Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WILLIAMS. Under the definition of funding all eligible children for 1 year before they enter school, I think we would need about $3.1 billion to fund that commitment.

Senator HARKIN. You will need $3.1 billion

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; $3.1 billion.

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. To fund 100 percent of the 4 year olds. That seems to be about right to me, looking at where we are right now. That is about $1 billion more. That means if you ask for $100 million in 1992, then you are going to have to ask for about $400 million in 1993 and another $500 or $600 million in 1994.

Ms. GALL. Senator, as you know, the administration has asked for higher amounts in the past couple of years, but I want to make it very clearly understood that the reason we are asking for a lesser amount right now is not a lack of interest in the program by any means. It is a means of putting on the brakes somewhat so that we can take a look at where we are in expansion, quality, and maintenance of services to our families and to our children.

We feel it is very important to slow down somewhat so that we can make sure that all systems are in place so that we can accelerate down the road once again.

I think that is sound management, Senator. We need to take a look at where we are, how the grantees are doing, how they are dealing with the myriad issues related to expansion, and how they are continuing to provide the quality services.

That is a lot for our grantees to take on. We believe they are doing a very good job but we have to give them a bit of breathing space in order to address any issues that may arise.

Senator HARKIN. Ms. Gall, I think that most organizations before they set down goals do an intensive study and survey to see whether or not the goals are achievable. You do not set a goal down that you absolutely cannot achieve. If I set a goal to fly to the Moon in the next 10 years, that is ridiculous. I cannot achieve that goal. You have to have goals that are achievable.

So I can only assume that if the administration's stated goal is to serve all 4 year olds by 1994, that must be an achievable goal. If that is so, why are you putting on brakes now? It seems you have to start/stop, and then you have 2 more years. You are saying you have to take a look to see whether or not they can gear up for this.

I would think that before you set the goal for 1994 you would have had your planners and people out there asking how we can realistically meet this goal. So you are either telling me that the goal is unrealistic and cannot be met or that the goal is realistic but is going to be met by flooding the program in the last year.

Ms. GALL. We are trying to be good managers of this program. While we believe that we have been able to administer the increases and the expansion thus far, we need to take a look at how things are going. We need to make sure that we are able to maintain quality while we have major expansion. It is important to us to take a look at how it is going. That is sound management. If you are a businessman or you are planning a trip to the Moon, you have to stop at some point and take a look at how well your plans have gone and where you go from there.

I think that while we continue to bring new children into the program this year and will do that next year, we are also putting a greater emphasis on quality improvement, and on technical training.

I have met with many of our Head Start directors around the country, and they are meeting challenges that they have not had to address before. Certainly substance abuse has a tremendous impact on the way they do business in the classroom.

It is important to us to have an assessment of how that is going so that we can continue to ensure a quality program. I think that is just good, sound management.

Senator HARKIN. Again, I am a little confused. You can help me out on this. You keep talking about the quality and insuring that the quality of the programs is improving, but, as I understand it from my staff and as I understand it from the past, 25 percent of the funds above the cost-of-living increase is to be available for a quality reserve.

Ms. GALL. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. You are aware of that?

Ms. GALL. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. Inasmuch as the budget request is just short of the cost of living, that does not trigger the 25-percent reserve which you want to use

Ms. GALL. In 1992.

Senator HARKIN. That is what I am talking about. We are here on the 1992 budget. So when I hear you talking about quality upgrades, I am wondering what is going on.

Ms. GALL. We want to look at this in the context of fiscal year 1991 as well and the kinds of quality improvements that we are talking about in fiscal year 1992. I think you cannot look at 1992 alone without taking a look at what we are doing in 1991 as well. Senator HARKIN. Šo the 25 percent was triggered this year?

Ms. GALL. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. So you have, was it 10 percent?

Ms. GALL. In 1991 the mandate for quality was 10 percent of the total appropriation.

Senator HARKIN. That was triggered, and that was used?

Ms. GALL. Yes, sir.

Senator HARKIN. Now again, let us look at 1992. I assume you used the 10 percent for quality improvement.

Ms. GALL. You bet.

Senator HARKIN. 1992 comes along. To get the 25-percent quality reserve, which is what we are talking about, 1992, your request is just short of the cost of living; therefore, it will not trigger that 25percent reserve.

Ms. GALL. That is right. It will not trigger in 1992.

Senator HARKIN. Then how can you insure continued attention to enhancing the quality if you do not trigger that 25-percent reserve? Are you saying that all you did this year was sufficient, you have to do nothing next year?

Ms. GALL. Yes.

Mr. STOVENOUR. Mr. Chairman, one thing to keep in mind is that the $100 million is, of course, over the 1991 level, so the

grantees will still have that base amount in addition to the $100 million.

Senator HARKIN. Well, let me read from the committee report. It says here, and this is both House and Senate, "The committee intends that the funds made available under section 640(a)(3) shall be used to supplement and not supplant grants made with funds under section 640(a)(5). The committee expects the Department to continue to provide cost-of-living increases and that the funds under this section", which is the quality reserve section, "will not replace such increases." In other words, quality funds may not be used for cost of living.

Are you saying that you want to ignore the report?

Ms. GALL. Senator, we have taken a look at the language of the act, and we feel that we are meeting in both 1991 and 1992 the language of the act. We will negotiate with each grantee to ensure the maintenance of a quality program.

In addition to that, as I have said, we are asking the inspector general to work with us to determine what needs the grantees might have to address quality improvements and management. As we take a look at that information plus the monitoring reviews, that will give us a better picture of where we need to go.

Senator HARKIN. I cannot speak for the other body, but I believe that this subcommittee is not going to look too kindly upon using the quality reserve moneys for cost of living when we specifically wrote that in the report and intended that they not be used that way.

