[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   A CALL TO ACTION: MODERNIZING THE
                     COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                            CIVIL RIGHTS AND
                             HUMAN SERVICES

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

            HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 3, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-33

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


        Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                              __________
                              
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-029 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
 
                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

             ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona            VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut              Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      JOE WILSON, South Carolina
  Northern Mariana Islands           GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California              ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina        RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California          JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan           DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico   MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
MONDAIRE JONES, New York             VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina     SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana              MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair  MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                Vacancy
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland

                   Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                  Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES

                  SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Chairwoman

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina        RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Ranking 
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut                Member
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico   GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana              LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland               SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex 
  (ex officio)                           officio)
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on November 3, 2021.................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil 
      Rights 
      and Human Services.........................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Fulcher, Hon. Rich, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil 
      Rights 
      and Human Services.........................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Bradley, David, Chief Executive Officer, National Community 
      Action Foundation..........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Clarence H. Carter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of 
      Human Services.............................................   118
        Prepared statement of....................................   121
    Katherine King Galian, Director of Family and Community 
      Resources, Community Action................................   124
        Prepared statement of....................................  126-
    Scott-Chandler, Sharon, JD, Executive VP and COO, Action for 
      Boston Community Development...............................   112
        Prepared statement of....................................   115

Additional Submissions:
    Chairwoman Bonamici:
        Statement for the record from the National Association 
          for State Community Services Programs..................   237
        Statement for the record from the Rural Community 
          Assistance Partnership.................................   240
    Chairman Scott:
        Letter dated November 3, 2021 from The Coalition Against 
          Religious Discrimination...............................   243
    Ranking Member Fulcher:
        Letter dated November 15, 2021 from the Institutional 
          Religious Freedom Alliance at The Center for Public 
          Justice................................................   245
        Letter dated November 16, 2021 from the National 
          Religious Broadcasters.................................   247
        Letter dated November 3, 2021 from the Ethics and Public 
          Policy Center..........................................   248

 
                   A CALL TO ACTION: MODERNIZING THE
                     COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, November 3, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,
                          Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. via 
Zoom, Hon. Suzanne Bonamici (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bonamaci, Adams, Hayes, Leger 
Fernandez, Mrvan, Bowman, Scott (ex officio), Fulcher, 
Thompson, McClain, Fitzgerald, Foxx (ex officio), Stefanik, and 
Comer.
    Staff present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Sheila 
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Carrie Hughes, 
Director of Health and Human Services; Ariel Jona, Policy 
Associate; Andre Lindsay, Policy Associate; Max Moore, Staff 
Assistant; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; Veronique 
Pluviose, Staff Director; Jessica Schieder, Economic Policy 
Advisor; Theresa Thompson, Professional Staff; Banyon Vassar, 
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Cyrus Artz, Minority 
Staff Director; Caitlin Burke, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Michael Davis, Minority Operations Assistant; Amy Raaf 
Jones, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources 
Policy; David Maestas, Minority Fellow; Hannah Matesic, 
Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Eli 
Mitchell, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg, 
Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. The Subcommittee on Civil Rights and 
Human Services will come to order. Welcome everyone. I note 
that a quorum is present. I also note for the Subcommittee that 
Ms. Stefanik of New York and Mr. Comer of Kentucky are 
permitted to participate in today's hearing with the 
understanding that their questions will come only after all 
Members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are 
present have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on ``A 
Call to Action: Modernizing the Community Services Block 
Grant.'' This is an entirely remote hearing and as such the 
Committee's hearing room is officially closed. All microphones 
will be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary 
background noise.
    Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting 
themselves when they are recognized to speak or when they wish 
to seek recognition. If a Member or witness experiences 
technical difficulty during the hearing please stay connected 
on the platform, make sure you are muted, and use your phone to 
immediately call the Committee's IT director whose number was 
provided in advance. Should the Chair experience a technical 
difficulty or need to step away or another majority Member is 
hereby authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence.
    To ensure that the Committee's five-minute rule is adhered 
to, which sometimes is challenging, staff will be keeping track 
of time using the Committee's digital timer which appears in 
its own thumbnail picture. Members and witnesses are asked to 
wrap up promptly once their time has expired.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) opening statements are 
limited to the Chair and ranking Member. I recognize myself now 
for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Today we're examining the role of the Community Services 
Block Grant Program and our national and local efforts to 
reduce poverty. Poverty in America is a persistent and complex 
epidemic that directly, or indirectly affects everyone across 
the country. Yet we know poverty can look very different from 
one community to another.
    On the important issues of hunger, homelessness, and 
inadequate access to affordable healthcare each of our 
communities grapple with unique circumstances when it comes to 
supporting our fellow American in need. As policymakers we 
might not always have the same views about the causes of, or 
exact solutions to the many ways in which poverty manifests, 
but I'm confident that we can agree that efforts to end poverty 
are best led by those in the community who understand the 
unique challenges they face.
    In 1964, Congress first established its responsibility to 
support locally driven anti-poverty initiatives by the 
authorizing Community Action Programs, which led to what we now 
know as Community Action Agencies, or CAAs. Today these 
entities, made possible by the Community Services Block Grant, 
form a network of more than 1,000 organizations that work in 
nearly every county across the country to help individuals and 
families find their path out of poverty.
    Many CAAs are central pillars of their communities. They 
administer programs like Head Start to provide quality early 
childhood education to low-income children and to support their 
families. Meals on Wheels to support seniors experiencing 
hunger and isolation, and LIHEAP, the low-income home energy 
assistance program that helps people keep their utilities on.
    In the Fiscal Year 2019, CAAs helped nine million 
individuals.
    [Background noise.]
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Mr. Mrvan can you mute. Thank you. 
More than five million families secure economic stability and 
meaningful employment, education, adequate housing and much 
more.
    In my home State of Oregon, CAAs were able to serve more 
than 15,000 people who lack healthcare. 43,000 individuals who 
reported having a disability, 21,000 senior citizens, 83,000 
children living in poverty, and 8,200 veterans. To be clear, 
eradicating the multi-generational consequences of concentrated 
poverty is much greater than any one program.
    Yet for people across the country CAAs continue to be a 
reliable and essential source of assistance during times of 
economic prosperity or downturn, and particularly during 
national emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the 
importance of CAAs, and the Community Services Block Grant 
Program.
    Last year at the start of the pandemic CAAs were among the 
first to provide food and emergency support to those in need, 
and now these entities are playing a key role in conducting 
vaccine education and outreach and helping low-income families 
access broadband and digital devices, distributing rental 
assistance, and preventing households from losing water and 
heating.
    Despite consistent bipartisan support for the Community 
Services Block Grant, Congress has not reauthorized this 
program since 1998. That was when Google was founded, and John 
Glenn was on the space shuttle Discovery. It's been a long 
time. Yet over the past decade CAAs have had to do far more 
with increasingly cheaper resources, even while they face 
unique challenges providing critical services.
    As we recover from this historic, global, health pandemic, 
we have an opportunity, and I submit a responsibility, to renew 
our bipartisan commitment to providing struggling Americans 
with direct and meaningful support that will help them through 
challenging times, and reportedly show them the path out of 
poverty.
    With the help of our witnesses, we will discussion 
bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Representative G. 
T. Thompson, Eddie McConnell, Elise Stefanik, Mark DeSaulnier 
and James Palmer, and many other cosponsors to modernize and 
reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant.
    I thank each of my colleagues for joining in this 
significant endeavor and appreciate that several of them are 
joining this hearing today to highlight the importance of 
updating the CSBG program. I also want to thank my staff Jack 
Arriaga and the Committee staff on both sides of the aisle who 
have worked so hard to get to this point today.
    Our bill, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization 
Act of 2021 will be reauthorized CSBG for 10 years, the longest 
period in its history, and make long overdue improvements to 
the program, including strengthening funding for Community 
Action Agencies, expanding access to their services, and 
streamlining cooperation between the Federal Government, 
states, and local entities.
    Poverty is not inevitable in this country. Today I am 
hopeful that we can find common ground and discuss the shared 
policy goals, we must realize to help those in need, and to 
help them improve their lives.
    I want to thank our witnesses again, and I now yield to the 
Ranking Member Mr. Fulcher for his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]

 Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil 
                       Rights and Human Services

    Today, we are examining the role of the Community Services Block 
Grant program in our national and local efforts to reduce poverty.
    Poverty in America is a persistent and complex epidemic that 
directly or indirectly affects everyone across the country. Yet, we 
know poverty can look very different from one community to another. On 
the important issues of hunger, homelessness, and inadequate access to 
affordable health care, each of our communities grapple with unique 
circumstances when it comes to supporting our fellow Americans in need.
    As policymakers, we may not always have the same views about the 
causes of, or exact solutions to, the many ways in which poverty 
manifests. But I'm confident we can agree that efforts to end poverty 
are best led by those in the community who understand the unique 
challenges they face.
    In 1964, Congress first established its responsibility to support 
locally driven anti-poverty initiatives by authorizing Community Action 
Programs, which led to what we now know as Community Action Agencies, 
or C-A-As. Today, these entities-made possible by the Community 
Services Block Grant-form a network of more than 1,000 organizations 
that work in nearly every county across the country to help individuals 
and families find their path out of poverty.
    Many C-A-As are central pillars of their communities. They 
administer programs like Head Start to provide quality early childhood 
education for low-income children and support their families, Meals on 
Wheels to support seniors experiencing hunger and isolation, and 
LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps people 
keep their utilities on.
    In the Fiscal Year 2019, C-A-As helped more than nine million 
individuals, including nearly five million families, secure economic 
stability, meaningful employment and education, adequate housing, and 
much more.
    In my home State of Oregon, C-A-As were able to serve more than 
14,000 people who lacked healthcare, 43,000 individuals who reported 
having a disability, 21,000 senior citizens, 83,000 children living in 
poverty, and 8,200 veterans.
    To be clear, eradicating the multigenerational consequences of 
concentrated poverty is much greater than any one program. Yet, for 
people across the country, C-A-As continue to be a reliable and 
essential source of assistance during times of economic prosperity or 
downturn, and particularly during national emergencies.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of C-A-As and 
the Community Services Block Grant program. Last year, at the start of 
the pandemic, C-A-As were among the first to provide food and emergency
    support to those in need. And now, these entities are playing a key 
role in conducting vaccine education and outreach, helping low-income 
families access broadband and digital devices, distributing rental 
assistance, and preventing households from losing water and heating.
    Despite consistent bipartisan support for the Community Services 
Block Grant, Congress has not reauthorized the program since 1998, that 
was when Google was founded and John Glenn was on the space shuttle 
Discovery. It's been a long time. Over the past few decades, C-A-As 
have had to do far more with increasingly fewer resources-even while 
they face unique challenges to providing critical services.
    As we recover from a historic global health pandemic, we have an 
opportunity and a responsibility to renew our bipartisan commitment to 
providing struggling Americans with direct and meaningful support that 
will help them through challenging times and importantly show them a 
path out of poverty
    With the help of our witnesses, we will discuss bipartisan 
legislation that I have introduced with Representatives Glenn ``GT'' 
Thompson, Betty McCollum, Elise Stefanik, Mark DeSaulnier, and James 
Comer, and many other cosponsors, to modernize and reauthorize the 
Community Services Block Grant. I thank each of my colleagues for 
joining in this significant endeavor and appreciate that several of 
them are joining this hearing today to highlight the importance of 
updating the CSBG program. I also want to thank my staff, Jack Arriaga, 
and the committee staff on both sides of aisle who have worked so hard 
to get this point today.
    Our bill, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 
2021, will reauthorize CSBG for 10 years-the longest period in its 
history-and make long-overdue improvements to the program, including:

   Strengthening funding for Community Action Agencies,

   Expanding access to their services; and

   Streamlining collaboration between the Federal Government, 
        states, and local entities.

