
the National Performance Review:
Focuses on outcomes as the criteria by which to measure success
Intergovernmental and interagency -- brings together the community, local, state and
federal levels to agree on desired results and work together to achieve them (i.e.,
shared accountability)
Oriented to customer needs and satisfaction, especially through integration of services
Biased toward prevention rather than remediation of problems
Systemic, sustainable change at all levels of the service delivery system to reduce red
tape and micro-management
Delegation of responsibilities for service design and delivery to front-line, local-level
providers
NOT about more money. but about re-directing funds to better achieve agreed-upon
results.
Initial Focus of demonstration is on Oregon's human investment benchmarks. clustered as
follows:
:
Healthy children
Stable families
:
A developed (highly educated and prepared) workforce
Cross cutting data and statistical issues
Federal involvement coordinated by the National Performance Review through a Federal
Interagency Action Team made up of staff from the Domestic Policy Council, NPR, OMB
and seven Cabinet Departments which have the most impact on the benchmarks Oregon
wanted 10 focus on.
Each of the three benchmark cluster areas as well as the cross-cutting data and statistical
issues are supported by an intergovernmental. interagency team. Some of the cluster teams
have sub-teams in address specific benchmarks within that cluster (e.g., immunization) to
bring in the appropriate stakeholders 10 work on each goal (e.g., pediatricians. health
nsurers) These teams are working to: identify best strategies 10 achieve the agreed-upon
atcomes: in identify parriers to implementing mese strategies and in measuring outcomes:
and to remove parriers at all levels 10 improve outcomes.
THE WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 202-456-7035
SATURDAY, February 24, 1996
VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR SIGN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
New Partnership Will Help to Revitalize Connecticut Neighborhoods
FEDERAL- STATE-LOCAL PLAN SERVES AS MODEL NATIONWIDE
NEW BRITAIN, CT -- Announcing a federal-state-local partnership that will serve as
a model nationwide, Vice President Al Gore and Governor John Rowland signed today (2/24)
an agreement that will help revitalize Connecticut communities by rebuilding inner city
neighborhoods and stimulating local economic development. Connecticut joins Oregon as the
second state that has an agreement with the federal government to redesign and test new
forms of intergovernmental cooperation.
"The people of New Britain and other local communities know best how to rebuild
and revitalize their communities and their economy," said Vice President Gore, who heads the
National Performance Review to create a federal government that works better and costs less,
a government that encourages innovative and flexible solutions at all levels of government.
"The federal government should give them the technical support and the flexibility they need
to get the job done. That's what we're doing today."
The agreement, called a Memorandum of Understanding: Connecticut Neighborhood
Revitalization Partnership, will encourage and facilitate cooperation among federal, state and
local entities to promote economic development and neighborhood revitalization. Specifically,
the agreement reduces red tape and encourages flexibility among federal, state, and municipal
governments.
The partnership serves as a model for improvements in federal-state-local partnerships
across the nation. It is another example of the Clinton Administration's effort to create a
common sense federal government that eliminates unnecessary regulations, removes
bureaucratic barriers, streamlines organizations, and provides better and more cost-effective
service for the American people.
In his visit to Connecticut, Vice President Gore was joined by Governor Rowland,
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy Carol Rasco, members of the Connecticut congressional delegation, and other
federal, state and local officials on a tour of a Neighborhood Revitalization Zone where they
talked with local residents and business owners working to bring back their community. The
Vice President then addressed an audience of concerned citizens and officials at New Britain
High School where he talked about the need to create better partnerships among local, state,
and federal governments.
##
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONNECTICUT NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PARTNERSHIP
Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to encourage and facilitate cooperation
among Federal, State and local entities to promote economic development and neighborhood
revitalization in Connecticut's neighborhoods and to improve outcomes for Connecticut's
residents. This special partnership will serve as a demonstration of principles and practices
which may serve as a model for improvements nationwide.
Short term action plans or project agreements will supplement this Memorandum of
Understanding as the partners work together on specific issues identified as barriers to economic
development and neighborhood revitalization. Examples of areas where Connecticut would like
to begin working together include: exploring innovative financing structures: developing a
common property disposition agreement to dispose of abandoned and foreclosed property
through a coordinated approach: modification of historical preservation requirements in low-
income neighborhoods: reviewing lead paint abatement, asbestos removal. and urban site
remediation procedures and regulations to develop ways to reduce the barriers yet retain
necessary safeguards of public health and welfare
Background
A six-year recession with the loss of more than 200,000 jobs. from which Connecticut is only
now emerging. has caused Connecticut to completely reshape the landscape of community
development and neighborhood revitalization. Public Act 95-340. An Act Establishing a
Neighborhood Revitalization Zone Process was developed to articulate a new paradigm and
vision. The Act represents the integration of three policy documents:
Connecticut's Goals and Benchmarks for the Year 2000 and Beyond
The Conservation and Development Policies Plan for the State of Connecticut
Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
The goals. objectives and strategies embraced by Connecticut represent an innovative approach
to community development requiring a major shift in roles and responsibilities for local. state
and federal stakeholders one which moves all levels towards working together to solve
problems and achieve results rather than focusing on specific rules.
These efforts led Connecticut. with overwhelming bipartisan support. to pass an extremely
innovative law, "An Act Establishing a Neighborhood Revitalization Zone Process." Public Act
No. 95-340. which took effect on October 1. 1995. This Act creates a new model for economic
revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods -- the creation of Neighborhood Revitalization
Zones (NRZ's) and a process for communities and governments to work together to support
them. The law aims to empower local communities to make decisions; provide relief from
burdensome state and local regulations and systems barriers, and provide for federal, state and
local collaboration to coordinate governmental functions and personnel to develop and
implement locally-driven strategic plans for neighborhood revitalization.
Numerous Connecticut State and local officials and the entire Congressional delegation
approached the Vice President asking the federal government to partner with Connecticut in
these efforts. This Memorandum of 1 Inderstanding establishes the parameters for that
partnership.
Principles to Guide Partnership
The following principles should guide the parties' cooperation in this undertaking. The
partnership will:
Be structured. managed. and evaluated on the basis of results (i.e., progress in achieving
Connecticut's stated goals or benchmarks). Moves toward measurement of results rather
than micro-management and red tape.
Focus on customers.
Shift the impetus of planning and service design and delivery to the local level.
Empower municipalities. neighborhood leaders. regional entities. and community
constituency groups to foster neighborhood development.
Maximize use of federal. state. local and private resources through enhanced coordination
and communication. Encourage a problem solving approach between communities and
government (local. state and federal) based on mutual trust. collaboration and consensus
decision making. where creative solutions to provide flexibility to achieve better results
are negotiated and implemented. while streamlining the government's bureaucracy.
Integrate planning to account for the social. economic and physical development
strengths and needs of communities.
Responsibilities of the Parties
Federal Role
The Community Empowerment Board. the National Performance Review. and federal agencies
10
will work together to support this federal-state-local partnership with Connecticut in the
following ways. Federal partners will showcase Connecticut as a national model, to furnish
information to Connecticut and federal agencies about related efforts. to provide maximum
flexibility, to ensure interagency involvement, to designate staff to work with the federal
representatives and Connecticut as needed. and to inform and involve the Vice President as
needed.
National Model: Federal partners will promote and highlight Connecticut as a national model for
innovative community italization and will share lessons learned from this partnership with
federal agencies and other States and localities. As part of this effort, Connecticut officials will
be invited to address other States at national forums. Federal partners will share available
information with Connecticut on potential resources in conjunction with this effort.
Single Point of Contact and HUD Support: As the Connecticut Plan focuses on neighborhood
revitalization. economic development. and housing issues, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) will take the lead on this partnership and assign a field representative as the
ongoing single point of contact with Connecticut for purposes of this partnership. The State and
HUD single point of contact will meet at least quarterly to review the progress in implementation
of this Partnership. Additional HUD staff will partner with Connecticut as specific issues arises.
The HUD single point of contact will serve as an interagency representative and will serve as
convener on interagency issues to bring together other federal representatives as needed.
Intergovernmental Project l'eams will be formed to work through specific issues.
EPA Support: Connecticut is also focusing on environment, health and safety codes and
regulations. as well as using "Brownfields" and other foreclosed and abandoned properties as a
primary tool to revitalize neighborhoods. Therefore. the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will also assign one person as a primary EPA liaison for the Connecticut partnership with
additional EPA staff support as relevant issues arise. EPA's Region 1 Office will provide the
primary EPA liaison for the Connecticut partnership with support from EPA headquarters. The
EPA staff will collaborate with the HUD contact to work regularly with Connecticut on this
partnership.
Interagency Support: Other federal agencies will participate as needed throughout this
partnership to support Connecticut and its communities.
()
The single point of contact (from HUD) will serve as convener on interagency issues.
()
Through the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) Task Force. the HUD
lead will notify other agencies of waiver/barrier removal requests affecting their agencies
and will process these requests.
()
Through the Community Empowerment Board (CEB) Working Group. HUD and EPA
will notify other agencies of policy and other issues affecting their agencies. CEB
Working Group Members will identify appropriate experts and staff from their agencies
to work with Connecticut as needed.
Connecticut will be able to access the technical assistance being provided to the EZ/EC
cities.
