[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E334-E335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE FAMILY SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 12, 1996

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the Family 
Service Improvement Act of 1996 this afternoon. I have been working on 
the concepts behind this legislation for a number of years. The Family 
Service Improvement Act will eliminate Federal redtape and unnecessary 
regulation. It will give local programs the flexibility they need to 
address local problems. It should create incentives for program 
coordination which serves kids and families better while making more 
efficient use of our resources. And it will demand accountability based 
on program results, not on process and paperwork.
  I believe that a concerted Federal effort to rationalize and 
coordinate programs for children and families is long overdue. Over the 
years, Congress has created hundreds of categorical programs to help 
communities and families deal with the myriad of issues confronting 
them. Each of the programs was created with its own rules and 
regulations to deal with a particular problem. Over time, the list of 
rules and regulations has grown to stifle, rather than support, the 
very objectives we are trying to achieve.
  In some areas, where local needs don't fit the problems covered by 
our categorical programs, our services for children and families are 
vastly inadequate. In other areas, services overlap and duplicate each 
other. For example, multiple programs may provide caseworkers to a 
single family, but each caseworker deals only with one aspect of that 
family's needs.
  In many programs, caseworkers spend far too much time dealing with 
redtape and paperwork, juggling multiple programs with multiple 
eligibility criteria, application processes, and service requirements. 
The Federal Government has created hundreds of different taps through 
which assistance flows--and communities, programs, and families must 
run from tap to tap with a bucket to get the help they need.
  As an appropriator, I am particularly concerned that our tax dollars 
be spent efficiently and effectively. In 1994, I asked the Department 
of Education to convene a working group on coordinated services to make 
recommendations for such a Federal effort. The working group was headed 
by Jeanne Jehl from the San Diego public schools, whom I would like to 
thank for her outstanding work. The working group, which met through 
1995, included Federal employees and people from State and local 
governments and organizations across the country. I was particularly 
pleased that Maryland's outstanding Superintendent of Schools, Dr. 
Nancy S. Grasmick, was able to participate in this effort. The Family 
Service Improvement Act is based on the recommendations of that group.


                   Federal Fixes for Federal Problems

  While I applaud the efforts of several of my colleagues in developing 
waiver bills which are now under consideration by this Congress, I 
believe that the Federal Government--not local programs--should have 
the responsibility of fixing the problems the Federal Government 
created. Under the Family Service Improvement Act, a Federal 
Coordination Council is designated to oversee the effort to eliminate 
regulations, simplify requirements, and make waiver requests 
unnecessary. The Council's responsibilities include eliminating 
unnecessary and burdensome regulations; developing a single eligibility 
and application form for a range of services to children and families; 
developing a single information release form which can be used to 
authorize exchange of information among a number of service providers; 
and developing RFP's which can be used to apply for funding from 
multiple Federal programs.


                     Interdisciplinary Coordination

  No effort to make services to families more effective and efficient 
will succeed unless programs which meet different aspects of family 
needs are better coordinated with each other. Cross-program 
coordination is the key to improving service quality and efficiency. 
The Family Service Improvement Act allows the creation of consortia of 
program providers in a community. Consortia members could include 
State, local, or tribal governments, and not-for-profit organizations. 
Each consortium must include providers in at least three of the program 
areas of education. Head Start, child care, job training, housing, 
nutrition, maternal and child health, family support and preservation, 
juvenile justice, and drug abuse prevention and treatment. In addition, 
it creates several incentives to encourage coordination, reduce program 
duplication, and improve services.


                      Incentives for Coordination

  As any State or local official who has been involved in the process 
will tell you, requesting a waiver from the Federal Government is time 
consuming and complicated. Where multiple programs are duplicating the 
same steps, common sense dictates that they ought to be able to join 
forces without going through the hoops of requesting a waiver.
  For example, authorizing legislation requires many programs to assess 
community needs each year and to provide case managers to assist 
families. We certainly want programs to plan based on community needs, 
and to perform case management, but it simply doesn't make sense for 
each program to repeat work done by several others. Under the Family 
Service Improvement Act, a consortium of three programs which are 
required to do a community needs assessment and to provide a case 
worker to the same family would be automatically exempted from meeting 
such duplicative requirements as long as the requirement was met by the 
consortium or one of its members. Consortia will then be permitted to 
spend these funds to expand or improve their services.

  In addition, the Family Service Improvement Act would allow consortia 
to set aside up to 10 percent of their Federal funds in a flexible 
fund. This flexible fund must be used to expand or improve services 
consistent with the programs run by the consortium. This provision will 
give service providers much needed flexibility to meet local needs 
which might not be anticipated by our Federal rules and regulations.


                             Accountability

  What counts in human service programs is performance: Are our 
programs working? Instead of measuring input and process, we

[[Page E335]]

should be measuring outputs. Is the infant mortality rate going down? 
Are kids staying in school? Are kids learning more in school? Are 
parents getting--and keeping--jobs?
  In an atmosphere of waivers, flexibility, and interdisciplinary 
coordination, the challenge of program evaluation becomes even more 
difficult. The Family Service Improvement Act creates what I believe is 
a workable system for both tracking and evaluating the impact of our 
Federal investment in these programs.
  Many States are moving toward this focus on results, and have already 
identified State goals such as improved employment, reduced crime, 
increased high school completion and decreased infant mortality. Under 
the Family Services Improvement Act, a number of consortia will develop 
plans which identify goals taken from their State's list. The consortia 
will be responsible for collecting data over time to measure progress 
toward these goals. Data will be collected on a community-wide basis as 
well as disaggregated by appropriate subgroups as identified by the 
consortium, and published.
  I believe the results of this demonstration will show that four 
purposes are met by collecting and publishing data in this way. First, 
collection of data will show how well the programs accomplish their 
goals for all people in the community, and allow the consortium to 
improve and adapt services as necessary. This information will become a 
valuable diagnostic tool for improving services. Second, publication of 
data will create bottom-up pressure within the community to serve all 
segments of the community. Third, disaggregation of data will help to 
prevent programs from cherry-picking the best clients just to improve 
their outcome statistics, and will create incentives to address the 
needs of the hardest to serve as well as the easiest. And fourth, 
collection of this type of data will allow the Federal Government to 
evaluate the effectiveness of its financial investment in these 
programs.
  The Federal Government must demonstrate its leadership in promoting 
flexibility, demanding accountability, and eliminating redtape. We must 
get rid of the ``taps and buckets'' approach, and instead create a 
seamless flow of assistance that truly meets the needs of children and 
families. The Family Services Improvement Act is an important step in 
that direction.

                          ____________________