    Poverty is not inevitable in this country. Today, I am hopeful we 
can find common ground and discuss the shared policy goals we must 
realize to help those in need improve their lives.
    I want to thank our witnesses, again, and I now yield to the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Fulcher, for his opening statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. For decades the 
Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG Program has empowered 
civil institutions and local governments to serve low-income 
individuals and communities. Congress has not reauthorized the 
CSBG since 1998, and I think it's safe to say that our economy 
has changed tremendously over the past two decades to warrant a 
closer look at the program.
    We have an opportunity before us today to examine areas of 
the CSBG Program that need to be reformed. We need to consider 
ways to strengthen it. It's our job to make sure this program 
operates as effectively as possible.
    In addition to adding a greater accountability in low-
income community Members and taxpayers, we should look for ways 
to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, encourage innovation and 
ensure policymakers have essential information about how the 
program meets the needs of low-income Americans, helping them 
to move forward to stability, opportunity, and self-reliance.
    We should not be content to have vulnerable, low-income, 
and impoverished Americans remain locked in their current 
economic position, neither should we be content to leave 
Federal programs as is simply because it's easier than 
improving them. Our programs to help those in need, including 
CSBG should all be focused on helping to raise individuals out 
of poverty, and move them into the workforce.
    One important way we can transform these programs is 
through a greater focus on outcomes. We need measurable 
outcomes from our Federal safety net programs. Our safety net 
exists to assist those who are most in need, but reforms need 
to be made to ensure they work for the people they are intended 
to serve.
    A greater emphasis on program performance will ensure that 
Federal anti-poverty programs are successfully helping 
individuals move out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency. 
Last, as we re-examine CSBG and other social safety net 
programs, we must protect faith-based providers. Faith-based 
organizations and charitable non-profits have been a backbone 
of our country's efforts to serve those in poverty since our 
Nation's founding.
    Faith-based organizations provide greatly needed material 
resource to low-income Americans, but they are also uniquely 
position to provide relational capital and spiritual support to 
them as well. Helping individuals out of poverty requires more 
than just material aid.
    Faith-based organizations work tirelessly every day to 
serve Americans living in poverty and support their general 
well-being. Undermining the right of faith-based organizations 
to operate in accord with their conscience, harms the tradition 
of charity that strengthens our communities.
    Faith-based providers should be able to participate in 
government programs without having to change how they live out 
their faith. With all showing due respect for one another, we 
must protect the rights of religious organizations to hire 
employees in accordance with their faith. There are more than 
19,000 religious organizations that participate in the CSBG 
Program.
    Their absence would create an enormous service gap. It's 
our responsibility to make our Nation's anti-poverty programs 
the best they can be, but we can do this by encouraging 
modernization and innovation as well as transparency and 
accountability. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 
today on how we can transform this program into one that helps 
impoverished Americans achieve. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fulcher follows:]

 Statement of Hon. Rich Fulcher, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil 
                       Rights and Human Services

    For decades the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program has 
empowered civil institutions and local governments to serve low-income 
individuals and communities.
    Congress has not reauthorized the CSBG since 1998, and I think it's 
safe to say that our economy has changed tremendously over the past two 
decades to warrant a closer look at the program. We have an opportunity 
before us today to examine areas of the CSBG program that need to be 
reformed and we need to consider ways to strengthen it.
    It is our job to make sure this program operates as effectively as 
possible. In addition to adding greater accountability to low-income 
community members and taxpayers, we should look for ways to reduce 
unnecessary bureaucracy, encourage innovation, and ensure policymakers 
have essential information about how the program meets the needs of 
low-income Americans, helping them to move toward stability, 
opportunity, and self-reliance.
    We should not be content to have vulnerable, low-income, and 
impoverished Americans remain locked in their current economic 
position. Neither should we be content to leave Federal programs 'as 
is' simply because it is easier than improving them. Our programs to 
help those in need--including CSBG--should all be focused on helping to 
raise individuals out of poverty and move them into the workforce.
    One important way we can transform these programs is through a 
greater focus on outcomes. We need measurable outcomes from our Federal 
safety net programs.
    Our safety net exists to assist those who are most in need, but 
reforms need to be made to ensure they work for the people they are 
intended to serve. A greater emphasis on program performance will 
ensure that Federal anti-poverty programs are successfully helping 
individuals move out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency.
    Last, as we re-examine CSBG and other social safety net programs, 
we must protect faith-based providers.
    Faith-based organizations and charitable non-profits have been a 
backbone of our country's efforts to serve those in poverty since our 
Nation's founding.
    Faith-based organizations provide greatly needed material resources 
to low-income Americans, but they are also uniquely positioned to 
provide relational capital and spiritual support to them as well. 
Helping individuals out of poverty requires more than just material 
aid. Faith-based organizations work tirelessly every day to serve 
Americans living in poverty and support their general well-being.
    Undermining the right of faith-based organizations to operate in 
accord with their conscience harms the tradition of charity that 
strengthens our communities. Faith-based providers should be able to 
participate in government programs without having to change how they 
live out their faith, with all showing due respect for one another. We 
must protect the rights of religious organizations to hire employees in 
accordance with their faith.
    There are more than 19,000 religious organizations that participate 
in the CSBG program. Their absence would create an enormous service 
gap.
    It is our responsibility to make our Nation's anti-poverty programs 
the best they can be. We can do this by encouraging modernization and 
innovation, as well as transparency and accountability.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on how we can 
transform this program into one that helps impoverished Americans 
achieve.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher. And 
without objection all other Members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m. on November 17, 2021.
    I will now introduce the witnesses. David Bradley is the 
Chief Executive Officer of the National Community Action 
Foundation, which has for more than 40 years represented the 
funding and policy interests of the Nation's 1,000 community 
action agencies before Congress and the executive branch, and 
we're fortunate to have him with us today.
    Sharon Scott-Chandler is the Executive Vice President and 
Chief Operating Officer of Action for Boston Community 
Development, Inc. Where she oversees ABCD's wide array of human 
services programs.
    Clarence H. Carter is a Commissioner of the Tennessee 
Department of Human Services, having previously served as the 
Director of the Office of Family Assistance and Acting Director 
of the Office of Community Services within the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services from May 2017 through January 
2021.
    And finally, Katherine King Galian is the Director of 
Family and Community Resources at Community Action in 
Washington County, Oregon, where she oversees a range of 
programs, helping low-income families and individuals of 
Washington County prevent and end crises, and move toward 
stability and economic security.
    To the witnesses we appreciate you for participating today, 
and we look forward to your testimony. Your written statements 
will appear in full in the hearing record. You're asked to 
limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary. Then after 
your presentations we will move to Member questions.
    The witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide 
accurate information to the Subcommittee, and therefore we will 
proceed with their testimony. I will first recognize David 
Bradley. Mr. Bradley you are recognized for five minutes for 
your testimony. You need to unmute David.

   STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID BRADLEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
              NATIONAL COMMUNITY ACTION FOUNDATION

    Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Chair Bonamici and Ranking Member 
Fulcher, also Full Committee Chair Scott and Ranking Member Dr. 
Foxx. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the 
Community Services Block Grant, and this important legislation.
    This is the first hearing on the Community Services Block 
Grant in about 18 years. It is a very important hearing for the 
program to update you on progress made, but also to re-enforce 
and recommend I think adjustments that we need to make in our 
current legislation.
    Let me put into context the reason we have a Community 
Services Block Grant in 1981. It was created. I was involved 
with creating that program, and there was a recognition, 
bipartisan recognition in Congress, including by the Education 
and Labor Committee that is now the Senate HELP Committee, that 
a national network of community action agencies, anti-poverty 
agencies, primarily private non-profit was of value in 
assisting the poor and delivering opportunity and hope.
    We could not, and there was not a consensus, a majority 
consensus, to save a Federal local relationship which existed 
up from 1964 to 1981, but there was interest in a Community 
Services Block Grant support for community action agencies.
    Since then, since 1981, bipartisan support, growing 
recognition of the value of this network has grown steadily 
over the years, and today community action agencies are very 
much a vital part of our communities, and of our response to 
the needs of low-income families and individuals, and as I said 
communities.
    CSBG, when it was created, recognized, and supported a 
community action agency network that has some commonalities. 
One is every community action agency, private and non-profit 
has a tri-partite board with low-income participation, local 
elected officials, and a broad array of partners from the 
community, including faith-based.
    Second, is that the Community Services Block Grant enabled 
our agencies to be comprehensive, flexible, responsive, and 
coupled with the needs assessment that everyone, every agency 
is required to do, really directive on services and assistance 
needed to make the largest impact in their community.
    And with our public-private partnerships, and with the 
money that the community services funding, the Community 
Services Block Grant leverages, we're able to stretch that 
Federal investment far beyond just the dollars put in the 
Community Services Block Grant.
    So that recognition was there in 1981 and has continued to 
grow. And this national network of community action agencies 
that are united and supported by the Community Services Block 
Grant, having that network enabled for instance, Governor 
DeWine to allocate 554 million dollars on rental and mortgage 
assistance, combining programs, to the Community Action 
Network, because it was in place, all with the similar mission.
    He used them. He turned to them because he knew that they 
had the accountability, they had the knowledge, they had the 
familiarity with the problems and the needs of low-income 
communities. So, it funds a national network of community 
action agencies, and each of these community action agencies, 
as I said, has a tri-partite board, they do quality needs 
assessment, they deliver and provide assistance from almost 
cradle to grave throughout the community.
    They have incredible partnerships. Congressman Fulcher I 
looked in Idaho our agency's relationship with faith-based in 
your district--over 100 partnerships. So, these partnerships, 
public-private partnerships, familiarity with other non-profits 
with local government officials has been very, very strong. So, 
I'm running over time, but I'd like at some point to be able to 
tell you about the good things in this bill and how it reflects 
I think where the program should go.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of David Bradley
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. I'm sure there 
will be time in the questions. Next, I recognize Sharon Scott-
Chandler for five minutes for your testimony, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF SHARON SCOTT-CHANDLER, JD, EXECUTIVE VICE 
   PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ACTION FOR BOSTON 
                  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.