Flexibility: To the fullest extent feasible in terms of authority and available resources and
without compromising public health and welfare, the federal partners will help provide flexibility
to Connecticut by processing waiver requests. removing barriers. using regulatory discretion, and
providing technical assistance to identify possible alternatives to enhance local flexibility.
The HUD and EPA liaisons will process waiver/barrier removal requests that fall within
their respective jurisdictions.
The HUD single point of contact for Connecticut will work with the Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Community task force to ensure that flexibility requests from
Connecticut that impact agencies other than HUD and EPA are processed by the relevant
agencies.
The HUD liaison will present to the Community Empowerment Board working group
any interagency policy issues or requests for assistance as they arise.
Information and Technical Assistance: To the extent feasible. the federal partners will provide
Connecticut and its municipalities information and technical assistance as needed (e.g.,
benchmarking. performance measurement. data, capacity building. community development
financing. negotiated environmental strategies. public safety strategies).
State Role
Single Point of Contact: The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management will provide a
single point of contact between the Neighborhood Revitalization Zones (NRZs) and the federal
government.
Coordination: The State will process waiver requests from municipalities and will look
systematically across NRZs to analy ze. synthesize. determine common requests. and coordinate
waiver/barrier requests from the NRZs. The State will negotiate creative solutions which
overcome barriers to community development. The State will help NRZs determine which
flexibility requests require federal action and will then notify federal partners through the HUD
single point of contact. to allow federal partners to address the State's most pressing needs and
achieve the greatest results. the State will prioritize requests for flexibility based on the priority
needs and the degree to which the alternatives offered by neighborhoods are likely to lead to
superior results. The State will also identify common or "generic" requests to eliminate
duplication.
4
Measure Results: The State will work with NRZs to help them meet the requirement of the law
that they monitor and evaluate the progress of their plan. This will include the use of outcome
and performance measures. The State will work with NRZ's to develop measures to track
performance towards established goals.
Flexibility: The State will process waiver/modification requests from municipalities. The state
official responsible for code enforcement will hold a public hearing after notification from the
Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and must notify the municipal chief executive after the
hearing of the decision regarding the waiver request.
Interagency Support: The State will'review all NRZ Committee plans and provide feedback.
The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management will coordinate multiagency collaboration to
provide services. fund reallocation. technical support and training to neighborhoods. For
example, the State may recommend models for community outreach, job training and education.
conflict resolution. environmental and health performance standards. new technologies, and
public safety strategies.
Local (Municipality) Role
Create Neighborhood Revitalization Zones: Through municipal resolutions. municipalities may
create Neighborhood Revitalization Zones (NRZs) -- in areas where a significant number of
properties are foreclosed. abandoned. blighted. substandard, or pose a public safety hazard. The
municipalities will jointly determine zone boundaries with neighborhood committees.
Support NRZs: Municipalities will facilitate neighborhood planning processes. assign municipal
staff, provide information to neighborhood committees. and modify municipal procedures to
assist NRZs.
Planning: Municipalities will hold public hearings prior to the adoption of a neighborhood
committee's strategic revitalization plan. Municipalities will submit proposed plans to the State
(Secretary, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management) for review and comment. The
municipality will then adopt the plan through municipal ordinance
Flexibility: Municipalities will review requests for waivers/modifications of local codes and
regulations and forward relevant requests for waivers/modifications to state officials. Upon
receipt of waiver requests from the neighborhood committees, the municipal chief executive
official must notify the local official responsible for code enforcement and the Secretary of
Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management. The local official will hold a public hearing
and provide to the municipal chief executive after the hearing a decision regarding the waiver
request and a reason if the waiver is denied.
Interagency Support: Municipalities will establish multi-agency collaborative delivery teams
and will collaborate to identify regional solutions to achieve community development results.
Neighborhood Role
Strategic Planning: Neighborhoods will form Neighborhood Revitalization Planning
Committees (tenants. property owners. community organizations. businesses with property in
neighborhood, municipal official) 10 create and approve the neighborhood strategic plan for short
term and long term revitalization of the neighborhood. The strategic plan:
0
will promote self-reliance in the neighborhood. home ownership. property management,
sustainable economic evelöpment. effective relations between landlords and tenants.
coordinated and comprehensive delivery of services to the neighborhood and creative
leveraging of financial resources and shall build neighborhood capacity for self-
empowerment:
o
will include provisions for obtaining funds from public and private sources;
will consider provisions for property usage. neighborhood design, traditional and
nontraditional financing of developing. marketing and outreach. property management.
utilization of municipal facilities by communities. recreation, and the environment:
will include recommendations for waivers of state and local environment. health and
safety codes. and regulations that unreasonably jeopardize implementation of the plan:
0
will assign responsibility for implementing each aspect of the plan:
may contain an inventory of abandoned. foreclosed and deteriorated property;
0
may analyze federal. state and local environmental. health and safety codes and
regulations that impact revitalization of neighborhoods:
o
may include components for public safety, education. job training, youth. the elderly.
and arts and culture: and
0
may contain recommendations for establishment of municipal multi-agency collaborative
delivery teams. including code enforcement teams.
Flexibility: Neighborhood Committees may request waivers and/or barrier removal regarding
rules and regulations that impede the plan. particularly state and local environment. health and
safety codes and regulations that unreasonably jeopardize implementation of the plan.
Neighborhood Committees may also request local and state government to reallocate funds and
personnel to the NRZs.
Measure Results: Neighborhoods will monitor and evaluate the progress of the plan.
()
Neighborhoods will report on the plan's implementation to the local legislative body. municipal
chief executive official, and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management -- every 6 months
during the first year: annually thereafter.
Authorities
The principles and responsibilities covered in this memorandum are intended to improve the
process of communities and government working together to revitalize neighborhoods. This
memorandum does not commit anv-of the parties to a particular level of resources; nor is it
intended to create any right or benefit or diminish any existing right or benefit, substantive or
procedural. enforceable at law by a party against the United States. State of Connecticut, any
state or federal agency. any state or federal official, any part of this agreement. or any person.
While significant changes to the intergovernmental system are anticipated as a result of this
effort. this is not a legally binding or enforceable agreement. Nothing in this memorandum alters
the responsibilities or statutory authorities of the Federal agencies, or State or local governments.
7
Federal Partners
al , fore
Al Gore
Date: February 24, 1996
Vice President of the United States
Carol ARasic
Carol Rasco
Date February 24,1996
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Date Feb. 22 1996
Alice Rivlin. Director
Office of Management and Budget
Henry Cisines
Date Feb 24 1986
Henry Cisneros, Secretary
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Date: Tel.22,1996
Carol Browner. Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8
State Partners
ohn a. Lowland
Date: 29 FeB. 96
John Kowland. Governor
State of Connecticut
Date: It Feb. 76
Reginald L. Jonés, Jr., Secretary
Office of Policy and Management
Date: 74 Tells 96
Dennis J. King
Executive Assistant to the Governor for Urban Affairs
Date: 24 Fab.96
Arthur H. Diedrick
Chairman of Development
Date: 24 Feb 96
Peter C. Ellef. Commissioner
Department of Economic and Community Development
Sidney 2010 I Holbreok. Commissioner
Date: 24 Ilbace
Department of Environmental Protection
1)
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
REINVENTION'S NEXT STEPS:
Governing in a Balanced Budget World
NATIONAL
PERFORMANCE
Al CORE
Visa Product d the Casted States
REVIEW
Background Papers
Supporting a Speech by
Vice President Al Gore
March 4, 1996
DRAFT
PARTNERSHIPS FOR STRONGER FAMILIES
FRAMEWORK FOR FEDERAL ACTION
WORKING DRAFT
03/12/96
BACKGROUND
The Clinton Administration is committed to working in partnership with other levels of
government and with communities and families themselves to strengthen American families.
Through this effort, the federal government will be coordinating a number of existing
initiatives and starting some new ones designed to make it a more supportive and responsive
partner.
A Federal Working Group on Partnerships for Stronger Families -- comprised of
representatives from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and
Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Commerce, and Agriculture; and the
National Performance Review, the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council
and the Office of Management and Budget -- has tentatively identified five issue areas and
a series of action steps to be pursued by the federal government in order to assist local and
state efforts to strengthen families. In each of these areas, the federal government will work
toward developing partnerships with states and communities. To make these partnerships
happen, all levels of government must take responsibility change. The areas are broadly
defined and are intended to help organize the effort and bring fragmented pieces together.
These issue areas will form the basis for dividing the Federal Working Group into teams to
press forward following White House Working Meeting on Partnerships for Stronger Families
on March 12-13. The issue areas are:
BUILDING CAPACITY
STRENGTHENING DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY
STREAMLINING BUREAUCRACY
FINANCING
ACTION STEPS
This document -- Framework for Federal Action -- includes existing efforts and steps that
have been proposed. Most of the action steps identified are administrative in nature.
However, included in this document is an indication of legislative action, pending and
otherwise, that will help enable the federal government to be more responsive to the needs of
communities and families. Please note that this document is a working draft and still subject
to change. Also, the specific action steps identified could in many cases be appropriately
discussed under more than one issue area, so no great significance should be attached to their
location.
BUILDING CAPACITY
This issue area encompasses action steps to ensure that those charged with implementing
policies and managing programs at all levels of government, as well as those outside
government, are providing and receiving as much appropriate training and technical assistance
as possible in implementing comprehensive strategies.
a. Individual Agency Efforts With Communities Around Comprehensive Services
Department of Justice (DOJ) intensive support to thirty communities on coordinated
services.