We believe that that program decisions should coincide with the intent of the law as the law was written. So we will have some further discussions on that. I just wanted to let you know that we are not going to look very kindly on that.

Again, it all comes down to just where we are going on Head Start. Is this just all rhetoric, or are we really going to put something into it? Are we going to talk about it and then start shuffling these moneys around, or are we going to try to meet the goal in 1994, your own stated goal?

I have a different goal, and that is to fully fund Head Start, not just for 4 year olds but for all eligible kids from 3 to 5.

Ms. GALL. Senator, we believe that we are doing a very good job in reaching as many children as possible, and we believe that sound management requires us to take a look at the program this year and to see where we are going and how best to get there. We think that a $100 million increase will do just that for us. It will continue our expansion. It will also help us to take a sound look at where things stand with our grantees and then where to go from there.

Senator HARKIN. Let me make it clear. I am not saying that you are not doing a good job out there. I am not saying that.

Ms. GALL. That is good.

Senator HARKIN. I am not saying that.

Ms. GALL. I understand.

Senator HARKIN. What I am saying is, here we are, here is where we want to go, and I am not certain-no, I will go beyond thatI know that this budget request from the administration is not going to get us there. It is just not. I do not want you to be playing

funny games here and not trying to comply with the law as clearly written or the intent of Congress as made clear in the report.

Ms. GALL. Senator, we do not want fun and games, either. That does not serve our children or our families.

Senator HARKIN. That is right. Again, $100 million? Is that really so? How much of that is going to serve new kids? You say about $90 million. I am not certain that $90 million is going to be eligible if you meet the clear intent of the law. I do not think $90 million will be available. It looks to me somewhere around maybe $60, $70 million, if that much, will be available. That pushes that 1994 back even further even for 4 year olds.

Ms. GALL. You know, our concern is quality and the ability to manage the program and to do right by those children and those families and the taxpayers who are paying for the program.

Senator HARKIN. Well, then, request more than $100 million. Ms. GALL. We want to make sure we can use it and use it well and manage the program well. That is our concern for this year. As you know, the administration has a strong record of asking for significant increases in the Head Start Program. Again, the reason we did this this year is so that we could take a good look at where we are and where we need to go in terms of training and the other issues we have to address to maintain the level of services.

We would be happy to share with you additional materials as we get the inspector general report and other materials that we have when we take a look at where we are with our grantees. We would be happy to share that information with you.

If I might add, Senator, we do not always hear about some of the difficulties that our Head Start grantees are dealing with. When I was in New York the other day, I found out that a significant number of children are coming into our program with tuberculosis. There are some other special health concerns in the New York City area that we are addressing. There are some innovative approaches that we are taking in New York. In particular, we are setting up a Head Start Program and a residential drug treatment program for women and their young children.

So we are making progress in terms of developing creative approaches to the Head Start Program, but at the same time we are trying to identify those particular issues that we need to address. Some of our Head Start programs in New York City have as many as 21 nationalities of new immigrants coming into the United States that present some particular challenges to those Head Start grantees.

We just want to make sure that we do not lose the tremendous momentum that we have at the State and Federal level for the Head Start Program by running into lots of management or other snags. So we want to take this breathing period to address those kinds of issues and get them under control.

Senator HARKIN. One of the stated health objective goals for 1980 was to eradicate tuberculosis. It is actually on the increase. We covered that the other day with Dr. Sullivan.

Let me talk just a little bit about block grant proposals, and then we will move on. I was looking at the authorization for the block grants. The 1992 budget identifies $21 billion in grants from five

major policy areas for possible turnover to State and local governments as part of a single block grant. The social services block grant is one of the programs identified for consolidation.

OK, let us go back in time. Beginning in 1982 the social services block grant was formed by replacing grants for certain things. Social services, child care, and training were all put into the social services block grant. I remember that debate very well. The argument was used that consolidating would give the States more flexibility in administering these programs. What actually happened was that we gave the States fewer dollars.

If we had kept up just with the rate of inflation for all those programs in 1982 that were consolidated, the program would need $4.587 billion next year just for the rate of inflation. It is authorized at $2.8 billion. That is the administration's number.

So really, what we have done is take all those programs together and actually fund them at one-half the rate of what we did in 1981, in real dollars, constant dollars using the GNP deflator.

So I am wondering if we are going down that same path again, putting the social services block grants into a new block grant with housing, community development, education, environment, everything, throw it all together, and it is just like 1982 all over again. We will put it out there and then cut the funds to the States. You know what the States are facing out there with budget shortfalls. So that is why we are concerned about this and about the impact. I just wondered if you have any thoughts on that.

Ms. GALL. A couple of thoughts. First of all, we are funding SSBG, the social services block grant, at the full authorization level.

Second, I admit that my views are somewhat parochial because I deal primarily with the issues in HDS, although we do coordinate with other departments and agencies. I will tell you, one of my greatest frustrations in particular in dealing with the child welfare issues and the high numbers of children we see coming into foster care as a result of alcohol, crack, cocaine, and a number of other related challenges is the difficulty that local jurisdictions have in coordination of services, integration of services, blended funding streams, and so on.

In many communities, Senator, it is disastrous. The children in the families are not being served well. One of my greatest frustrations is getting the courts and the judges and the case workers and the doctors and the child protective service workers and the housing people, the welfare people, the FDC, so on and so forth, to work together to serve our children and families. It is not happening the way it should be.

If we can address some of those issues by blending funding streams, by making it easier for local jurisdictions to blend their pots of money to address those issues, in my parochial view, would help us serve children and families much better. If this system is going to work, then I am all for it.

Senator HARKIN. That is all right as long as the funding continues, but if you just put it out there and say work together and then we are going to cut all the funding, I do not think that does much good, either.

« PreviousContinue »