    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Good morning. My name is Sharon Scott-
Chandler, and I'm the Executive Vice President Chief Operating 
Officer at Action for Boston Community Development, ABCD. To 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Bonamici and Ranking Member Fulcher, 
Full Committee Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Dr. Foxx and 
the rest of the Committee Members, thank you for the 
opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of ABCD and our 
sister community action agencies across the country.
    Thank you also to the Chairwoman and Representative 
Thompson and others for introducing this critical legislation 
to reauthorize and modernize the Community Services Block 
Grant. Community action agencies which reach nearly every 
community in the United States is the quiet, but effectively, 
highly effective tools for which local residents work together 
to provide increased opportunity for their low-income 
neighbors.
    My organization, ABCD, is the largest private, non-profit 
community action agency in New England. We serve over 100,000 
low-income residents in the greater Boston area each year, 
helping them to move from poverty to stability, and from 
stability to success.
    The Community Services Block Grant, or CSBG is at the core 
of this success. Its provisions ensure local leadership and a 
clear focus on self-determination and economic opportunity. Its 
flexible structure promotes innovation and leveraging of other 
resources, both public and private, allowing each community to 
develop unique solutions to fit local needs.
    It also ensures a high level of accountability for each 
community action agency through outcomes-based performance 
measurement and reporting. CSBG has been the backbone for ABCD 
for almost 60 years, leveraging critical resources, low-income 
households across greater Boston. Let me offer a few examples.
    CSBG funding supports our 12 neighborhood service centers 
and a core of community-based programs. These are resources on 
the ground in each community where families in crisis can 
access through one door a comprehensive set of programs that 
take people out of poverty.
    Our centers operate food pantries, assist clients applying 
for SNAP and LIHEAP. We keep elders safe, healthy, and engaged. 
We facilitate workshops on computer literacy, we manage the 
volunteer income tax program. CSBG also supports ABCD's 
workforce development programs, and our childcare voucher 
management system, housing services, Head Start and youth 
programming. These are the kinds of initiatives that give 
adults the education necessary to enter high demand industries, 
and that have employed thousands of teens in their first job, 
laying the foundation for what they will need for lifelong 
employment.
    By allowing us to maintain critical resources, build 
partnerships and develop new program models, CSBG leverages 
tens of millions of dollars annually. CSBG may even be more 
vital now than when it was established given the complexities 
of poverty and the unprecedented challenges, we face in the 
world today.
    This was never so evident than in the last 18 months of the 
COVID-19 crisis, where because of CSBG we were able to impact 
over 200,000 people giving them hope amidst fear and tragedy. 
ABCD immediately adapted its emergency services safely to 
respond early on in the crisis while many non-profits and 
government entities remain closed.
    ABCD rapidly built a network of 20 community and faith-
based partners transforming initiatives to remote operation, 
distributing 3 million pounds of emergency food, and 
intervening to break homelessness for hundreds of households.
    We also created new public-private partnerships with PPE 
suppliers, restaurants, healthcare providers, and 
municipalities to meet the overwhelming health and socio-
economic needs in new ways. The core issues of poverty may look 
similar in our respective states, but the appropriate response 
delivered by each community action agency can, and often does 
look very different. CSBG, through flexibility and innovation, 
has allowed the network to be able to meet those diverse needs.
    We have the opportunity to strengthen the impact of the 
Community Services Block Grant with judicious modernization 
laid out in this bill, and I want to thank you for the 
opportunity to speak to you today and for your consideration.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Scott-Chandler follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Sharon Scott-Chandler
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony. 
And next I recognize Mr. Clarence H. Carter for five minutes 
for your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF MR. CLARENCE H. CARTER, COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE 
                  DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

    Mr. Carter. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Fulcher, Full 
Committee Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx, my name is 
Clarence H. Carter. I serve as Commissioner of the Tennessee 
Department of Human Services. I'm honored to speak with you 
today about my work with Community Services Block Grant 
Program, and the over 1,000 community action agencies coming in 
through the block grant.
    My work with CSBG spans over nearly three decades, while 
serving two Presidents, four Governors and a mayor. I've had 
the blessing and good fortune to partner with community 
organizations dedicated to addressing the challenges of those 
in our society experiencing economic, social, and developmental 
vulnerabilities.
    My working relationship with CSBG has been a rewarding and 
spirited one. I've met and considered among my friends and 
partners, leaders of several community action agencies. They 
are fierce poverty warriors doing some of the most innovative 
programming in this space.
    I want to clearly and unequivocally State for the record 
that it has been my lived professional experience that CSBG and 
the Community Action Network is a vital tool in the public 
effort to serve those Americans experiencing basic challenges 
to making their everyday lives work.
    Over these many years what has made our relationship ebb 
and flow is that I am a change agent. Since very early in my 
work in this space I have believed the public safety net is 
flawed in design and operation. I have dedicated my career to 
highlighting and addressing these flaws by proposing the new 
vision and construction for serving our vulnerable citizens.
    I've encouraged my partner, Community Action Network, to 
join me in this endeavor. I've openly shared this desire, and 
that has created some turbulence in our relationship. Allow me 
first to speak generally about what I believe are the flaws of 
our public safety net before turning to my hopes for CSBG and 
the transformation of the American safety net.
    Between Federal and State government loans, America spends 
more than one trillion dollars annually in over 80 programs 
that address every aspect of the human condition. Each program, 
while important in its individual objective, is not tied to any 
overarching vision to our Nation.
    Our current safety net is not actually a system or a net at 
all. Instead, we have the disparate set of individual benefits, 
goods and services that operate as band-aids to certain human 
conditions. As a result, we measure success in the current 
system by focusing on how many needed the services we provided, 
how quickly we process applications, and whether we provide 
every benefit, good or service to every eligible individual and 
family.
    We take these measurements without considering the 
perspective of those served. In doing so we fail to measure 
what I believe is the most important objective--rolling those 
in need beyond their dependence on the benefits, goods, and 
services we provide.
    We believe the safety net should serve as a mile marker in 
the life's journey, not a destination unto itself. We instead 
should measure success by focusing on freeing those we serve 
from the life of basic survival to a life that allows them to 
create their own unique version of the American dream. I use 
the phrase ``growing capacity'' to reduce dependency.
    I would argue this should be the overarching vision, true 
north, and rallying cry for our American safety net. This will 
result in supporting our vulnerable citizens in ways that 
foster their growth of knowledge, skill, and independence from 
government supports.
    I would further argue that we don't leverage other sectors 
of American society in this type of work. A one trillion dollar 
figure I referenced previously is a public funding only. It 
does not account for one dollar, or 1 hour of time, talent and 
treasure, any number of sectors add to the equation.
    We don't combine our efforts and assets to ensure the whole 
American safety net is greater than the sum of its parts. Now 
back to CSBG and community action. The Economic Opportunity Act 
of 1964 created this network of national and locally focused 
organization to lead the Nation's conversation on the issues on 
the economic social and developmental vulnerability.
    During my 27-year relationship with Community Action, my 
hope has always been that they would partner with me to say 
this emperor has no clothes. Our safety net, while absolutely 
essential to the vitality of our Nation is woefully flawed in 
its design and operation. My hope has been and remains that 
Community Action will speak out about the problem and work 
toward solving it.
    To be clear, the problem is not that we don't have enough 
funding or programs, or people or heart to solve these 
challenges. The problem is that we have no system at all. We 
don't leverage all of the American assets in pursuit of a 
shared vision to grow capacity and reduce dependency.
    Addressing poverty in American cannot be a problem left to 
the government to solve alone. I truly don't believe CSBG, or 
any----
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Excuse me Mr. Carter you are over time 
if you wouldn't mind wrapping up, please.
    Mr. Carter. Yes ma'am. It has been my experience that CSBG 
and Community Action Agencies are an invaluable tool in the 
toolbox of America's effort to serve those in our society 
experiencing economic social and developmental vulnerability, 
however every tool in our toolbox, in fact the toolbox itself 
demands a refresh.
    My critique here today is to call to action all of us to 
rethink, reimagine and renew the collective American effort to 
serve our neighbors and build a society that provides true 
opportunity for all to try. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members 
of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Clarence H. Carter
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And I now recognize 
Katherine King Galian from my home State of Oregon for five 
minutes for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MS. KATHERINE KING GALIAN, DIRECTOR OF FAMILY AND 
             COMMUNITY RESOURCES, COMMUNITY ACTION