In the next two years, the Department of Justice will undertake an
aggressive training effort -- including intensive support to thirty
additional communities and general technical assistance for interested
communities -- to focus on the coordination and utilization of similar
federal, state and local activities.
DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP) training and
technical assistance on implementing risk-focused prevention strategies, assessing risk
and resource data.
OJJDP will provide training and technical assistance related to
implementing "risk-focused" prevention strategies. OJJDP will also
provide local communities and grantees with Delinquency Prevention
Program Community Self-Evaluation Workbooks to assist them in
building self-evaluation capacity.
Community Empowerment Board technical assistance efforts for Empowerment Zones
and Enterprise Communities.
The 17 agencies of the President's Community Empowerment Board, led
by the Departments of HUD and USDA, are responding to the technical
assistance and training needs of the 105 designated Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities. These federal resources include
specialized assistance with federal program implementation and local
administrative structures; conferences and other information-sharing
opportunities for communities to learn from one another's successful
projects; and timely, responsive action on local flexibility and barrier
removal requests.
HHS and Education Guide on Medicaid Reimbursement for School-Based Care
In collaboration with the Department of Education, and state and local
health and educational agencies, HHS (HCFA) is planning to develop a
guide for schools to facilitate understanding of the scope of benefits
which may be accessed in serving children receiving medical services
2
in schools. This guide will provide comprehensive technical assistance
in the area of Medicaid reimbursement for school-based care.
HHS / the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Collaboration with USDA's Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
The CDC has been working with USDA's WIC program to improve
Medicaid / EPSDT and project the needs for states in the development
of performance criteria in child health.
Use the HHS video on managing for results more broadly throughout the Federal
government.
The Department of HHS has developed a training video on managing
for results, to be used in conjunction with their regional meetings to
further develop public health performance partnership grants.
USDA and NPR "Managing for Results" training on the Web - training tool that
could be valuable to other agencies, intergovernmental partners.
As part of the Oregon Option, the National Performance Review is
partnering with the Department of Agriculture to develop an internet-
based "Managing for Results" training, using the Oregon Option and
Oregon benchmarks are examples.
USDA's Team Nutrition promotes healthy diets for children through a partnership of
families; schools; communities; government; and health, education and food industry
organizations.
Team Nutrition Schools serve as the community focal point for
empowering children and families to make food choices for a healthy
diet - - a critical factor in health and educational success. Team
Nutrition provides, science-based nutrition messages to children in a
language they understand, and reinforces the message through parents,
educators and the food service personnel in homes, schools, and
communities across the Nation.
b. Interagency Technical Assistance Teams
Justice/Education initiative on conflict resolution and out of school youth.
Within the next year, the Departments of Justice and Education will
begin implementing a joint initiative directed at providing interested
communities with promising conflict resolution programs and best
practices in responding to the problems of youth who are in danger of
leaving or who have left the educational mainstream. The initiative will
provide assistance to selected jurisdictions and sites to develop or
3
enhance conflict resolution programs and programs for youth who are
outside the educational mainstream, including those who are dropouts,
truant, afraid to go to school, suspended or expelled. To help achieve
these goals, a series of conferences, regional forums and intensive
training and technical assistance programs will be held and co-
sponsored by DOJ and DoE. Collaborative efforts will focus on
prevention, early intervention and support services.
Education partnership with federal agencies and the Institute for Educational
Leadership to align agency technical assistance efforts to comprehensive initiatives.
The Department of Education (DoE) plans to develop a partnership
with other federal agencies and the Institute for Educational Leadership
to align technical assistance efforts provided by the different agencies
with other comprehensive initiatives serving the same communities.
Statistical Agency initiatives to provide technical assistance.
On an ongoing basis, agencies within the Federal Statistical System
-- comprised of statistical units within each Cabinet agency -- - - are
briefing state organizations about local area data produced by federal
agencies. In addition, these agencies are assisting states in their efforts
to develop statistical files from local program administrative records.
C. Training Federal Employees In New Approaches
HUD will be engaging in major retraining to prepare staff for reinvented roles.
One of HUD's primary missions will be to equip personnel with the
skills necessary to succeed in the reinvented world of federal housing
and community development. Federal staff will be trained on how to
move from professionals who write and enforce rules to "change
agents" who lead the deregulation agenda and help local officials adjust
to and succeed in the new environment. As programs become
consolidated and allocated by formula, HUD staff will help states,
localities and citizen groups devise comprehensive community strategies.
4
STRENGTHENING DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The third issue area encompasses steps to maximize the use of data technology in support of
comprehensive service programs. These include helping states and localities develop their
own systems to manage information across agencies, examining how information is provided
to customers on federal programs and resources, and improving how states and localities
report to the federal government electronically.
a. Assisting States In Designing Systems To Share Information Across Agency Lines
HHS/ASPE three state demo to link data from AFDC, Medicaid, Child Support, Child
Welfare and other programs.
HHS is working to link data across programs. The Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation is funding three states - - California,
Massachusetts, and Iowa - - to link data from various programs (such
as AFDC, Medicaid, Child Support Enforcement, Child Welfare,
Unemployment Insurance, and Vital Statistics) to provide them the
ability to study such issues as caseload dynamics, recidivism, and
participation rates. In addition, they will be able to look at multiple
benefit use and the economic, social and demographic characteristics of
multi-service use populations.
HHS developing/sharing prototype child welfare information system.
HHS has developed a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS). Through this initiative, the Administration for
Children and Families is providing enhanced Federal funding and
technical assistance to States to support the development of
comprehensive information systems for children and families served by
the child welfare system. As part of this system, the Administration for
Children and Families is working in partnership with a group of States
and a private contractor, to develop a prototype that States can use to
support and enhance their own information system development,
tailored to the needs of each State.
HHS funding to Chapin Hall to build child-oriented, multiple program database.
Creates complete record for every child receiving public aid in Illinois.
HHS has provided funding to Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
to build a child-oriented, multiple-program database using linked
administrative data from a number of programs, including AFDC,
Medicaid, Food Stamps, special education and foster care.
HUD EZ/EC information system.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has provided
5
software to the 105 Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
and its grantees, which includes geo-maps of cities, down to the
neighborhood and street level, showing where federal projects are
located.
Oregon's Shared Information System (SIS).
The SIS developed for the State of Oregon combines records from ten
program agencies into a statistical data base with standard definitions.
The Census Bureau is working with Oregon to determine ways that
State records could be used for national statistical purposes and
to foster communication with other states on Oregon's success in
handling technical and confidentiality issues that arise in using
administrative records for statistical purposes.
USDA's support for Western Governor's Health Passport
The Health Passport Project will link state agencies and private entities
in delivering maternal and child health services and WIC via portable
electronic card technology. It will improve access to health care and
supporting services by facilitating the sharing of information among
programs. Families are empowered because they control the health
information and benefit access on their personal smart card.
b. Information On Federal Programs And Resources
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention recommendation
to develop a Management Information System on Federal youth violence reduction
activities.
This system will provide ongoing information on Federal activities
(grants, training, technical assistance, documents, milestones and
accomplishments) to address youth violence and delinquency.
Education 1-800-USALEARN, on-line information, and Web page.
The Department of Education intends to increase access to information
about Department Services and initiatives through 1-800-USALEARN
and on-line information dissemination. The Departments Web page
was rated among the best 5% of all Web pages.
EZ/EC Homepage
The Departments of USDA and HUD have established a WEB site --
http://www.ezec.gov -- providing information about federal resources,
local accomplishments, and upcoming events of interest to the
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. This site also points
to other federal agency homepages as well as the Federal Register in
6
order to provide communities with timely information about upcoming
federal grant opportunities. EZ / EC communities all have received
on-line software and training an effort that will give hundreds of
low-income families access to the information superhighway for the
first time.
Note: Clearinghouses -- A number of programs have clearinghouses on youth
programs, resources and information. Some of these are accessible through 800
numbers, others are now available on-line.
c. National Data/Statistics on Well Being of Children
Oregon Option statewide effort to develop benchmarks and data systems to track
results.
As part of the Oregon Option, the Intergovernmental Healthy Children
and the Data / Statistical Clusters have been working together to
improve the databases and the display of data related to the healthy
children benchmarks. Maps and tables by county have been
developed to indicate how counties are doing in relationship to other
counties and the state on benchmarks such as teen pregnancy,
immunization among 2 year olds, and the infant mortality rate.
Furthermore, Oregon has just announced statewide regional training
workshops entitled "Doing the Right Thing With Data" to teach
community partners how to work with these statistics -- as a tool for
shaping policy, building bridges, and stimulating action in the
communities.
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.
To foster coordination, collaboration, and integration of data gathered
on child and family issues and information reported on child and family
conditions, the Office of Management and Budget, the Census Bureau,
the Center for Education Statistics, the National Center for Health
Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development and the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human
Services have joined in creating an Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics to gather improved data about children and report on
childhood indications in a more regular and
systematic manner. ASPE -- a member of the Forum - will soon
issue a comprehensive report on child well-being, using data
drawn from all available Federal sources.
Census Bureau initiatives to provide data on communities more frequently.
