National Association for State Community Services NASCSP ...Making the Right Presentation 9 The War On Poverty and … 9 How to Ensure Your Attendance at NASCSP ... 11 Start the New

It is a hard assignment to forecast how low-income programs, particularly those operated by Community Action Agencies, are likely to fare this year in Congress. It is even more difficult when the memories of last year’s battles, especially CSBG and LIHEAP funding, are still so fresh in eve-ryone’s minds. It is safe to assume and somewhat comforting to know that in the 2006 Congressional election year, unlike 2005, Congress will not be finishing its authorizing and appropriations bills three days before Christmas. It is fairly certain that Congress will adjourn for the fall campaign sometime in mid-October. Beyond the expected October departure, I am not aware of a year in recent memory that has the potential for so much uncer-tainty surrounding the future of our pro-grams. Consider for example funding for the Community Services Block Grant. The reader is well aware that last year the Bush Administration proposed consolidating the Community Services Block Grant with sixteen other programs, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) into a new Commerce Depart-ment administered Strengthening Amer-ica’s Communities Block Grant. The Con-gressional decision to keep FY 2006 CSBG funding nearly at the FY 2005 level showed convincingly strong support for CSBG as well as strong opposition to any change in the program.

The question, in light of Congressional action last year, now becomes what will the Administration propose for CSBG this year? My hunch is that we will see a repeat of last year’s proposal, despite its chilly Congressional reception. The prudent ac-tion by the Administration would be to recognize the strong Congressional support for CSBG, concede the unlikelihood of any new block grant’s success, and support something close to FY 2006 funding for CSBG. Unfortunately, there is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the extent of the Administration’s support for the existing CSBG program. The second area of uncertainty that we have concerning how Congress will treat our programs this year is also related to budget policy. Last year, although CSBG was “protected” in both the House and Senate FY 2006 Budget Resolutions, at the end of the day the final budget compro-mise resulted in the FY 2006 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill receiving some $3 bil-lion less in funding than the similar FY 2005 bill. Late last year a number of moderate House Republicans joined with their Democratic counterparts to reject the initial Labor-HHS Appropriations Conference Report. The defining issue: too little funding for the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill. This stunning development last November was

Volume 21

An Uncertain Year by David Bradley

January 2006

Articles Pg Legislative Corner 2

CSBG Spotlight: Health Care for the Homeless Clinic in Natrona, Wyoming

4

CSBG/IS Data Corner: NASCSP’s IT Survey Results

5

Community Action and the Earned Income Tax Credit

6

WAP Corner: What Can WAP Expect in 2006

7

Making the Right Presentation 9

The War On Poverty and … 9

How to Ensure Your Attendance at NASCSP ...

11

Start the New Year Right! 12

Administration’s 2007 Budget Request to Include SACI ...

3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

NASCSP Newsletter National Assoc iat ion for State Community Services

NASCSP STAFF Timothy R. Warfield Executive Director [email protected] Robert Adams Director, WX Services [email protected] Ramsey Alwin Director, Program Services [email protected] Jenae Bjelland Director, Research [email protected] Joan Harris Director, Member Services [email protected] Terry Joyner Deputy Director, Member Services [email protected] Gretchen Knowlton Deputy Director, Research [email protected] Allison Spector Program Assistant, WX Services [email protected] Jovita Tolbert Program Assistant, Program Services [email protected]

PAGE 2 NASCSP NEWSLETTER VOLUME 21

one of the few times in the last decade that the Republi-can Leadership’s spending priorities were overturned in the House of Representatives. With FY 2007 spending, especially in the Labor-HHS area, expected to be even more restrictive than the FY 2006 outcome, the role of these moderate House Republicans in influencing spend-ing priorities is likely to remain important. It is uncer-tain, at this point, if the willingness to disagree with their own party’s spending plans will carry over into this year. One thing is certain, however, that without moderate Republican influence on domestic spending, particularly in the low-income area, this could be the most difficult funding year for most low-income programs. The future of additional LIHEAP funding is also uncer-tain at this early stage of the year. For much of last De-cember, we expected that before Congress left for the holidays, somewhere between $500 million and $2 bil-lion would be added to the almost $2 billion contained in the regular Labor-HHS bill for LIHEAP. For a vari-ety of reasons, Congress left town without providing ad-

ditional LIHEAP funding. Rumors abound about a “deal” for additional LIHEAP appropriations as soon as Congress returns in late January. Unfortunately uncertainty exists as to how Congress will move a LIHEAP funding bill and perhaps more impor-tantly how it will be paid for? Finally, there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much legis-lative work Congress really will accomplish this year. I know from key House and Senate authorizing committee members that completion of a number of overdue reau-thorization bills will most likely wait until 2007. Ethics, the Alito nomination, the war in Iraq, the declin-ing public approval ratings of Congress as well as the looming 2006 Congressional elections will ultimately shape the productivity of Congress this year. The oppor-tunity will exist for the Congress to do so much more. It is uncertain whether they will take advantage of that op-portunity.