    Ms. King Galian. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair 
Bonamici, Ranking Member Fulcher, Chairman Scott, Ranking 
Member Foxx, and Members of the House Education and Labor 
Committee. Thank you for holding today's hearing and allowing 
us the opportunity to talk about why H.R. 5129 is so important 
for the recovery and well-being of our communities.
    My name is Katherine King Galian, and I join you this 
morning from Washington County, Oregon, where I have been on 
staff with Community Action since 2002, and currently the 
Director of Family and Community Resources.
    Today I am honored to share my perspective on the 
importance of this bill to solidify the role of CSBG, increased 
investment in this critical program, reinforce the emphasis on 
strategic planning at the local level, and permanently increase 
the income eligibility to 200 percent Federal poverty level.
    I'd like to tell you a little bit about my community. We 
are a county of just over 600,000 people in 726 square miles on 
the west side of the Brooklyn metro area. We have 12 cities, 7 
school districts, and the most diverse people in Oregon. Our 
neighborhoods are urban, suburban, and rural. We have the 
highest median income in the State and two of the state's 
highest poverty census block groups.
    Those facts impact the lives of people here, how they may 
or may not experience conditions of poverty and their access to 
opportunities. Through regular analysis of community needs and 
resources, intentional community engagement and partnership 
building, our community action organization has helped to build 
social infrastructure that grows thriving communities and 
provides permanent pathways out of poverty.
    Our deep community connections and long-standing 
partnerships were called upon as the health and economic crisis 
of COVID-19 hit our most vulnerable community Members hardest. 
Using CSBG carried that funding community action coordinated 
and expanded the capacity of a broad coalition of faith-based 
and culturally specific partners to respond to the needs of our 
most isolated and vulnerable community Members.
    While CSBG funds are less than 2 percent of the agency 
budget, they allow us to leverage private, local, State, and 
Federal investments, and to deploy them effectively to impact 
the lives of nearly 30,000 people each year. Our organization 
provides community-based programs across a variety of 
categories including financial education, career coaching, 
utility assistance, and weatherization, emergency shelter, 
housing, parenting supports, small business development and 
early childhood education.
    Because of CSBG we bridge each of these program areas and 
provide comprehensive supports that address the needs of the 
whole family. Families and individuals are more successful in 
their efforts to escape poverty when interventions are 
sequenced and coordinated in a way that reflects the realities 
of the human experience.
    I'd like to share one example of how this works in people's 
lives. Patricia lost her job and her home in the fall of 2019. 
For 6 years she successfully supported herself and three 
children as a bartender in a hotel. But when hotel ownership 
changed, she lost her job. She couldn't afford rent, and had to 
move in with friends, and she struggled to find stability.
    She became increasingly anxious and depressed. At Community 
Action, Patricia worked with a career coach who encouraged her 
to further her education and increase her earning potential. 
Patricia liked the idea of becoming a certified nursing 
assistant, CNA, but she was afraid the courses would be too 
hard. She did not have a strong educational foundation, and the 
idea of 6 weeks of classes to learn a new technical field was 
daunting.
    Her career coach was there with her every step of the way, 
starting with a resume. With her new resume in hand, Patricia 
applied to the Marquee company, CNA training program, 
interviewed and was accepted, but she continued to face 
hurdles. What if they were evicted? How would she afford gas to 
travel 30 minutes every day for classes? What about scrubs and 
books? But because of CSBG these barriers did not become 
roadblocks on her path to success.
    The classes were difficult, and Patricia struggled, but her 
coach was a constant source of encouragement. If she felt tired 
or frustrated her coach was there to say I know you can do it. 
And when she went on to proudly serve her coach right in 
February 2020, she was successful in completing her course and 
hired full-time at Marquee Assisted Living.
    As the economic challenges of the pandemic continue to 
impact families, Patricia is grateful to be in a field in such 
high demand, and that kind of job security is a huge relief to 
her. Thank you for believing in people like Patricia. Because 
of CSBG she has a job that she loves and a newfound confidence. 
She says who knows, maybe when I'm 60 I'll be a doctor.
    By permanently raising the income eligibility to 200 
percent people like Patricia can continue on a path she has 
worked so hard for. As a CNA working full-time at $22.00 an 
hour, she is under 200 percent Federal poverty level for her 
family of four, and her hard-won stability is penny-less.
    Rent to childcare, transportation costs, leave no margin 
for error in her monthly budget. An illness, a car repair, or 
an unexpected expense can derail her progress. With this change 
Patricia can continue to receive support and move forward on 
her goals and leave the life of insecurity behind for good. 
People's experiences of poverty are as unique and diverse as 
our community. Like roads, bridges, and schools, CSBG is what 
connects an often-fragmented set of investments in a cohesive 
system of pathways of opportunity for people.
    Passage of this bill ensures that our low-income 
individuals and families are centered as we rebuild to a new 
normal, and for years to come. Thank you again for your time 
and consideration of this bill.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. King Galian follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Katherine King Galian
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much for your testimony. 
Under Committee Rule 9(a) we will now question the witnesses 
under the five-minute rule. I will be recognizing Subcommittee 
Members in seniority order. As Chair, I recognize myself for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Galian, thank you again for your insightful testimony. 
As you noted Washington County, which happens to be in the 
district I'm honored to represent, the communities you serve 
are from urban to rural, include a wide range of socio-economic 
levels. We have companies like Nike, Intel, Genentech there 
that employ thousands in good-paying jobs, but as you also 
noted, you serve families in two of our state's highest poverty 
census blocks.
    So can you please talk about how Community Action's annual 
needs assessment, helps you meet the most urgent challenges of 
those you serve?
    Ms. King Galian. Yes. Thank you very much for your 
question, Congresswoman Bonamici. So first we hear directly 
from our community about what's most important to them, and 
we're able to focus our intervention around their priorities. 
We're not guessing, or developing interventions based on what 
funding is available. We're responding to community input, and 
putting the pieces together in a way that work for the folks 
based on the needs and resources where they live specifically--
place matters quite a bit in terms of how interventions 
function.
    We are able to be incredibly specific, what is needed in a 
town like Beaverton is very different from what is needed in 
Forest Grove or Banks, in terms of one--who the community is, 
and two--what access they have to opportunities. And we share 
those findings widely, so that we're able to stay as a 
community focused on the math problem, build consensus, and 
share information about what is happening in each of the 
neighborhoods.
    And that means that we aren't the only ones that are having 
to--that are working on interventions, we're working with a 
broad coalition of people.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And again for Ms. Galian, 
like many Federal programs, CSBG uses the Federal poverty level 
to determine eligibility, specifically allowing states to serve 
individuals up to 125 percent of FPL. But during the pandemic 
as you noted, the CARES Act temporarily allowed states the 
option of serving individuals up to 200 percent, with most 
states eagerly taking advantage of that option to help more 
people.
    So this flexibility was recently extended as I noted, but 
it's not permanent. So you told the story about Patricia, which 
I found very compelling. Why should a family living at 150-200 
percent of the Federal poverty level in Northwest Oregon or 
elsewhere, be eligible for CSBG?
    And what has this flexibility meant for Community Action, 
and your ability to serve them? And would you recommend that 
this flexibility be made permanent as our economy continues to 
recover from the pandemic?
    Ms. King Galian. Absolutely I would recommend that this 
flexibility be made permanent. People experience conditions of 
poverty you know, things like not being able to afford basic 
needs and incomes up to 200, in some situations 300 percent 
Federal poverty level. This flexibility has meant that we're 
able to kind of dull the cliff effect for families and provide 
some security for them as they work toward permanent stability.
    For folks like Patricia, a $600.00 car repair can mean a 
choice between paying rent or keeping a job. It's also the key 
to maximizing impact of the investments and sequencing and 
alignment. So programs that have income eligibility up to 80 
percent--a very medium income in Washington County, so with 
CSBG having a similar eligibility level we're able to do that 
alignment and sequencing of interventions and make them all 
more effective together.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. And in the remaining, a 
little more than a minute, I want to ask the same question to 
Ms. Scott-Chandler and Mr. Bradley. Would you recommend that 
this flexibility be made permanent as our economy continues to 
recover from the pandemic? Ms. Scott-Chandler and Mr. Bradley.
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Absolutely. As Katherine said housing 
is one of the biggest challenges in our region, and on average 
a one-bedroom apartment is $2,000.00, and 125 percent the 
monthly income is just over $2,200.00. So it really does leave 
our families and our elders, and everyone on the edge. I mean 
they are trading paying for medication, paying for life saving 
equipment for rent and other things, and so allowing the 200 
percent of poverty to continue captures those individuals and 
families.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Bradley do you agree?
    Mr. Bradley. Yes. I agree. It's the low--it's the hard-
working low-income families that fall between 125 and 200 
percent. It's easier to help assist, get them back on their 
feet when they're first falling, than when they plummet all the 
way down and have so many mountains to climb to get back to 
self-sufficiency.
    200 percent in the CARES Act, 200 percent in ARRA, 200 
percent in regular appropriations has proved invaluable for 
allowing these agencies----
    Chairwoman Bonamici. And thank you, and I'm going to try to 
set a good example and yield back. And now I recognize Ranking 
Member Fulcher for five minutes for your questions.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for Mr. 
Carter if I may please. Mr. Carter one of the things that is 
omitted in this bill is to me a very critical one, and that's 
the financial participation of faith-based organizations. And 
can you talk for just a little bit about what makes faith-based 
organizations unique in the way they serve low-income Americans 
compared to the government, how the government does it.
    And why religious providers are critical to the effort to 
help those that are in need. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Ranking Member thanks for the question. If 
given our intention to grow individuals and families beyond 
their need for these supports, what is important is to combine 
transactions with relationship. The government is good at the 
transaction part. It's horrible at the relationship part. And 
we see the community of faith as being a faithful partner in 
that relationship.
    So you put transaction together with relationship and that 
equals personal transformation, so we see think that that's an 
invaluable partner, along with other sectors of our society in 
serving economically socially, and developmentally vulnerable 
individuals and families.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Carter I can just hear as one person's 
perspective that I believe substantiates your comment about 
government not being the best at relations all the time. I 
think right now as a Congress we are struggling with our 
relations. And so thank you for your comment there.
    On a related note, followup Mr. Carter. There's also a 
restriction under the proposed changes that would prevent 
religious organizations from being able to hire employees 
according to their faith. Could you comment on that? That is if 
they receive the program funds. Of course, which is very 
important, and what kind of impact do you think that may have 
on the ability of those faith-based charities to fulfill their 
mission of serving low-income Americans?
    Mr. Carter. I think that it would actually undercut the 
core of what makes the community of faith what is it if indeed 
we require them to disconnect employees from their faith in 
service to those neighbors in our community we're trying to 
serve. It is a difference between the idea of proselytizing in 
the service that is being provided as opposed to me being 
allowed to have representation of my faith as part of the work 
that I do.
    So I think that we wouldn't want to hollow out that which 
has the individual part of that faith community as a part of 
their service.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Carter, thank you for that. Madam Chairman 
I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher. 