A number of efforts are underway to address the need for more timely
7
data at the local area level. For example, the Bureau of the Census
is currently testing a proposed American Community Survey
that would provide demographics and housing data annually
for geographic areas with populations greater than 250,000 and
would provide annually updated averages for rural areas, census
tracts, and block groups.
d. Other Electronic Tools To Assist Communities
DOJ / OJJDP interactive CD-ROM for local jurisdictions to obtain information about
programs and strategies that can be effective in reducing youth violence.
In FY '96, OJJDP will produce and disseminate an interactive CD-
ROM program, which will enable local users to apply the forms and
protocols, risk assessment information, and research and guiding
principles provided on a diskette to strategies that address local needs.
Statistical Agency technical assistance via the internet.
Agencies in the federal statistical system are increasingly providing
access to experts via the internet. For example, the Census Bureau now
has an "Ask the Expert" option for users who visit the agency's home
page and the Bureau of Labor Statistics home page includes a contract
list of experts familiar with the agency's programs and products.
e. Helping States and others Meet Data Collection Needs
Statistical Agencies exploring processes for meeting federal data needs -- starting
with Oregon.
An important part of the Oregon Option has been a strong focus on
data and statistical needs associated with a results oriented government.
The Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau convened
several federal statistical agencies in a Data Cluster to partner with
Oregon on data and statistical issues.
8
IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY
This issue area is that of improving accountability. One of the key principles of a reinvented
intergovernmental partnership is managing for results, and evaluating and rewarding
performance. All intergovernmental partners -- including the federal government -- need to
look closely at how performance and outcomes are measured and evaluated.
a. Shared accountability - Achieving Benchmarks In Partnership
Oregon Option as pilot of this partnership in "shared accountability."
The Oregon Option is a pilot test for a results oriented approach to
intergovernmental service delivery, to serve as a model for
improvements nationwide. All partners are accountable for results
rather than one level of government overseeing another and not feeling
responsible for achieving results.
b. Outcomes-Based Evaluation Models for Comprehensive Service Efforts
HHS/ASPE Steering Committee on Evaluation reviewing existing work in the field
and holding design workshops to produce an evaluation strategy for comprehensive
community initiatives.
The Committee will develop a set of prototype evaluations that could be
pilot-tested by communities. The Committee will also generate a set of
measures for assessing progress toward improved outcomes in
communities.
The School to Work Opportunities office is establishing a system of "progress
measures" in partnership with states.
DOJ/OJJDP evaluation of six Safe Futures sites that will test Comprehensive
Strategies.
OJJDP will support a national evaluation concurrent with the funding
of six Safe Futures demonstration sites that will test OJJDP's
Comprehensive Strategies. The participating communities will be
expected to demonstrate a strong capacity for data collection and
analysis to support an evaluation component addressing both process
and outcome measures. Partnerships between local and national
evaluators will be encouraged.
DOJ/OJJDP also helping to build local evaluation capacity and strengthening national
and local partnerships to evaluate Federal initiatives.
OJJDP will expand the technical assistance and training role of the
evaluation contractor. In addition to conducting evaluations of
9
individual projects, the contractor will be responsible for helping to
build local evaluation capacity and strengthening national and local
partnerships to evaluate federal initiatives.
10
STREAMLINING BUREAUCRACY
The fourth area includes steps that reduce the paperwork and other bureaucratic requirements
that states, local governments and other partners confront in seeking assistance from the
federal government. Steps would include coordinating the application processes required to
pursue comprehensive programs, providing a single point of contact for communities and
other mechanisms for simplifying requirements.
a. Applying for Discretionary Funding
The Department of Education is streamlining the process for managing discretionary
grants application and management.
A serial process requiring actions by several program and fiscal offices
is being converted to more customer-friendly team approach which will
simplify and speed up grantmaking.
Streamlining Special Education discretionary funding.
The Department of Education is proposing a streamlining of special
education discretionary grant programs for specialized functions such
as training and research. Fourteen narrowly focused programs would
be consolidated into five core areas.
Joint Request for Proposals (RFP) across DOJ/ OJP (Office of Justice Programs)
Bureaus and programs.
OJP is considering a joint RFP across the OJP Bureaus.
b. Consolidated Plans
HHS/ACF expansion of number of states consolidating plans and planning processes.
In the guidance implementing the Family Preservation and Support
program, ACF invited and encouraged states to consolidate plans for
other child welfare programs into the comprehensive joint planning
process. A number of states did this in the first year. ACF will work
with additional interested to consolidate their plans and the planning
processes in order to reduce paperwork and to encourage more holistic
and comprehensive planning for programs serving families and children
at-risk.
C. Single Point of Contact
HUD will create a single point of contact for each of about 183 jurisdictions.
HUD will create a single point of contact for jurisdictions with
populations 150,000 or which are the largest city in each state and
11
counties with populations over 700,000. Instead of Mayors and local
leaders working with three or four HUD offices to get answers on
community priorities, one contact will be appointed for each
jurisdiction.
HUD will be the single point of contact under the MOU (Memorandum of
Understanding) with Connecticut. The HUD contact will serve as an interagency
representative and convener.
Under the MOU with Connecticut - - signed by the Vice-President, the
Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget, HUD,
EPA, and the State of Connecticut -- Connecticut would establish
Neighborhood Revitalization Zones and a process for communities and
governments to work together to support them. HUD will be the lead
agency on this partnership and assign a field representative as the
ongoing single point of contact, serving as an interagency
representative and convener.
Governing Council on Children and Youth.
As part of the Department's reinvention proposals, HHS has established
a Governing Council on Children and Youth. The goals of the Council
are to: exercise leadership by recommending priority areas for
investments of attention and resources; foster communication and build
relationships across the Department of Health and Human Services,
between HHS and other departments, and between HHS and private
sector organizations; and to improve the quality, comprehensiveness
and availability of resources both by removing barriers and by
facilitating collaborative initiatives that streamline service delivery for
children, youth and their families. As one of its first tasks, the Council
helped to develop a "Children;s Budget" as part of the Department's
FY 97 budget submission. A youth subgroup is working to flesh out the
"Safe Passages" proposal that was part of the Children's Budget. The
Council has also started the "Healthy Child Care America Campaign,"
a national effort to raise awareness of the importance of healthy and
safe child care.
d. Auditing
Education is working to align the process of integrated review of program
implementation at the state level with the single-state audit process.
12
FINANCING
The actions in this issue area are designed to maximize the flexibility that states and other
grantees have in using money they receive from the federal government. (Simplified
application for funding is discussed in the "Streamlining Bureaucracy" section.) In many
cases, specific legislative authority is being sought or has been granted to combine categorical
funding streams or to permit waivers of statutes and regulations that currently prevent more
comprehensive approaches from being implemented. The Administration's proposal to
combine funding streams and provide greater flexibility are linked to increasing accountability
for results.
a. Provide Greater Flexibility Within Existing Statutory Authority
Federal / State / Local Partnerships
Oregon Option
The federal government has entered into a formal partnership with the
State of Oregon - - based on a Memorandum of Understanding -- to
encourage and facilitate cooperation among federal, state and local
entities to redesign and test a results-based approach to
intergovernmental service delivery. With a primary focus on human
investment benchmarks -- healthy children; stable families; workforce
development; and cross-cutting data and statistical issues -- the
Oregon Option is NOT about more money, but about re-directing funds
to better achieve agreed-upon results.
Connecticut Neighborhood Revitalization Partnership
With a primary focus on neighborhood revitalization, economic
development, and housing issues, this agreement -- based on a
Memorandum of Understanding - - is to encourage and facilitate
cooperation among federal, state and local entities. Like the Oregon
Option, the partnership with Connecticut requires a major shift in roles
and responsibilities for local, state and federal stakeholders.
Indiana
Mechanisms have been developed by which one contract may provide
funding for multiple services to individual counties and / or a
mechanism to allow multiple state agencies to blend funds to share
expenses for collaboration activities around one activity have been
developed.
13
West Virginia
A blended funding pool -- Family Resource Planning Fund --
administered by the Governor's Cabinet on Children and Families has
been developed. The planning fund is used for: contracts with family
resource networks; technical assistance and training for family resource
networks; and support of the cabinet office.
Ed Flex Waivers
The Department of Education has approved Ed-flex waivers for five
states (Oregon, Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas). Each state
has developed a comprehensive school improvement plan approved by
the Secretary of Education. Under Ed-flex authority, the state must
waive its own statutory or regulatory requirements, and is given
authority to waive federal statute without coming to the U.S.
Department of Education for further permission. Districts and schools
affected by the waivers are held accountable for the academic
performance of their students. The Department of Education has
authority to designate one additional Ed-flex state, which they plan to
do soon.
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities
Recognizing the need for an entirely new kind of partnership between
the federal government and low-income communities, the Clinton
Administration has designated 105 economically distressed urban and
rural areas as Empowerment Zones (EZs) or Enterprise Communities
(ECs) In order to encourage and support bottom-up comprehensive
revitalization in EZs and ECs, the President created the Community
Empowerment Board (CEB), chaired by Vice-President Gore and
comprised of the heads of 17 federal agencies. CEB agencies reward
comprehensive planning and local innovation in the EZ/ECs with
additional targeted program resources and a coordinated response to
eliminating unnecessary regulatory or other federal impediments.