Next, I recognize Dr. Adams for five minutes for your 
questions. You are still on mute Representative Adams.
    Ms. Adams. OK. Can you hear me now ma'am?
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Now we can hear you.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, very much and good morning, to all of 
you, to Chair Bonamici, thank you for your work on the 
Community Services Block Grant, and to the witnesses thank you 
so much for being here. This pandemic has certainly put us in 
mind of all the various ways that our communities must pull 
together and support those that are most vulnerable.
    So I'm glad to see that this program is being modernized, 
and that it also has a bipartisan undertaking. I've known about 
community action for a long time. We've had great community 
action programs in my State. But community action agencies are 
a trusted resource in their communities, and as such they've 
played a key role in investing in health equity issues during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. They've tackled disparities in their 
communities by funding cultural and language appropriate 
outreach in education for underserved and at-risk community 
Members.
    So Ms. Scott-Chandler, CEO Scott-Chandler, can you both 
talk about the community partnerships that your organizations 
have joined to address health equity issues, and support COVID-
19 prevention efforts? So CEO Scott.
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you for the opportunity to answer 
the question. ABCD has a long-standing commitment to reducing 
racial ethnic, and economic health disparities through many of 
its peer-driven community programs, health education, and we're 
widely recognized as a national model.
    These concerns have been at the forefront during the recent 
public health crisis as you've mentioned and recognizing that 
gaps in information and access and trust have severely 
compromised the ability of low-income neighborhoods, especially 
ours to protect themselves from the impacts of COVID-19, and we 
utilized CSBG resources to bridge those gaps.
    It allowed us to bring accurate COVID-19 information to 
communities. We undertook a comprehensive public information 
campaign early on in the pandemic using multiple avenues of 
communication, social media, print, electronic, neighborhood 
level outreach to communicate reliable information, and to 
promote prevention and testing and vaccination. We provide all 
of our information in linguistically and culturally appropriate 
ways.
    We reflect the communities that we serve. About 75 percent 
of our community that we serve are of color and speak 40 
different languages, and our staff and our leadership reflect 
that same demographic. And so we are able to communicate and be 
trusted by the communities who we've been serving for over 60 
years.
    We also supported delivery of personal protection 
equipment, and helped many folks get to testing sites, and 
vaccination sites over these last 18 months.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. So we know that communities of color 
have faced systemic disadvantages in energy costs, supply, as 
well as access to renewable energy resources and energy 
efficient technologies. Community action agencies play a 
critical role in helping these families access public benefits, 
including low-income, home energy assistance programs.
    So how crucial is this outreach by the CAAs in informing 
and assisting families of color in accessing energy assistance? 
Ms. Scott-Chandler?
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. OK. Yes. As you mentioned many of our 
communities of color are spending far too much on energy 
related costs, and do not even know they are eligible for 
assistance, and so our outreach in multiple languages, 
materials in multiple language is critical for us to reach 
people in communities. It's critical that we be intentional and 
inclusive. As I mentioned we are a trusted community resource, 
and we work with faith-based partners. We work with other CBOs 
to reach people where they are in all communities, and we're 
mindful of the communication mediums, and the gaps with 
internet, and social media.
    Everyone is getting information by technology these days. 
We have to help our communities access broadband, access 
computers and technology. This is the type of outreach that we 
do, and it sends a message that we offer programs that people 
can trust and want to engage in.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. I've only got about 10 seconds left, 
so Madam Chair I'm going to yield back. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Adams. And next I 
welcome to the hearing and recognize for five minutes for your 
questions Congressman Thompson. Thank you for joining us. You 
are recognized for five minutes for your questions.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Much 
appreciated and thanked you for this hearing on a topic that 
I've always been very passionate about. We're talking about the 
original anti-poverty programs. One of the best forms of a 
public-private partnership that I know of, and it addresses 
poverty no matter what the root cause of poverty is.
    So trying to prevent it and raise people out of poverty. 
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today and 
giving us the opportunity to talk about you know the only 
Federal program with the explicit goal of reducing poverty, and 
that's Community Services Block Grant. As you all know CSBG 
traces its roots back more than 50 years ago to the Economic 
Opportunity Act of 1964 that established local community action 
agencies to help identify why people were in poverty, and how 
to address it using public and private partnerships.
    And virtually every county in America has a community 
action agency which act as a safety net for low-income 
individuals and families, but even more importantly, they help 
create opportunities for people to move from poverty to 
prosperity, to independence.
    Unfortunately, this program has not been reauthorized in 
nearly 25 years. That's why my colleague, Representative 
Bonamici and I introduced H.R. 5129, the Community Services 
Block Grant Modernization Act. Specifically, this bill 
reauthorizes CSBG Program for 10 years at an annual level of 1 
billion dollars for the first 5 years.
    It permanently raises the program's income eligibility to 
200 percent of poverty line, which was temporarily provided in 
the CARES Act. It maintains local control of community action 
planning and activities, and it authorizes a broadband 
navigator program to respond to the broadband digital needs of 
low-income families and communities, and much more.
    So CSBG requires some modernization to allow awarded 
organizations the ability to tap their full potential and 
better serve families and communities. And this program has a 
strong history of bipartisan support because of the great work 
it enables. Mr. Bradley thank you for being here and being such 
a strong advocate for our community action agencies.
    Your testimony provided us a snapshot of the history of 
CSBG, positive impacts and the need to modernize. Can you 
elaborate more on how community services block grant program 
effectively lifts individuals and communities out of poverty 
and puts them on the pathway of opportunity?
    Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Congressman Thompson for that 
question. The Community Service Block Grant is absolutely 
essential to allow community action agencies No. 1 to run a 
variety of programs that address multiple causes that allow 
them to address multiple causes that may put families in 
poverty, that may prevent them from achieving self-sufficiency, 
that's No. 1.
    No. 2, our agencies are absolutely trusted, reliable 
institutions in the community, so they know from all the 
partnerships. They know from the local elected officials what 
that community needs, what those families need to help them get 
out of poverty, or to stabilize their life.
    Three, is that the Community Services Block Grant allows 
these agencies to leverage so much of non-Federal resources to 
help those families address poverty. In addition, and you 
mentioned broadband, in addition the Community Service Block 
Grant allows our agencies to be on the cutting edge of 
addressing significant problems impacting low-income families, 
one being the broadband initiative that you're so involved 
with.
    So there is--whether it is hunger, whether it's nutrition, 
whether it's transportation, whether it's job education, 
language skills, health, our agencies running from a multiple 
of service and assistance are able to address the needs of the 
low-income community.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Madam Chair, I can't see the 
clock. Can I inquire?
    Chairwoman Bonamici. You have another 32, 31 seconds.
    Mr. Thompson. All right. Well Mr. Carter you know you have 
had a long history of working with the program. In your 
testimony you talk about reforms you'd like to see, and I agree 
that we need to modernize and provide accountability measures. 
Can you elaborate just briefly on how you see these measures 
working for accountability.
    Mr. Carter. Actually, I think our principal accountability 
should be in the benefit to our service that we offer. Did it 
grow that individual or that family beyond their need for those 
supports? So right now, we measure a lot of process and output. 
I can tell you how many units of service that we provided. What 
I can't tell you is did we lift that individual or that family 
beyond their need for these supports?
    And so there is a very robust system of accountability 
already in the network. I would ask that we enhance that by 
looking at the ultimate impact. Did we increase assets? Did we 
increase credentials? Did we create, did we reduce bad debt? 
Did we reduce the need for that individual or family to rely on 
these public supports?
    Chairwoman Bonamici. And Mr. Carter, Mr. Thompson's time 
has expired, and I want to as I turn it over to the next Member 
for questioning, I just want to thank Mr. Thompson for your co-
sponsorship, but also your contributions, especially with the 
broadband navigation, great contributions to the bill, and now 
I recognize Representative Hayes for five minutes for your 
questions.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. As democrats put the final touches on a 
transformational bill to help lift American families, we must 
also look to a program that has a proven track record in the 
fight against poverty.
    In Connecticut, Community Services Block Grants are used by 
community action agencies to provide wrap around support in 
almost every city and town. The community action agencies, in 
nine of the towns that I represent have served 107,000 
families, and 260,000 individuals, helping over 81,000 
households avoid crisis with energy assistance, and nearly 
17,000 people avoid hunger with emergency or supplemental food.
    Community action agencies in Connecticut have also enrolled 
5,600 children in early childcare services. In my district we 
are served by Community Action Agency of Western Connecticut, 
the Human Resources Agency of New Burton, and new opportunities 
incorporated in multiple locations.
    These agencies provide an avenue for residents to empower, 
shape and transform their communities. My question today is for 
Mr. Bradley. Can you tell us about the unique concept of 
maximum feasible participation in CSBG which requires low-
income residents to have a seat at the table in the design, 
implementation and administration of programs which serve their 
communities?
    Mr. Bradley. The short answer is yes, I can. Thank you for 
the question. Maximum feasible participation was one of the 
more controversial phrases incorporated in the community action 
program in the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964. It was 
originally phrased maximum participation, and it was watered 
down during the deliberation of the task force that wrote the 
Economic Opportunity Act.
    What it implies is that different than any other Federal 
program at that time the poor were going to be involved in 
planning, administering, evaluating, they're going to get an 
opportunity to buy in and share their vision, their concerns, 
their desire for opportunity. And the more that the low-income 
population was able to participate in this, the more they are 
going to support it, and take advantage and use it to lift 
themselves out of poverty.
    Over time that maximum feasible participation is now seen 
as empowerment, as a piece of democracy in our low-income 
communities, widely popular on both sides. This is the phrase 
in the program and the opportunity to allow low-income families 
and individuals to help shape their destiny because they're at 
the table. It is critical to defining what this program is all 
about.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I have 
engaged just in a really thoughtful way with the agencies in my 
district, and one of the things that I think that we really 
have to stress is although these programs provide support for 
people, the ultimate goal is to empower people to get back to 
work, to be productive Members of society.
    So following up on the question that Ms. Adams was asking 
for Ms. Scott-Chandler. Are there ways that community action 
agencies can be better supported to continue engaging low-
income and historically disadvantaged households? I mean the 
programs exist, but I feel like the base has to be expanded so 
that more people know what's available, and how we can provide 
services to bridge the gaps that they're seeing.
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Yes. Absolutely. And one of the things 
that we did with the CARES Act funding was to, I think I 
mentioned before, partner with 20 other organizations. You know 
no one can do it alone. No one organization can do it alone, 
and we are the convenor, the trusted resource in the community, 
and so we were able to partner with all sorts of organizations 
to do outreach, to deliver services. That's how we on the 
ground can get to our communities.
    Again, you know, our staff live and work in our 
communities. Word of mouth is often the trusted way of getting 
information about our services, but we are constantly trying to 
through our community needs assessment, find out what people 
need, how they can get the information in the best way 
possible.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. My time has expired. Madam Chair I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative Hayes. Next, 
I recognize Representative Fitzgerald for five minutes for your 
questions.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you Chair. President Reagan once said 
we should measure welfare success by how many people leave 
welfare, not how many people are added. I want to just echo 
President Reagan's thoughts here. The Federal safety net 
program should be used to help raise people out of poverty, not 
keep people dependent on government assistance.
    Mr. Carter, what can Congress do in order to help Federal 
safety net programs become more effective at pulling 
individuals?
    Mr. Carter. I appreciate the question. I would say begin 
with the intention of that objective. Part of the challenge of 
the design and operation of the system is that we are a 
disparate set of programs that don't have any kind of true 
north, or overarching objective.
    So I'd say that we begin by having that overarching 
objective of growing capacity to reduce dependency, and then 
using all of the safety net programs as supports to achieve 
that objective as opposed to individual islands in and of 
themselves.
    So we'll begin with the intention what the system is about, 
growing people beyond it. And then allowing for connectivity of 
the supports so that they can support that shared objective of 
growing people beyond their vulnerability.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Just a followup. After President 
Clinton had embarked on the many changes that he wanted to make 
to welfare in America, it was up to the individual states 
oftentimes to come up with the innovative part. And I was part 
of the Wisconsin State Senate when Governor Tommy Thompson 
pulled together the Wisconsin Works Program, W2.
    So with that being said, Mr. Carter the structure of the 
CSBG Program, it makes it difficult for innovative new partners 
to enter into the programs. It seems that one of the reasons 
for that is because states have little ability to redesignate 
the funds from any existing partners, and that was critical 
when we developed W2 in Wisconsin.
    Even if they are not performing well, we still need that. 
What reforms should Congress consider to support more 
innovation and help remove the poor performers?
    Mr. Carter. One, I like the idea of an integration fund 
which would specifically support partnerships between the 
community action network and other sectors to be able to bring 
innovation into the system. And while we don't want to in any 
kind of willy-nilly way, remove network service providers.
    There does need to be a rigorous standard in which we hold 
every entity that uses public money to serve the economically 
socially and developmentally vulnerable to account for doing 
so. And those that are unable to meet the mark, then we ought 
to be able to move on from there.
    I would add that when I first had this responsibility some 
20 years ago I asked David Bradley if he could introduce me to 
some of the best and brightest community action agencies, and 
his first recommendation was ABCD in Boston, where I had the 
opportunity to break bread with a champion in community action, 
Bob Core, and there was--I saw there were some of the most 
brilliant innovation that goes on in the network.
    And there is so much of that innovation, but with any other 
endeavor there are those that excel, and those that can't meet 
the mark, and we ought not to be afraid to move on from those 
that can't meet the mark.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much sir. Thank you and I 
yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative. Next, I 
recognize Representative Leger Fernandez for five minutes for 
your questions.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much Chair Bonamici, and 
Ranking Member Fulcher. I really want to thank the witnesses 
not just for being witnesses, and lending their expertise 
today, but for the work they are doing in the communities to 
make a difference, to empower, as we've just heard.
    You know there are so many programs that come out of this 
that are pretty exciting in terms of their focus on indeed, 
what I think it outcome. I'm very pleased to be a co-sponsor 
for the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act with 
Chair Bonamici.
    Like one of the programs I think about is the Rural 
Community Development Program, which provides these grants to 
non-profit organizations for housing and training, for 
technical assistance, you know, and that supports the network 
that is needed to get safe drinking water, and wastewater 
treatment facilities.
    You know now we know it's also these essential 
infrastructure, includes broadband, and we've added that. But 
Mr. Bradley, your written testimony, you had a little more time 
in that, and you were able to describe your support for the 
reauthorization, and the fact that it strengthens community 
action principles, principles of using needs assessments, 
strategic planning, and yes, partnerships which we are hearing 
about the importance today.
    We know we're going to see new funding coming out of
    Washington to the states and communities in both the Build 
Back Better and the Infrastructure Bill. I really want to make 
sure that smaller, rural, poor communities will be able to 
access those funds. You know I don't want a nickel to stay in 
D.C. when it could be helping families on the ground in New 
Mexico and elsewhere. Can you describe to us how both the 
reauthorization and the principles and the work that's done 
will help you know, help CAAs, could help communities access 
those funds?
    Mr. Bradley. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And 
H.R. 5129, I think is a critical, critical element for the next 
part of our history, and the ongoing history of this program. 
There are many things in there to go through very, very quickly 
that will strengthen the program, that will I think help 
community action agencies function better, will highlight 
results, so let me go through very quickly things in this bill 
that are important to our communities.
    This bill adjusts the State minimum allocation. We did this 
in 1989 and 1990, 12 small states were getting one-quarter of 1 
percent. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, upped that to one-
half of 1 percent, but in a way that no State was cut. There 
isn't a State in the country who said we have too much CSBG. 
They're saying you know we need more money.
    This bill will take this minimum State allocation from one-
half to three-quarters, and we know in rural communities, 
including in New Mexico, we know in rural communities, a lot of 
times the most important entity for a local government, for 
other partnerships, for other non-profits, for faith-based, is 
that community action agency.
    By giving them more resources we're going to leverage far 
more dollars to help those low-income communities deal with the 
problems they're having. Broadband is probably too lengthy to 
answer at this point, but we also require this bill 
performance--Federal, State, and local.
    The Federal entity, Federal Office of Community Services 
needs to get money out on time. This puts a 30-day threshold. 
We want states to get the money down locally in 30 days. All 
that helps the efficiency, and the operation of these agencies. 
And then finally, one quick word on innovation.
    There is a lot of innovation going on locally in this 
program. We look at Head Start, you look at community health 
centers, on and on and on. Those programs started because the 
innovative DNA contained in community action agencies, that 
still exists. The problem is nobody knows about it.
    Fresno does something on gangs, no one knows it but them, 
and maybe the State and myself. We created an innovation fund. 
It's only 8 million dollars, but an innovation fund to help us 
evaluate and replicate, if necessary, the due diligence on a 
lot of innovative ideas.
    So I think this bill in total is going to strengthen 
community action agencies all across the country and with more 
resources in the rural areas, they're going to continue to be 
the vital entity that those communities rely on, OK.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much. You know I want to 
go Ms. King Galian, and I wanted to go back to the point about 
measuring success by looking at outcome. When I listened to 
Patricia's story, that was about outcome. Her life was changed.
    Can you describe how you look at that issue? Not just about 
Patricia's, but in the entire work that you do, in terms of how 
you're measuring what you're doing, because clearly you brought 
to us a story of how a life was changed, and therefore the 
family's life was changed, the children's life, their outcome 
is going to be different.
    Can you describe a little bit more about how you believe--
do you believe that's already baked into what CAAs do?
    Ms. King Galian. I do. Obviously in a situation like 
Patricia's, multiple programs came together to provide what she 
needed, and we're measuring outcomes for each of those 
individual investments, the education outcomes, housing 
supports, childcare supports, and also the combined impact of 
all of them moving Patricia and her family out of poverty.
    So we are looking at households increasing income. How many 
folks are moving from below 100 percent Federal poverty level 
to over 100 percent Federal poverty level and bringing all of 
that together to measure both the incremental steps on the 
pathway to stability, and those that reach stability as a 
whole.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you so much. And it looks like 
next we're going to go to Mr. Mrvan. You're recognized for five 
minutes for your questions.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairman Bonamici. Ms. Scott-Chandler 
during the pandemic the CAAs, as well as businesses and other 
non-profit partners shifted to remote services. Where possible, 
and internet connectivity became a barrier to job seekers, 
seniors and students, and others who did not have access.
    Can you discuss how the CSBG leveraged its resources to 
ensure community Members remain as connected as possible? I 
believe you're still muted.
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Yes thanks. Thank you. To your point, 
and I've been at ABCD for 22 years, and the change in how we do 
our work and how families access services and understand 
services is astounding. The digital divide existed before the 
starkness with which that reared its ugly head during the 
pandemic. It's just tremendous.
    And CSBG Cares allowed us to jump into action to get 
computers to folks, whether it was seniors, whether it was 
youth, or displaced workers, folks who needed computers when 
their employment went remote, so they could communicate and 
stay connected to every part of life, to understand what was 
happening with the health and the economic.
    But it was not just technology that was needed. So we had 
to support broadband, and pay for internet costs, we had to 
troubleshoot folks, and we had a call center, a call line where 
we could help individuals, not only with services and with 
necessities, but also how do I deal with this? How do I access 
this? We went remote. All of our services, emergency services 
were able to be accessed online, so we created virtual 
platforms so that people could still apply for LIHEAP and SNAP 
and utilize ESOL, even our Head Start programs used virtual 
classrooms.
    So we were able to with CSBG and leveraging, to really help 
people in a way that you know we would never have been able to 
do without the CARES funding.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. Mr. Bradley, states play a supporting 
and key role in CSBG programs, what improvements at the State 
level do you see need to be done to improve their connection 
and the involvement in the CSBG program?
    Mr. Bradley. Thank you for that question. I think it boils 
down to just a few key areas. No. 1, the flow of funds, the 
distribution of Community Services Block Grant Funds has been 
an issue in the past. It seems to be one of the last programs 
that HHS releases, and a lot of times the states are slow in 
getting it down to the agencies.
    And when funding is scarce or delayed, that creates some 
complications to the operation of the community action agency. 
So the first thing is to ensure a timely distribution of 
community services block grant funding is No. 1.
    No. 2, a robust review of agency plans that agencies submit 
to the State every year, and a robust review of State plans to 
HHS. By that I mean HHS approves or disapproves State plans.
    Three, the innovation fund, which is now federally, there 
is a lot of innovation going on in every State, and I would 
encourage the states to use their discretionary program within 
CSBG to create new partnerships, to look at innovative things 
outside of necessarily Washington, the small pot of money we're 
creating there.
    And finally, there's one other thing that the states could 
do, and that is take advantage of this network. I mentioned 
very briefly in my opening about what Governor DeWine did. I 
didn't have a chance in Ohio in the mortgage and rental 
assistance, I didn't have a chance to mention what the founder 
of Quicken Loans is doing with the agency in Detroit.
    This is a resource. This can be very, very helpful on 
dealing with a multitude of State problems. Take advantage of 
the opportunity of the Community Service Block Grant and this 
network. Not enough states do that in terms of big items 
confronting low-income communities.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you. With that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan. I now recognize 
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Dr. Foxx for five 
minutes for your questions.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, very much, Madam Chairman. Mr. Carter 