Family Preservation and Support
In implementing this Clinton Administration initiative, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at HHS has and
continues to engage in innovative strategies related to program design
and implementation at the federal, state and community levels. As part
of a consultation process for the design of the program, ACF met with
more than 2,500 people, including state government officials,
representatives from community-based organizations, researchers and
other experts, and families to be served by the program. As states
14
began to implement the legislation, they were encouraged to use all or
most of their first year funds (up to $1 million) to conduct a
comprehensive and inclusive joint federal-state planning process.
Several states have reported institutionalizing the comprehensive
planning bodies created in response to the Family Preservation and
Support initiative in order to support ongoing implementation and
monitor the progress toward meeting established goals.
Medicaid and Welfare Waivers
Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS is authorized to
grant states waivers of current laws governing the AFDC and Medicaid
programs. This authority is intended to give states the flexibility to
demonstrate alternatives that better match their residents' needs. HCFA
is also working closely with several states to develop proposals under
section 1915 of the Social Security Act. The 1915 authority offers states
the flexibility to develop and implement creative alternatives to
institutionalizing Medicaid-eligible individuals. HCFA works closely
with states, both directly and through their Non-institutional Long
Term Care Technical Advisory Group to continue to develop
streamlined and innovative approaches to better serve Medicaid eligible
children and adults. The section 1915 authority also permits states,
among other things, to require enrollment of their Medicaid populations
into managed care arrangements.
b. Performance Partnership Grants
President Clinton's FY 1996 Budget proposed the consolidation of 271
separate programs into 27 "Performance Partnerships" in the areas of
public health, rural development, education and training, housing and
urban development, transportation and the environment. Assuming
legislative approval, HHS, HUD and other agencies will be proceeding
with the creation of new performance partnerships that combine
categorical funding into more flexible spending streams with
accountability and rewards for performance. The Federal Working
Group would help track how these are being developed, how states and
localities are being apprised of the flexibility, and how lessons learned
may be used by other programs and departments.
C. Other Legislative Action
The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act
The Clinton Administration supports the Local Empowerment and
Flexibility Act, currently pending in Congress. This bill proposes broad
statutory and regulatory waiver authority in response to comprehensive
15
strategic plans centered around goals and measures of progress
toward the goals
- developed at the local level.
HUD proposals for flex funding
The Department of Housing and Urban Development will seek
legislative authority to support the creation of community partnerships
in which government, intended beneficiaries, private-sector interests,
community-based organizations, educational and medical institutions,
and foundations develop a shared vision on how to focus and integrate
government resources in the affordable housing and community
development area.
Department of Education proposals for special education.
The Department of Education is seeking changes in due process
procedures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
designed to encourage early-stage mediation to resolve issues about
the educational program or placement for children with disabilities.
The changes are intended to protect the rights of children and parents
and have the promise of providing early, single resolution of due
process issues.
16
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12. 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
ELAINE KAMARCK
CAROL RASCO
ALICE RIVLIN
LAURA TYSON LDT
SUBJECT:
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update regarding our ongoing efforts on Comprehensive
Strategies for Children and Families. Unfortunately, the government shutdowns and weather have prevented
us from staying on schedule but we want to take this opportunity to reiterate our interest in moving forward
and to indicate a new timeline. Please note that we have rescheduled the White House Working Meeting on
Comprehensive Strategies (previously scheduled for November 14-15) for March 12-13, 1996. More details
about the meeting are forthcoming.
The National Performance Review, the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget and
the National Economic Council are all making it a top priority to encourage federal agencies to explore all
possible means to ensure that states and localities have the ability to pursue more comprehensive strategies
for children and families. Several different Administration initiatives -- including the Department of
Education's Working Group on Coordinated Services, the President's Prevention Council, HUD's Campus of
Learners Project, the Youth Initiative Working Group, the Urban Policy Working Group, DOJ's Juvenile
Justice Coordinating Council and other related reinvention efforts -- have provided us with ideas and
suggestions for moving forward. Furthermore, the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative
and the Administration's partnerships with Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia and soon Connecticut are
indicative of our commitment to changing the way government does business. Your input and support are
essential to this process.
In preparation for the White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families. a federal working group, comprised of representatives from your departments, has met several
times to begin discussing specific action steps the federal government can take. On January 26, we hosted a
discussion with individuals from the State of Maryland who have been working to implement comprehensive
strategies for children and families. Representatives from local programs, community organizations and
foundations, city health and justice departments. state agencies, and seven federal agencies participated in the
meeting. This meeting provided a wonderful opportunity for federal government participants to hear directly
from individuals whose programs and clients we are seeking to help. The substance of the discussion was
based on a case study and local participants' experiences with federal government programs. The meeting
closed with all federal participants indicating what they had learned and what issues they intend to address
as part of their contribution to the concrete steps the federal government will take. The next step is for each
federal agency to move forward on developing a specific plan for addressing issues identified.
We will have a follow-up meeting on February 14 to review agency plans and begin outlining an overall
administration agenda for intergovernmental partnerships. The work that results from these two meetings
will flow into the White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and Families
(previously scheduled for November 14-15) to be held in the early part of March. Please note that while
this meeting will be an opportunity to focus on all three levels of government, our primary interest is
highlighting the changes that can be made at the federal level within existing law. Some examples may
include: (1) inconsistent planning cycles or auditing requirements in federal categorical programs; (2) lack
of flexible federal funding to support services; (3) difficulties in accessing Medicaid reimbursement; (4)
conflicting confidentiality and eligibility requirements in education, health and nutrition programs; (5) lack
of easily accessible information about what funding is available to support comprehensive strategies.
The -White House Working Meeting on Comprehensive Strategies will result in a document that is as
detailed as possible -- referring to specific action steps by the different levels of government and a strategy
and timeline for accomplishing our goals.
UPDATED TIMELINE
Early-February -
Agencies Develop Action Plans
February 14- 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Final Federal Working Group Meeting to Refine Agency Plans
March 12-13
White House Working Meeting with States and Localities on Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families
Early April --
Completed Document Summarizing Action Steps and Timeline
attachment: List of Federal Working Group Participants
cc:
Federal Working Group
POLICY STUDIES ASSOCIATES, INC.
1718 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009
(202) 939-9780
The Federal Role in Comprehensive Strategies for Children and Families:
State and Local Perspectives
Report of a January 26, 1996 Meeting
At the White House
February 2, 1996
Prepared by Leila Fiester at Policy Studies Associates
for the U.S. Department of Education
Contract EA 94063001
Overview
State and local practitioners, program administrators, and policy makers proposed changes in
the federal government that could improve comprehensive strategies for children and families during a
meeting convened by President Clinton's Domestic Policy Council on January 26, 1996. The
meeting, held in collaboration with several federal and non-governmental partners of the Council,¹
gave representatives of federal agencies and programs a chance to hear from individuals involved in
implementing comprehensive strategies what changes must be made to make the federal government
more responsive to the needs of states and localities. The issues raised during the half-day discussion
will inform federal agencies as they respond to the Domestic Policy Council's request for action plans
addressing federal barriers to effective, comprehensive reforms.
Representatives from local programs, community organizations and foundations, city health
and justice departments, state agencies, and seven federal agencies and executive offices² participated
in the meeting. Participants focused their comments on a case study of the Sandtown-Winchester
Community Center in Baltimore, Maryland.
During a plenary session facilitated by Carol Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy, the eight state and local representatives used the case study and their own experiences to
consider the following questions:
What constitutes success for families like the one in the case study, and for the
community center as an organization?
What are the most important opportunities and challenges the family and the
community center face?
What are the obstacles to success? What specific federal, state, or local policies get in
the way?
'The National Performance Review, the Department of Education, the Federal Working Group on Comprehensive
Services for Children and Families, the Policy Exchange of the Institute for Educational Leadership, the Alliance for
Redesigning Government, and The Danforth Foundation
²The Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Justice, Labor, and Transportation; the Office of Management and Budget; the National Performance Review; the
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs; the Office of the Vice President; the Community Empowerment Board; the
National Economic Council; and the President's Crime Prevention Council
1
What can programs and organizations do to help families like the one in the case
study? What would practitioners like to do but can't because of obstacles?
What role can the federal government play to facilitate success?
Participants then formed four breakout groups to discuss what the federal government could
do, stop doing, or do differently to better assist state and local practitioners in achieving results for
children and families. Participants were urged to be as candid and specific as possible in describing
problems and in proposing changes in federal policies and programs.
This report describes the context for the meeting, summarizes the discussion, and outlines the
steps federal policy makers intend to take to respond to issues raised during the meeting. Appendix A
contains the case study used in the meeting. Appendix B contains a list of federal working group
participants.
Context for the Meeting
The January 26 meeting was part of a broader White House effort to identify and develop
specific action steps the federal government can take to better enable states and localities to implement
more comprehensive strategies for children and families, explained Elaine Kamarck, Senior Policy
Advisor to the Vice President, in opening remarks. Other Clinton Administration efforts include: the
Campus of Learners project sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD); the Youth Initiative Working Group; the Working Group on Comprehensive Services for
Children and Families administered by the Department of Education; the Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Community program administered by HUD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA); and formal partnerships between the federal government and state governments in Oregon,
Connecticut, Indiana, and West Virginia.
Before beginning their discussion, participants viewed a video of the community-building
partnership in Sandtown-Winchester, a neighborhood of Baltimore. Since its inception in 1990, the
revitalization effort has spawned community work groups that established goals, developed
partnership organizations, and mobilized residents. Residents have established an active community
center. And community-driven efforts have reduced crime, increased employment, improved health
and housing opportunities, provided human services and education, and begun to stimulate the local
economy.