as you shared in your testimony there are more than 80 Federal 
means tested welfare programs. Many of these programs are 
poorly targeted or overlap with other programs. What steps do 
you think Congress should take to avoid program duplication and 
maximize taxpayer dollars, so that they are more effectively 
helping economically vulnerable individuals?
    Mr. Carter. Representative Foxx thanks for the question. I 
begin my answer by saying again it needs to begin with 
intention. If we were to take a step back and look at all of 
these programs in the aggregate, and first have a shared 
objective, and then be able to look at from that shared 
objective, what those individual programs and assets are, it 
would then allow us to reduce duplication and connect the dots 
of those programs so that they could all support that shared 
objective of growing capacity and reduced dependency.
    So instead of taking the worm's-eye view, that we have had 
to create individual programs that look at individual 
conditions, let's step back and say it is our intention to grow 
the capacity, to reduce dependency of our society.
    And then what are the tools in the toolbox that we need to 
do that? And it will allow us to reduce duplication and better 
target those resources to those families that best need it.
    Ms. Foxx. You know it's pretty ironic that there's very 
little emphasis put on the fact that this program was started 
under President Johnson, and that we have more people in 
poverty now than we had then. You know, nothing seems to be 
working. We're spending trillions of dollars, and yet we're 
totally ineffective. And it's a shame. It really is a shame at 
how much money we are taking away from those who work hard in 
this country and spend on totally ineffective programs.
    Mr. Carter you mentioned this in your answer to me, but how 
could we better integrate the safety net programs with 
workforce preparation to ensure that low-income Americans are 
able to move up the economic ladder and not just be recipients 
of welfare all their life?
    Work has dignity. Work has meaning. What can we do better 
for workforce preparedness?
    Mr. Carter. We can better enable connectivity. One of the 
main challenges of design and operation of the safety net is 
that there isn't a mechanism to connect one program to another, 
and so therefore you have a Workforce Investment Opportunity 
Act OK, which is about addressing getting everybody in the 
labor force and scaling people up.
    But it doesn't have a mechanism that it can connect to 
let's say the tenant's program, or other supports, or supports. 
So the main thing that Congress could do is create a mechanism 
to connect programs that will allow us to achieve a common 
objective.
    Ms. Foxx. Great. Well I thank you very much for the work 
you're doing, and for bringing the perspective that you're 
bringing to this effort. Again, I think what we all should want 
is to have effective outcomes. And another thing Mr. Bradley 
said we should have robust review of programs at the State 
level. Well review does nothing if you don't have results.
    And if you don't have consequences to those reviews, so it 
doesn't matter if you review a lot. Words mean nothing. You 
need action. So when you have programs that aren't working, 
again, it doesn't do any good to just review them and say 
they're not working.
    Then you should defund those programs that aren't working. 
You should open these programs up to other people who can do 
something. We are selling the American--we're telling them that 
these programs are going to help them, and then they don't do 
anything to help them. And again, we're taking money from hard-
working taxpayers and just wasting it, and that is a sin. It is 
a true, true sin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 
Chairman.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Foxx. I now 
recognize Representative Bowman for five minutes for your 
questions.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much Madam Chairwoman and thank 
you to all the witnesses for being here today. In my district, 
the Yonkers Community Action Program does incredible work to 
support low-income families using CSBG funds. This year alone 
they delivered over 125,000 pounds of food and assisted nearly 
2,600 families experiencing food insecurity.
    Organizations like Why Cap have been essential during the 
pandemic, when many low-income families, especially black and 
brown families, are dealing with job loss, lack of access to 
affordable healthcare, and rising food prices. It's clear that 
we have to increase funding for CAAs across the country and 
help them better serve their communities by addressing out of 
date income eligibility requirements that don't reflect the 
true cost of living which continues to rise each year.
    Ms. Scott-Chandler, I'd like to ask specifically about the 
work your organization is doing to help low-income families 
confronted with the effects of climate change. Hurricane Ida 
recently devastated communities in my district in the Bronx and 
Westchester, and low-income families were hit the hardest. 
Basements and homes flooded, cars washed away, and dozens of 
people were killed across the State.
    For families living paycheck to paycheck, recovering from 
climate disasters can be nearly impossible, and even when we 
aren't dealing with massive climate related storms like Ida, 
low-income families are increasingly experiencing unaffordable 
utility bills that prevent them from escaping the cycle of 
poverty as a result of climate change.
    How can CAAs leverage CSBG funds to protect low-income 
families from the effects of climate change that perpetuate 
poverty and ensure climate resiliency from these communities 
that are often hardest hit by climate disasters, specifically 
for CAAs that have not yet fully engaged with the effects of 
climate change in their communities. How should they approach 
this work?
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you. Well I think we have been 
working in this area indirectly for many years because many 
years ago CSBG allowed us the flexibility to develop innovative 
partnerships with public utility companies and develop an 
energy conservation program that was initially launched with 
another organization as a pilot, and now involves all of the 
CAAs across Massachusetts, and over 100 million dollars in 
utility funding.
    The program provides leading edge heating system 
replacement, renewable energy resources, weatherization to 
thousands of households annually across the State. And it's a 
compliment to the much smaller federally funded energy 
programs, but it's become a national model.
    And I mention this because as you said, low-income 
families, families of color, energy costs, a broken boiler and 
furnace, not only is a disaster for their heating their homes, 
but it is really a financial burden that they can't--one more 
thing they can't deal with.
    And so we've been able to be on the ground replacing 
boilers, giving appliances, changing out lighting, you know 
things that can save money, and also contribute to the demand 
reduction. And it's available for tenants and their landlords, 
as well as the low-income homeowners, as an emergency response, 
as well as the broader, longer-term climates, energy 
efficiency, and demand reduction.
    We also have been working with----
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I'm sorry I just want to reclaim my 
time. I've got one more question. Thank you for that, that was 
a great answer. Ms. King Galian, in your testimony you spoke 
about how your organization takes a holistic and interagency 
approach to addressing poverty because no single poverty or 
intervention can end poverty on its own, which I agree with.
    Instead, we need a cohesive system of support and 
intervention that addresses all aspects of the experiences, 
causes and consequences of poverty in our communities. I think 
this is especially true during the aftermath of national 
emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected low-
income communities, not only in terms of physical and economic 
health and safety, but also socio-emotional health.
    How can CSBG funds be used to promote coordination in 
providing high-quality, holistic mental health supports and 
violence prevention programming for low-income communities 
across the country?
    Ms. King Galian. Wonderful. Thank you for that. That's an 
excellent question. So one example--two examples, actually of 
how we do that here with CSBG in Washington County is one, our 
community health needs assessment identified that one of the 
driving causes of our high suicide rate was economic stressors, 
so we used CSBG to ensure that we have staffing embedded in our 
mental health crisis clinic, to connect people to resources as 
they're accessing their mental health supports.
    And two, we do a similar thing, our family justice center, 
so when folks are accessing the domestic violence support, and 
Court support, they're able to get their economic needs met as 
well, and we lean into the strengths of our partners, and we 
each do what we do best.
    Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 
Sorry for going over time.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative. I now 
recognize Representative McClain for five minutes for your 
questions.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Carter, poverty 
is a huge issue in this country. There's no denying that, and I 
think we all are concerned about this, and are concerned about 
you know raising people up out of poverty. But equally 
concerning is the high level of unemployment, and the rate that 
the unemployment is in addition to the available jobs that are 
not being filled.
    I'm just wondering if instead of throwing money at the 
problem as a means of a solution, do you think we also need to 
encourage self-sufficiency for those obviously who are able, 
and really tie the two together to help people--individuals, 
get lifted out of poverty.
    My question is how we can ensure that we are not, excuse 
me. How can we ensure that we are encouraging and providing 
Americans with the resources to become self-sufficient? And how 
do we help them transition out of poverty into the workforce?
    Mr. Carter. Well thanks for the question. Again it begins 
with intention. And what I mean by that is right now we have 
the intention to provide the benefit good or service. I think 
that the way the system should operate is after we have 
immediately addressed the crisis, whether that crisis be 
feeding, or housing, or cash, we ought to immediately pivot to 
OK, you're here today because you are in crisis.
    What is our objective--our societal objective to do is to 
help you grow beyond that crisis. So we're going to pivot from 
that to an intention plan to help you grow beyond this moment, 
and then bringing together the support of benefits, goods, and 
services, and measure the movement of that individual, or that 
family from that crisis to self-sufficiency.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. I think a concern that every 
American is having is ensuring their tax dollars are being 
spent efficiently and effectively. So to piggyback on your 
point, how can we incorporate at all, or can we incorporate, 
the private sector to help fight poverty, to ensure really an 
all hands-on deck approach, to make sure that that's being done 
rather than solely relying on the government? You know like 
that public-private partnership.
    Mr. Carter. We absolutely have to do that. And here in 
Tennessee we are taking a very unique approach where we are 
reaching to all the different sectors, the private sector, the 
community of faith, academia, philanthropy, the service sector, 
to come together to take a whole dependency approach to this 
notion of growing capacity, reduced dependency.
    We have become too reliant on the government being the sole 
problem solver here. And what I think is that government ought 
to serve as a catalyst to bring the rest of the society to 
solving the problem to make the whole grid and the sum of its 
parts.
    Mrs. McClain. Mr. Carter I agree with you wholeheartedly 
and if we have the government working in conjunction with the 
private sector, I think that's a recipe for success. I'm going 
to switch gears for just a moment. The current formula for how 
states receive the funds have not been updated since 1975, and 
obviously, a lot has changed.
    Just even in the types of jobs that are available. Do you 
see a need for the update in the formula at all? Do you think 
that would help in terms of where the resources are funneled?
    Mr. Carter. I don't know. I haven't had the opportunity 
recently to review the formula, so I don't know that I would 
have an opinion on whether or not the formula needs to be 
changed. I do think that David Bradley made some good points 
about the efficiency of making the dollars available because 
there is a--it passes from Federal to State to local, and we 
could more efficiently move the dollars to get them to the 
agencies that serve, but I'm not certain that beyond that small 
State allocation, that Mr. Bradley also spoke to, I'm not sure 
that a change in the allocation.
    Mrs. McClain. Yes, I'm more concerned, and my question is 
we haven't updated the formula in four decades. And a lot has 
changed, and I'm just wondering if we updated the formula would 
that not help who it goes to, but then also to your point, 
maybe if we updated the formula it would get to those in need 
quicker.
    I just want to make sure to your point that we're using our 
dollars effectively, but we're also getting them to the right 
person, right individual in a timely fashion.
    Mr. Carter. I would just say that there is it's always 
value added to review and update the mechanism. So a look at 
the allocation formula would certainly be in the best interest 
of modernizing the program.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Carter, and thank you, Madam 
Chair. I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you. Now I recognize the 
Chairman of the Full Committee, Representative Scott from 
Virginia, you're recognized for five minutes for your 
questions.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank you 