2
Despite these significant accomplishments, many Sandtown residents-like their counterparts
in any urban area-still suffer because their needs outweigh their ability to obtain services and
supports. The case study presented to meeting participants focused on one typical family: a young,
pregnant single mother with an 11-year-old son beginning to hang out with gang-oriented youths; an
eight-year-old son who seems headed for Special Education; and a young daughter with asthma. The
case study illustrated the fragility of efforts to help such families and showed how dependent local
projects are on short-term funding and on melding many systems of support together to serve a whole
person or family.
State and Local Perspectives on Success, Opportunities, and Obstacles
In preparation for the meeting, the local and state participants were asked to consider the
questions outlined above. During the plenary session, the participants described the ways in which
their agencies or organizations can help families like the one in the case study succeed, either alone or
by coordinating with other state and local entities-as well as the needs that remain unmet.
Participants also identified obstacles caused by federal laws, policies, and practices that impede state
and local efforts to help organizations help children and families succeed.
Opportunities for Success
What is success? Success in helping a family in need consists of two parts, suggested
Rosalyn Branson, a community partnership consultant who works with family advocates. First,
resolve the family's immediate crisis-in this case, helping them obtain heat and electricity in their
home as well as prenatal care for the pregnant mother. Then, help the parent develop the basic skills
she needs to gain long-term control of her own life-in this case, making sure the mother develops
strong parenting skills, forms a connection with the family center, and becomes literate and that the
younger son receives an educational assessment. "As many skills as we can give [the mother] to
move forward on her own, that constitutes success," Branson said.
How can agencies and organizations contribute to success? A community or family center
has several opportunities to contribute to this type of success, noted several participants:
The centers have a leadership role in coordinating multiple systems and stakeholders,
which can improve residents' access to services;
The centers cultivate a family-friendly, accepting atmosphere that attracts residents;
3
The centers take a holistic approach that addresses the needs of an entire family,
rather than simply the problems of an individual;
Because center staff can direct residents to specific services that are known to work,
services can become more results-oriented and consumer-driven; and
Because centers operate within the community every day, their staff have a true
understanding of residents' needs, strengths, and challenges.
Schools can also contribute to families' success, especially through school-based health centers
that provide preventive services as well as crisis intervention, said Theresa Knott, project
administrator for student assessment at the Maryland Department of Education. School health centers
and other programs that emphasize skill development, peer leadership, and counseling give children
the skills and opportunities they need to avoid gang involvement and other situations that lead to
crises; so do education initiatives such as Goals 2000 that address children's readiness to learn. "Kids
can't learn if they're hungry and unhealthy," Knott said.
Churches and ministers also play a role in families' success, Knott noted. Because many
community members are active in local churches, agencies and service providers should not forget to
coordinate their efforts with those of religious leaders and institutions.
Obstacles to Success
Major obstacles identified by participants include:
Lack of time and funding for strategic thinking and partnership building. Although
community and family centers serve as a focal point for coordinating many services in a community,
it isn't easy to form partnerships among diverse stakeholders. Partners must resolve turf issues and
develop a unified strategic approach to addressing residents' problems. Most communities do not
have the time or money for in-depth planning and strategic action to achieve true coordination and
collaboration among systems. "It's easy to say those words but much harder to make them real,"
observed Janis Parks, director of the Family Preservation Initiative.
A mismatch between program philosophy and community need. Many programs are good at
fixing small problems but fall short of solving the bigger issues, observed Tom Coyle, assistant
commissioner for maternal, infant care, and special projects at the Baltimore City Health Department.
In the example from the case study, local programs may be able to provide child care for the family
but may have trouble meeting broader needs: getting the mother into a family planning program and
4
finding housing and employment. "There is a huge gap between these individual services and turning
people's lives around," Coyle said. "We ought to be about turning lives around and we're not."
Lack of accountability among service systems and programs. The mother in the case study
was pregnant with her fourth child and had had problems during previous pregnancies-yet she had
not received prenantal care. "Where is the doctor who knew she had health problems?" asked Sherri
Killins, chief of operations for the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation. "There is no
accountability to service systems or organizations to catch problems and prevent them." Program
management and performance standards should be rigorously enforced and linked to funding through
incentives in order to promote accountability, agreed Pat Costigan, Vice President of the Enterprise
Foundation in Baltimore.
Comprehensive programs should also increase accountability by taking a stronger role in
evaluating needs and services, several participants said. In particular, programs should consider:
What are the outcome goals for the community?
What are specific indicators of progress for the community?
What are the best sources and levels of data to show progress (e.g., by child, by
family, by U.S. Census tract)?
What are the programs that work, and how do we know that they work?
Evaluation tools such as client tracking systems are expensive for local programs, however.
In addition, there is no mechanism for sharing data across systems; each program tracks its own
information, making it difficult to track clients across systems.
Funding barriers. Many programs that have potential to prevent crises for children and
families are forced to end services because they cannot find stable, sufficient funding. Other
programs focus on crisis intervention because their limited funds are earmarked for these
services-leaving the need for long-term, preventive services unmet. The lack of adequate funding
also forces local agencies to face tough decisions about how services should be consolidated and
streamlined. participants said. "With less federal funding and a smaller local tax base, how do we
begin to look across agencies to consolidate effort without causing harm?" asked Linda Thompson,
special secretary of the Maryland Office for Children, Youth, and Families.
5
Bureaucratic requirements further restrict funding for services to children and families; for
example, school-based clinics operating in a managed care environment may not be able to obtain
reimbursement from Medicaid for services if the clinic is not the students' designated health care
provider.
In addition, categorical funding inhibits flexible strategies. Much of the federal funding that
states receive for comprehensive services is legally earmarked for specific populations and is difficult
to "unbundle." As a result, children must fall into narrow categorical definitions in order to gain
access to funds; local programs find it hard to spend the funds in response to general need-for
example, on preventive care-rather than on a category of service; and large, categorical departments
develop in state and local governments that increase dependence on categorical funding and thinking.
The budget process under categorical funding is also a barrier; funding is based on meeting
federal requirements under the various categories and not on serving a population of need, several
participants said. In addition, programs must reapply for funding every year, and the constant
application requirements place an administrative burden on local programs.
Disparate goals and purposes among service systems. Even if multiple service providers
could sit down and work out a joint plan to address each family's needs, the differing purposes and
priorities of education, justice, health care, and other systems would complicate a comprehensive
strategy, Killins noted. As a result, programs lack common goals for helping families-or even an
agreement that the common goal is to help families. "We have to remember, who's the system for?
We're there to work for that family," Rasco agreed.
Inadequate referral systems. Many referral systems fail to address children's problems until
they reach the crisis stage, participants said. Because local justice departments are funded to deal
with delinquent and truant behavior but not necessarily to intervene in children's lives until these
behaviors have been brought to their attention, "I probably wouldn't see [the 11-year-old in the case
study] until two years down the road, and then they'd want him 'fixed,''' said Linda Ellard, Area 1
director of the Baltimore City Department of Juvenile Justice. Although justice workers would like to
catch these cases earlier-perhaps when police first suspect a child is headed toward
delinquency-there is no protocol for this type of communication between police and justice staff,
Ellard said.
Further, funding for crime abatement tends to be geared toward crisis intervention rather than
early identification and prevention. The social welfare system basically "lets the horses escape, then
has the middle class pay for getting the horses back into the corral," Coyle said.
6
The impact of street drugs on families and communities. The violence and debilitation
associated with substance abuse inhibit the success of children, families, and communities, Coyle said.
Because there are economic incentives for drug trafficking, employment opportunities should be a key
component of anti-drug programs.
What Can the Federal Government Do?
In subgroup meetings, participants agreed that the federal government should focus on the
need for:
Outcome-oriented planning (accountability) at the federal, state, and local levels,
supported by an incentive system and linked to funding
More meaningful technical assistance to build local capacity
More cross-agency coordination and information sharing
Partnerships between levels of government that assist and streamline data collection
and evaluation
Increased local flexibility in designing strategies that may not fit into federal
categories
Participants suggested that the federal government take the following actions to support the
above themes:
What Should the Federal Government Start Doing?
Administrative Actions:
Have all federal agencies develop shared principles and goals for helping children,
families, and communities. This will reduce categorical approaches to issues and
needs.
Build federal-state-local strategic planning teams that can identify important issues,
barriers, and solutions.
To streamline the planning and budget process, establish a single point of contact for
applications for federal funding.
7
Funding Actions:
Use the national goals developed by each agency to guide federal funding.
Allow funding to follow people, not programs; increase local flexibility to use federal
funds for non-categorical strategies.
Emphasize the need to direct funding to the communities being served-not just to
mid-level service providers. Perhaps the federal government should require every
major social service provider to spend a percentage of its federal funding in the
community (e.g., on salaries for community members).
Reduce the amount of time local and state programs must devote to marketing and
administration by establishing multi-year funding cycles for federal programs.
Actions to Promote Accountability and Evaluation:
Have all agencies develop performance goals for whole groups at the local level,
based on shared national principles and common definitions and practices.
Rigorously enforce management and performance standards at the local level.
Build incentives into accountability standards for federal funding.