and Ranking Member Fulcher for having the hearing. I'm very 
familiar with community action agencies. The last summer while 
I was in law school, I worked at a community action agency in 
my hometown as a counselor with the neighborhood youth corps.
    And I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's in the 
Boston area, so I'm very familiar with the good work of ABCD. 
The COVID-19 pandemic put us in a strain on so many people, and 
so many communities as we look to get back not only too normal, 
but actually improve economic stability of families., the 
conversation about the community action agencies could not be 
more important.
    I want to just briefly recognize one issue that's been 
discussed here, and that is the important role of faith-based 
organizations as trusted community partners of CSBG, and other 
Federal programs. The bill as is written, allows participation 
of faith-based organizations.
    And make no mistake about that. They still participate, but 
as good stewards of Federal dollars we have to ensure that 
Federal funding is used in a manner that comports with Federal 
Civil Rights laws and the Constitution. So I want to thank Ms. 
Bonamici, Mr. Thompson, and the bipartisan co-sponsors Their 
work in modernizing and strengthening the CSBG Program. Ms. 
Scott-Chandler, one of the issues that we've been dealing with 
in getting families back to work have been job training and 
childcare. How does ABCD help families get back to work, 
particularly making it possible for these programs to be 
available?
    Ms. Scott-Chandler. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Through 
ABCD's experience with workforce development and early 
childhood programs both, we know firsthand that in order for 
people to get jobs, and maintain jobs, they must have 
childcare. It's pretty simple. And particularly for our working 
moms, 3 years ago we were able to pilot a program that 
leveraging CSBG dollars in our childcare voucher subsidy 
management program through a demonstration grant from 
Department of Labor.
    And the program utilized a model of bundled vouchers in 
which it combined immediate access to education for the in-
demand jobs, industry, and childcare for job-seeking moms. And 
our workforce prepared as partners, our employers, and 
childcare providers worked together to facilitate people 
getting the skills, and getting the jobs, and then feeling 
secure that their children were in a space that's nurturing.
    It represents some of the system change and connectedness 
that has been talked about today. And CSBG is really 
undergirding those kinds of ideas, and those kind of innovative 
programs we've been able to do.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Galian, given the dramatic impact 
of COVID-19 on American households, Congress provided 
supplemental appropriations for energy assistance in the 
American Rescue Plan, and significant funding for LIHEAP. Can 
you tell me how the community action agencies were able to help 
in distributing the money under LIHEAP so that the money 
actually got to where it needed to go?
    Ms. King Galian. Certainly. So with the LIHEAP increase we 
were able to serve more people, to be more aggressive in our 
outreach, and increase the standard payment, which meant that 
we were able to reduce the number of repeat applications, which 
meant we were able to serve people more efficiently.
    And with our specific targeted outreach, and our expanded 
network of partner organizations and increased capacity in 
those organizations as well, we were able to get deeper and 
broader into our most isolated and vulnerable communities. And 
because of CSBG we have a mantra kind of within our staff that 
is person-centered, fund blind, and make people whole, so we're 
able to combine not just LIHEAP, but all of the other 
investments to meet the needs of the individual person, rather 
than focus specifically on the single fund.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Bradley do you have any comments 
to make on the composition of Boards of Directors?
    Mr. Bradley. Yes. I think our Board of Directors is one of 
the absolutely strengths of this program, the one-third, one-
third, one-third. One-third local elected officials, one-third 
low-income representatives, and one-third from the community 
which includes faith-based. Two thirds of our agencies have 
faith organizations on their Board.
    There is not another institution in the community that has 
all the segments of the society at the table on that, so I 
think the Board is a strength. We want to continue to make sure 
that the Board is engaged, which they are. They review the 
strategic plans--which they do, and they ensure the fiscal 
accountability of the agency which is ongoing.
    The Board of Directors is one of the hallmarks tri-partite 
Board of this program.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I now 
recognize Representative Comer who I understand is trying to 
connect. One of our co-sponsors of the legislation. 
Representative Comer are you available? Oh, he's available it 
says Sarah, but it is Representative Comer. He just disappeared 
again Representative. OK. You're going to have to unmute. You 
do need to unmute. There you go.
    Mr. Comer. All right thank you.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Terrific. Now we can hear you. You're 
recognized for five minutes for your questions.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I want to 
address my question to my friend David Bradley and let me say I 
appreciate all that you do sir for community action. In 
Kentucky you make a huge difference in my congressional 
district, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
    Mr. Bradley can you speak of some of the ways community 
action agencies could help connect individuals to local 
resources, and find steady employment during COVID-19 pandemic?
    Mr. Bradley. Yes, I can. Thank you for the question. Thanks 
for your support for the program. And we were talking earlier 
about in discussion with connectivity. That's what you have 
community action agencies for. Their relationship with 
workforce, either serving on the Board, or vice-versa. Their 
ongoing partnerships with so many other non-profits.
    And private sector in the community is second to none. 
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of partnerships 
in this community that help, that address employment and 
helping people move up that ladder to opportunity and self-
sufficiency.
    And what we've learned over time is that it takes fighting 
poverty or addressing poverty is complex, and it takes 
partnerships, and this program prides itself on the 
partnerships necessary to get people employed, to get people 
back on their feet, and to give people hope and opportunity.
    Mr. Comer. Absolutely. And were there additional 
flexibilities needed to serve these individuals, or did the 
programs work as intended, allowing local communities to meet 
their needs in the community?
    Mr. Bradley. Yes, the CARES Act gave a billion dollars, 
which is a lot of money to the Community Services Block Grant. 
So that was the first big COVID relief package out there. And 
there was also a billion dollars provided in ARRA, in 08, 09, 
and 10, during that time period. And we learned some lessons 
from that.
    No. 1, 200 percent is important because again as I said 
earlier, it's that family that's above 125 that are just 
falling, and have just been laid off, just falling into 
poverty, that someone has to be that catch. Someone has to help 
them stop that from falling and give them an opportunity to get 
back on their feet. So the billion dollars was used extremely 
well.
    If I had criticisms of that it is No. 1, the slowness in 
some states in getting the money down locally. That was a big 
issue, and months after months after months, you know states to 
release the money. We would hear that well only 20 percent, or 
30 percent of the money has been spent in this State. That's 
because the money didn't arrive on time, so that's No. 1.
    And two, not every State allowed 200 percent eligibility, 
and I think that hurt the response to COVID. Generally speaking 
though, HHS, the vast majority of states, certainly the vast 
majority of local agencies really stepped up to the plate and 
were the first in their community in providing assistance to 
the twin crisis of the pandemic, and the economic crisis as 
well.
    Mr. Comer. Well Mr. Bradley again thank you for all the 
work you do for community action in Kentucky, and Chairwoman 
Bonamici thank you for allowing me to waive on this 
Subcommittee Mr. Bradley if there's anything that we can do 
legislatively to help as I've worked with Chairman Bonamici in 
a bipartisan way in the past, and we will continue to work with 
you.
    You make a huge difference in our communities for 
particularly with low-income people who are trying to take that 
step from welfare to work, and I appreciate that, and anything 
that we can to do help get moving forward we'll certainly do 
that, but thank you for your work in the past, and Chairwoman I 
yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Representative Comer. And I 
do not see other Members to ask questions, so thank you again 
to all of our witnesses and to the Members for your questions. 
Pursuant to Committee practice, materials for submission to the 
hearing record must be submitted to the Committee Clerk within 
14 days following the last day of the hearing, so by close of 
business on November 17, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
    Only a Member of the Subcommittee, or an invited witness 
may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record. The 
materials must address the subject matter of the hearing. 
Please submit materials to the Committee Clerk electronically 
by emailing submissions to [email protected].
    Again, thank you to the witnesses. Members of the 
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we 
ask that you please respond to these questions in writing. The 
hearing record will be held open for 14 days to receive these 
responses.
    I do remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee 
practice witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to 
the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days, 
the questions submitted must also address the subject matter of 
the hearing.
    And I now recognize the Ranking Member Representative 
Fulcher for a closing statement.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a letter form 
the Ethics and Public Policy Center that I'd like to submit for 
the record that explains why it's crucial for existing legal 
protections, for faith-based providers to remain in place. So 
with the permission of the Committee I'd like to enter that 
into record.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Without objection.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, I'd be 
remiss if I didn't just remind everyone that the obvious 
remission of the Modernization Act, CSBG Modernization Act is 
the removal of faith-based organizations from financial 
participation in the program.
    And I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say well they 
can participate, but just not financially, and so I just wanted 
to point that out. There's over 19,000 that are participating 
today. Why would we want to take that away? These faith-based 
organizations are uniquely positioned to serve.
    They have a culture and heart for this, and by their very 
nature they care. And to remove them, Madam Chair, and Members 
of the Committee, to remove them from financial participation 
is a critical blow to the program, and to the people that it 
serves.
    So Madam Chair, there's only upside in allowing that 
continuation for faith-based organizations, and I just 
encourage everyone to support that in this CSBG Modernization 
Act. Madam Chair with that I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bonamici. Thank you, Ranking Member Fulcher. I 
now recognize myself for purpose of making my closing 
statement. I want to start by saying this is a bipartisan 
legislation with no intention of removing faith-based 
organizations from participation, as Chairman Scott mentioned.
    Once again, I want to thank our expert witnesses for being 
with us today. Your compelling testimony paints a clear picture 
of the central role of the Community Service Block Grant 
Program, and the role that it plays in addressing poverty in 
our communities.
    As we heard today each year CSBG and the community action 
agencies it supports, helps millions of individuals and 
families in need access important services, and take critical 
steps to achieve economic security. These services and supports 
are unique to each community.
    They're locally driven because those living in a particular 
community are best suited to address the needs of their 
community. With continued Federal support these local 
organizations, and their committed staffs can continue to 
effectively reduce poverty in the communities across the United 
States.
    The demand for strong, local action remains extremely high 
as we continue to recover from COVID-19. Right now CSBG funding 
organizations across the country are conducting vaccine 
outreach, helping low-income families stay in their homes, and 
other important work.
    The CSBG Program has a long legacy of reducing poverty in 
our communities, but we must not neglect the program's future. 
It's been more than two decades since CSBG was last 
reauthorized. Today we have a valuable opportunity to 
reinvigorate our bipartisan commitment to ending poverty, and I 
look forward to working to advance this important legislation 
that will improve the lives of Americans in need through 
community focused action.
    There being no further business, I want to thank again the 
witnesses and the Members for their participation, and without 
objection this Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Bonamici follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Additional submission by Chairman Scott follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Additional submissions by Ranking Member Fulcher follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

                                 [all]