Incorporate funding criteria for evaluations into applications for federal grants.
Collect, coordinate, and disseminate information on promising practices within and
across agencies and service systems.
What Should the Federal Government Stop Doing?
Stop limiting federal funding to categorical programs that discourage cross-system
linkages or strategic planning around larger goals.
Stop regulating inputs (e.g., emphasizing categories of need); instead, evaluate
programs on the basis of their outcomes.
Stop discouraging cooperation by adding new, narrowly defined requirements to
existing laws. Instead of focusing on categorical regulations, encourage state and
local governments to create teams of staff that can design comprehensive strategies
across departments.
What Should the Federal Government Do Differently?
Radically restructure technical assistance to make it more relevant to local priorities.
Give local consumers the authority to choose the technical assistance that best meets
their needs.
8
Make sure that funding and other requirements under federal programs accept local
incorporation of several program categories within a single strategic plan. Streamline
and consolidate the application process and reporting requirements; shift funds into the
more flexible federal programs that already exist.
Include cooperation as a criterion for evaluating government employees; make
cooperation across agencies and systems an expected part of the job.
Clarify and revise federal procurement laws that restrict local flexibility in selecting
technical assistance.
Place a stronger emphasis on efforts that build local capacity. Include cities in
designing partnerships with state and federal governments.
Next Steps
After the discussion, participants were asked to submit any additional ideas and questions
regarding specific actions the federal government can take to better enable states and communities to
help families meet their needs. Domestic Policy Council staff will integrate the suggestions into a
single list that will be sent to all federal agencies, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, Deputy Assistant to the
President for Domestic Policy.
By mid-February, each agency will review the suggestions and propose concrete actions that
respond to the suggestions. The federal working group will meet again on February 14 to refine the
agency plans and to begin developing an overall administration agenda for improving
intergovernmental partnerships. In early March, the White House will convene a working meeting
with representatives of approximately 15 states and localities. The purposes of the March meeting are
(1) to enhance intergovernmental partnerships by seeking input from states and localities and by acting
on that information and (2) to highlight specific changes that can be made at the federal level, within
existing laws, to better respond to state and local comprehensive strategies for children and families.
Staff expect to release a document summarizing the action steps, and a timeline for implementation, in
early April.
9
A Case Study on Serving Families in the Community:
The Sandtown-Winchester Community Center
January 26, 1996
The Sandtown-Winchester Community Center is located on Mount Street in the center of the
Sandtown section of Baltimore. It is one of the few large public buildings in the mostly residential
Sandtown community, which is part of the designated Empowerment Zone (EZ) in Baltimore. The
building has a history: It was once an elementary school; in another period it housed a state teachers'
college. The old building was abandoned and then rehabilitated for youth in the community through
the U.S. Department of Labor's Youth Opportunities Unlimited Program, a demonstration program
that ended a couple of years ago.
The community center is part of a larger effort to transform the Sandtown neighborhood into
a viable, livable community. In this vision, the center becomes the hub of the neighborhood,
changing systems to provide a continuum of services and that support success for residents of all
ages. There is a dual focus on providing services for residents and changing existing public systems
to make them more responsive to residents' needs. The transformation is a work in progress.
Now the center is headquarters for a variety of services and programs that are part of a
comprehensive, community-based effort to transform Sandtown into a community that works for its
residents. There are programs to serve anyone who lives in Sandtown, including Emergency Services;
a Family Investment Center; a Youth Services area with after-school tutoring and support, recreation,
and arts programs; a Family Support and Development unit; a literacy laboratory; the Sandtown-
Winchester Improvement Association; and several employment and training programs. These
programs receive funding from a variety of sources including the city's Department of Public Works,
Community College District, and Commission on Aging; the State of Maryland's employment and
training programs and emergency assistance funds; and the federal departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. Programs at the center also receive
private funding from the Enterprise Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and local
foundations.
The Center serves residents of the community with a core of professional staff, supplemented
by volunteers. In the Family Support and Development unit, five Family Advocates who live in the
community work to help families meet their immediate needs and develop skills to become productive
community members. Two more advocates will soon join the staff to work with families who live in
public housing, funded by a Family Investment Center grant from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The center serves as a training site for Americorps volunteers: There are
15 Youth Corps trainees. It also includes a Youth Build program with 58 participants and nine staff.
Several programs that are not coordinated by Center staff are also housed there: The seniors
program employs two full-time and one part-time staff member to serve 50 seniors; the literacy
program includes two part-time and one full-time staff member for 80 students; and the Youth
Services Center includes two full-time staff and three VISTA volunteers. In addition, the Center
houses outreach staff from a Johns Hopkins University program for pressure and diabetes.
A-1
The Center coordinator is developing a collaborative group of service providers who operate
publicly-funded services in the community. This collaborative will work to address concerns about
the systems that emerge when center staff members work to assist families and community residents.
It will serve as a "quality assurance mechanism" to implement a customer-driven system of services
and supports.
The process of developing the center and the outcomes of this work are being documented as
part of a long-term, privately-funded evaluation of the neighborhood transformation effort and its
impact on families and the neighborhood.
On a blustery cold day this winter, Diane Johnson, a Family Advocate at the Sandtown-
Winchester Community Center, was in her office.
I'll never get caught up, she thought. I work with 35 families, and every one of them needs
more than I can possibly give. Every time there's a problem, it's another new program,
another new caseworker to call, another set of forms to help the family get through. I need to
stay focused on the families' needs, but sometimes I feel as overwhelmed as they do
She looked up when a young woman entered the office. Stephanie Jones was carrying a little
girl, bundled against the cold. Following behind her were two older boys. Diane invited her to take
a seat, and asked what she could do to help. "My heat and lights are out," said Stephanie. "The
apartment is getting cold and my little girl is sick. My neighbor upstairs says that you can help me
get the power turned back on again."
"I don't know how quickly I can get your heat and lights turned on," Diane replied, "but we
can see if you are eligible for help from the Maryland Energy Assistance Program. Let's get started
by thinking about tonight. It's going to be very cold. Is there any place you and your children can
stay?"
For the next half-hour, Diane began to get information from Stephanie, little by little, to see
what help she could piece together for the family.
As Diane talked to the mother, she noticed the children: Shauna was coughing and wheezing;
Samuel, the middle boy, was never still, moving constantly around the room, touching every
object, talking nonstop; Brian, the oldest boy, was quiet and withdrawn, looking only at the
floor, never at his mother or the other children.
Working with Stephanie to complete the application for the Energy Assistance Program,
Diane discovered that the electric bill had gone unpaid since early fall because Stephanie she had used
the money to pay off bills that came due after her boyfriend Charles had left. Because of Stephanie's
income, Diane concluded that Stephanie and her children were eligible for Energy Assistance
Program funds. She called the emergency number at BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric) and read the
information to a worker there, who agreed to turn on the power during the next 24 hours if Stephanie
brought the Energy Assistance application to her office in a nearby shopping mall by close of business
that day.
With her immediate heating problems resolved, Stephanie began to relax a little and to talk
about her children and her life. She introduced Shauna, as well as Samuel, who was 8 and in the
A-2
second grade at Gilmor Elementary School, and Brian, an eleven-year-old sixth grader at Harlem
Park Middle School. She also said that she was expecting another baby in about four months.
Stephanie, now 28, dropped out of high school when she was 17, in tenth grade and pregnant
with Brian. She always liked math, but had a hard time with reading. She would like to get her
GED (General Equivalency Diploma) but has never gotten started going back to school. She doesn't
know who would take care of the kids while she went to class and studied.
Stephanie has received support from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program on and off since Brian was born 11 years ago. Because she receives AFDC, she also
qualifies for Food Stamps and Medical Assistance. The family lives in a small two-bedroom
apartment in the Gilmor Homes, a public housing project in the neighborhood. The boys also qualify
for the federally funded nutrition programs. Samuel eats breakfast and lunch at school, but Brian
doesn't like the "free lunch" at the middle school and usually buys a soda and some chips on his way
to school.
In order to continue receiving AFDC, Stephanie had to say who had fathered her children.
The father of the two boys was her high school boyfriend, Marcus, whom she has not seen or heard
from since he left for Texas six years ago, saying he would send her money to join him once he
found a job. Charles is Shauna's father and the father of the child Stephanie is carrying. He left the
family several months ago, discouraged because he couldn't find work. Stephanie has heard that he is
living in a nearby county, but she doesn't know how to reach him.
Diane listened and made brief notes while she thought about what it would take to help this
family over the long haul. She found out that Stephanie had not yet gotten any prenatal care, even
though she had high blood pressure during her previous pregnancy. When Diane gave showed
Stephanie a pamphlet about the Healthy Start program, she noticed that Stephanie didn't pay much
attention to the printed information, and Diane made a note to check on Stephanie's literacy level.
And Diane asked about Samuel's nonstop energy: how was he doing in school? Not very well,
Stephanie answered. He had already been retained in kindergarten for a second year, and now the
teacher wanted to put him into Special Education.
But it was her oldest boy that Stephanie was really worried about. Since he started middle
school last fall, Brian had found a new group of friends who cut classes a lot and spent time hanging
out on the street during the day and especially after school, when there is little else to do. Brian is
small for his age, his mother said, but he can run fast and take care of himself. But last week, the
police brought in home in a squad car. He and his friends had been standing on the corner, fooling
around, and someone threw a rock that hit the police car. All the bigger boys said that it was Brian
who threw the rock, although he denied it. The police told Stephanie that they think Brian is
involved with a street gang that deals in drugs. They talked about putting troublemakers like Brian
into a juvenile detention home, and told Stephanie that she needs to keep him home and off the street.
By this time, the children were restless and ready to leave, and Stephanie had to take them on
the bus to the BGE office and then to a friend's house until the her apartment was warm. Diane was
concerned that Stephanie would not come in on her own again until there was another emergency, so
she set up an appointment to visit Stephanie at her apartment next week, when the boys would be in
school. And Diane began to ponder what she could really do to help Stephanie's family:
A-3
Stephanie needs to get prenatal care soon to reduce the chance that her high blood pressure
will lead to her having a premature baby. I need to make sure that she gets to the Healthy
Start Center right away, and they can get her into the clinic. Are there slots available in the
WIC (Women, Infants and Children) food and nutrition program that is held at the Center on
Tuesdays? And is the private funding for the Literacy Center going to be extended for the
next six months?
Brian isn't a bad kid, just a bored middle-school boy looking for some adventure and
approval from his peers. The after-school program at the Center is run by VISTA volunteers
and it's a good place for kids, but there's a really good martial arts program
at a
shopping center nearby that helps kids make close connections with positive adults. The
school can use Title I funding for kids who are failing academically, but who will pay
for a kid to learn something normal and positive and give him something to do besides hang
out on the street?
Does Samuel really need Special Education, or just some special attention from his family?
Has the school scheduled an ARD (Admission, Dismissal and Review) meeting to develop an
IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for him? Someone needs to go to that ARD meeting with
Stephanie to advocate for her and for Samuel.
Is Shauna getting adequate medical care for her asthma? Do her frequent illnesses keep her
from being enrolled in the Head Start program at Lafayette Square Elementary School? And
if she needs to stay at home, could both Stephanie and Shauna be enrolled in HIPPY (Home
Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters) that is operated by Americorps volunteers from
the Center and funded by local foundations? We need to get started with that little one to
make sure that she will be ready for kindergarten.
Diane's list of questions about the family was long, and she knew how difficult it would be to
negotiate the many systems on behalf of the Jones family to help it get its feet on the ground. She
would need to obtain multiple copies of birth certificates, rent receipts, utility bills, and social
security cards to establish eligibility separately for each federal, state, and local program. She would
need to make phone calls to at least half a dozen agencies to navigate eligibility checks, waiting lists,
and workload delays, encountering underfunded programs and workers who were concerned with
only one problem of one family member. And she would need to work with Stephanie to build her
confidence and ability to solve her own problems. It seemed that each program was designed only to
provide one kind of service to one person. No one was thinking of the whole family. She was
strongly committed to serving children and families, but this was much harder than it should be
In her caseload of 35 families, Diane knew more than a dozen moms with stories much like
Stephanie's. These women and their children could grow, she was convinced, if they could have full-
time attention for a short time, an intensive "mentor mother" program. There were mothers in the
community who had raised children successfully despite poverty and peer pressure and the other
negative influences. They had skills that they could teach the younger mothers, and they could earn
enough to improve their own lives. Perhaps the Center could start a new program to connect these
women, one on one. Diane decided to propose the mentor mother program at the next staff meeting.
But at the meeting, Diane's bright idea got lost in concerns about developing a continuum of
supports and keeping them operating at full strength. "The public funds just don't begin to support
A-4
this kind of a program. They are spread too thin, and I have so many restrictions on the ways funds
can be spent that I have trouble paying anyone to work with more than one program," the coordinator
said. "I end up patching from one source of funding to another all of the time, just to stay even. I
have three proposals for foundation funding to write in the next two months just to continue the
programs we now have. I know that advocates carry caseloads that are too high for the intensive
work these families need, and I could use three more just to meet the needs of families we are seeing
right now. This place is the hub of the whole community, but it's a struggle to provide the supports
this community needs to survive."
"The community college pays for the literacy center to be open at night, but we must find
private funding to keep it open in the daytime so mothers can come while their kids are in school,"
the coordinator continued. We have young people trained to fix up homes who are willing to
volunteer to help older people in the neighborhood, but we don't have any way to get plastic sheeting
and other materials so that these old places can be winterized. Half of our Emergency Services
funding comes from private foundations. We will lose half our VISTA volunteers next year, and I
hear that funding for Americorps may be eliminated by Congress. If that happens, we will not be
able to keep the HIPPY program operating."
Diane and the other members of the staff were quiet for a while. Finally someone said,
"There must be a better way to serve families and the community."
A-5
Federal Participants
Department of Agriculture
The Honorable Daniel R. Glickman
Gerald N. Tirozzi
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
14th Street and Independence Ave. SW
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, DC 20250
1250 Maryland Ave. SW
Portals Building Room 4000
Ellen Haas
Washington, DC 20202
Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services
Jeanne Jehl
14th and Independence Ave. SW
Executive Director
Room 240E
Working Group on Comprehensive Services
Washington, DC 20250
Department of Education
600 Independence Ave. SW
Colin Hefferan
Portals Building, Room 604
Acting Administrator
Washington, DC 20202
USDA-CSEES
Room 305A
Department of Health and Human
Jamie L. Whitten Building
Services
Washington, DC 20250-2201
The Honorable Donna E. Shalala
Department of Education
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
200 Independence Ave. SW
Secretary
Washington, DC 20201
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Ave. SW
Philip Lee, M.D.
Washington, DC 20202
Assistant Secretary for Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Terry Peterson
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
Counselor to the Secretary
200 Independence Ave. SW, Room 716G
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, DC 20201
600 Independence Ave. SW, Room 6133
Washington, DC 20202
Peter Edelman
Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Marshall Smith
Evaluation
Under Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Education
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
600 Independence Ave. SW, Room 5164
200 Independence Ave. SW, Room 615
Washington, DC 20202
Washington, DC 20201
William Kincaid
Ann Rosewater
Office of the Under Secretary
Deputy Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of Education
Administration for Children and Families
600 Independence Ave. SW, Room 5142
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, DC 20202
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20447
B-1
Olivia Golden
Department of Transportation
Commissioner
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
The Honorable Federico F. Pena
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary
Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 2026
U.S. Department of Transportation
330 C Street SW
400 7th Street SW
Washington, DC 20201
Washington, DC 20590
Walter Broadnax
Gordon Litton
Deputy Secretary
Administrator
Department of Health and Human Services
Federal Transit Administration
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
400 7th Street SW, Room 9328
200 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20590
Washington, DC 20201
Judith Burrell
Jo Ivey Boufford
Special Assistant to the Secretary
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human Services
400 7th Street SW, Room 10200
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 716-G
Washington, DC 20590
200 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20201
Department of Justice
Department of Housing and Urban
The Honorable Janet Reno
Development
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Henry G. Cisneros
10th Street and Constitution Ave. NW
Secretary
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Shay Bilchick
451 7th Street SW
Administrator
Washington, DC 20410
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
Michael Stegman
Indiana Building, Room 742
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and
633 Indiana Ave. NW
Research
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Room 8100
Reggie Robinson
451 7th Street SW
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Washington, DC 20410
Department of Justice
Indiana Building, Room 1300
Andrew Cuomo
633 Indiana Ave. NW
Assistant Secretary for
Washington, DC 20530
Community Planning and Development
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Labor
451 7th Street SW, Room 7100
Washington, DC 20410
The Honorable Robert B. Reich
Secretary
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210
B-2
Timothy Barnacle
Ken Apfel
Assistant Secretary
Associate Director, Human Resources
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Management and Budget
Department of Labor, Room S2307
White House, OEOB #260
200 Constitution Ave. NW
17th and Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210
Washington, DC 20503
Josephine Nieves
Nancy-Ann Min
Employment and Training Administration
Associate Director, Health and Personnel
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Office of Management and Budget
Department of Labor, Room N4459
White House, OEOB #262
Washington, DC 20210
17th and Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20503
J.D. Hoye
Executive Director
National Economic Council
School-to-Work Office, Room 201
400 Virginia Ave. SW
Paul Dimond
Washington, DC 20202
Special Asst. to the President for Economic Policy
National Economic Council
Domestic Policy Council
White House, OEOB #225
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Carol Rasco
Washington, DC 20500
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
White House, West Wing
Community Empowerment Board
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20502
Sheryll Cashin
Staff Director
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Community Empowerment Board
Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic
Office of the Vice President
Policy
White House, OEOB #564
White House, OEOB #218-A
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20502
Washington, DC 20502
Intergovernmental Affairs
Gaynor McCown
Senior Policy Analyst
White House, OEOB #210
Emily Bromberg
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Deputy Director for Intergovernmental Affairs
Washington, DC 20502
White House, OEOB #106
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC 20502
Office of the Vice President /
The Honorable Alice M. Rivlin
Director
National Performance Review
Office of Management and Budget
Old Executive Office Building
The Honorable Elaine Kamarck
Washington, DC 20503
Senior Policy Advisor to the Vice President
National Performance Review
White House, OEOB #273
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20502
B-3
Beverly Godwin
National Performance Review
750 17th Street NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Nancy Hoit
1175 Main St.
Hingham, MA 02043
Prevention Council
Greg Everetts
Prevention Council
736 Jackson Place
Washington, DC 20502
B-4