LEGISLATIVE CORNER by Ramsey Alwin

FY 2006 APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE: On December 30th the President signed the FY 2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Conference Re-port into public law. CSBG was funded at the FY 2005 level of $636.8 million. (Below you can find the passage of the bill which addresses CSBG). The Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP) did not receive funding in the FY 2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appro-priations Conference Report. The President also signed into public law the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Conference Report. This measure contained an across-the-board cut of 1% affecting all domestic discretionary programs, including Defense but excluding certain Veter-ans programs. The final CSBG appropriation for FY 2006 is $630.4 million.

You can review the entire final Labor-HHS Appropria-tions bill that the President signed into law on December 30, 2006 here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr337)

You can review all FY 2006 Appropriations bills here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app06.html

The President will submit the FY 2007 budget to Con-gress on Monday, February 6, 2006. It’s expected that the White House will continue pressing for more cuts to both discretionary and mandatory spending. We will keep you updated as we learn more.

House Report 109-337: MAKING APPROPRIA-TIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDU-CATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SERVICES PRO-GRAMS (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS) For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Run-away and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Dis-

NASCSP Mission: to assist states in responding to poverty issues.

abilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, sec-tions 310 and 316 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as amended, the Native American Pro-grams Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption opportunities), the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), sections 1201 and 1211 of the Children's Health Act of 2000, the Aban-doned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, sections 261 and 291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A, 1110, and 1115 of the Social Security Act, and sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322; for making payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act, sections 439(h), 473A, and 477(i) of the Social Security Act, and title IV of Public Law 105-285, and for necessary ad-ministrative expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I, IV, V, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Om-nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, sections 40155, 40211, and 40241 of Public Law 103-322, and section 126 and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485, $8,922,213,000, of which $18,000,000, to remain avail-


able until September 30, 2007, shall be for grants to States for adoption incentive payments, as authorized by section 473A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) and may be made for adoptions com-pleted before September 30, 2006: Provided, That $6,843,114,000 shall be for making payments under the Head Start Act, of which $1,388,800,000 shall become available October 1, 2006, and remain available through September 30, 2007: Provided further, That $701,590,000 shall be for making payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act: Provided further, That not less than $7,367,000 shall be for section 680(3)(B) of the Community Services Block Grant Act: Pro-vided further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, $6,000,000 shall be available from amounts avail-able under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out the provisions of section 1110 of the Social Security Act: Provided further, That to the extent Com-munity Services Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been expended by such en-tity, they shall remain with such entity for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by such entity consis-tent with program purposes.

Administration's 2007 Budget Request to Include SACI Proposal

by Ramsey Alwin

The Administration's FY 07 budget request, due to be released on February 6, 2006, again is expected to contain funding for the Strengthening America's Communities Initiative (SACI).

While the Administration has yet to submit legislation to Congress formally authorizing SACI, it is expected that the budget proposal will contain $3.71 billion for the proposed economic development program while again eliminating roughly $5.7 billion in funding for 18 community and economic development programs, in-cluding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Economic Development Admini-stration (EDA) and the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program.

In addition to the $3.71 billion requested for SACI, an additional $87 million will be requested for salaries and expenses to administer the program and another $23

million for "one-time" start up costs. Funds for initial start up costs will go towards acquiring space for 10 re-gional offices to implement SACI. Of the $3.71 billion requested for SACI, $12 million will be to administer EDA's current trade adjustment assistance program. It is anticipated that the trade adjustment assistance program will be operated under SACI's Economic Development Challenge Fund, which will provide direct assistance to communities that are considered "development ready."

If you want to learn more about the Administration’s Strengthening America's Communities Initiative (SACI) visit the Department of Commerce site: http://www.commerce.gov/SACI/index.htm or the National Association of Development Organizations’ SACI site: http://www.nado.org/saci/.

NASCSP plans again this year to disseminate talking points and a sample press release regarding the impact of


Located in Casper, Wyoming, the Community Action Partnership (CAP) of Natrona County’s Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Clinic is part of a network of agencies within the community that work together to meet the needs of the area's homeless population. The CAP of Natrona County’s HCH Clinic provides a wide variety of services to the homeless and those at-risk of being homeless in Natrona County. These include pri-mary health care, outreach, case management, mental health and substance abuse services, transportation, medication, and limited dental and vision services. The HCH Clinic goes beyond help in removing health related obstacles that prevent clients from resolving their homelessness by assisting clients to address other under-lying issues that cause homelessness, such as housing, income, job skills, education, family relations, substance abuse and mental illness. Therefore, the HCH Clinic also provides: • Outreach - HCH searches out homeless people on the

street or in shelters to help them obtain desperately needed health care.

• Case Management - HCH assesses customer needs and support services and makes appropriate referrals to other community resources. HCH staff, in coordina-tion with Community Action Outreach staff, work closely to coordinate services between offices.

• Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services - HCH’s full-time therapist is contracted through the Central Wyoming Counseling Center and has very close link-ages to a number of in-patient and out-patient treat-ment facilities throughout the State of Wyoming.

• Health Education – HCH provides educational videos,

pamphlets, brochures and training to broaden awareness of health-related issues.

• Transportation – HCH arranges transportation for its patients via its 12-passenger van service which runs scheduled routes to and from several shelters and other community resources. HCH also provides bus tickets and taxi vouchers.

Additionally, recognizing that each homeless person they serve has a unique history and set of needs, the HCH clinic treats its clients as individuals by providing them with specialized services based on their needs and capacity to resolve their own situation. HCH clients are usually referred to and from organiza-tions that assist individuals and families with financial resources, insurance, education, housing, food, and cloth-ing, among other things. They are provided with health care regardless of their ability to pay however, a sliding scale based on family size and income is used to determine the charge for each patient. Notably, the HCH Clinic is very unique in that it has a Consumer Advisory Board. HCH’s Consumer Advisory Board, composed of current clinic patients, meets every other month to advise the Community Action Partnership of Natrona County’s board and staff concerning a broad range of program implementation issues, including which services are being provided, hours of operation, general policies of the program and program development and management. Primary funding for the HCH Clinic comes from the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). Vital

CSBG SPOTLIGHT: Health Care for the Homeless Clinic in Natrona, Wyoming

by Jovita Tolbert

the proposed elimination of CSBG. NASCSP will also hold a conference call again this year to discuss strategy and implications of the SACI proposal. Watch your email for further details. Please feel free to contact NASCSP staff for assistance as you prepare for the re-lease of this information.

Last year, NASCSP partnered with traditional Commu-nity Action Network partners as well as the Saving Amer-

ica’s Communities Coalition led by the National Associa-tion of Development Organizations (NADO) to restore funding for CSBG. (See www.nado.org.) NASCSP plans to work with traditional Community Action Net-work partners as well as the Saving America’s Communi-ties Coalition again this year to educate the public and Congress on the implications of the SACI proposal as currently drafted.


This article summarizes findings from a recent NASCSP research project to examine the current status of infor-mation technology (IT) across the CSBG Network—primarily within CAAs. The data was collected in 2005 by NASCSP through two national surveys, one geared for CAAs and the other geared for state agencies that admin-ister federal Community Services Block Grant funds. The survey requested information on the Network’s IT capacity, issues and needs. NASCSP received 423 agency responses and 40 state responses, which included the Dis-trict of Columbia and Puerto Rico. INTRODUCTION Just as it has penetrated workplaces, government, and homes throughout the U.S. during the past two decades, digital technology has become widespread within the na-tion’s CSBG Network. CAAs have grown increasingly reliant on their computer systems and the Internet to carry out their missions and to conduct daily operations. While CAAs use computers for many of the same pur-poses as businesses, government agencies, and other or-ganizations, the primary reason, according to the survey, is the increasing need to collect and report data on their customers and services. The responses to NASCSP’s surveys provided useful in-sight on the Network’s existing IT-related capacities and needs. The survey results found that several major issues exist among a majority of the CAAs that participated. These issues can be divided into three areas: 1.) obsolete hardware/software/networks, 2.) lack of IT support, and 3.) lack of integrated agency-wide data collection systems. TECHNOLOGY NEEDS In general, CAAs have reported they have almost enough computers or workstations for all their staff members who regularly use them. However, the survey revealed that many CAAs have a large percentage of older com-puters that will soon be in need of replacement. Internet connectivity—including high-speed access—appears to

have become widespread within CAAs. The expansion of internal networks (or the development of agency-wide ones) remains a significant need at many CAAs, as does the need to upgrade software. IT SUPPORT NEEDS Given the growing complexity of technology, having in-house IT support staff or retaining outside contractors to support and maintain agency IT systems has become in-creasingly important for most organizations. Yet, as per this survey, a significant number of CAAs lack trained IT support personnel. When CAAs were asked in the survey to identify the rea-sons for their major IT infrastructural and support inade-quacies, 86% of the 342 that responded cited lack of available resources. States have provided some IT-related support to CAAs in recent years, but as per this survey, more is needed. Many states have developed new CSBG data reporting systems, or are in the process of developing new CSBG data re-porting systems. This survey highlighted the need for more assistance, both in terms of financial and profes-sional resources, to the network in streamlining and stan-dardizing data reporting across agency and program lines. SKILL GAP “Inadequate computer skills among at least some staff that use computers” also ranked at the top of the most common IT-related issues named by CAAs. Most CAAs reported that a large majority of their staff who use com-puters on the job seem to possess at least basic IT skills. However, the survey found that among 295 CAAs that provided assessments of their staffs’ computer skills, on average, 18% of staff who use computers have just mini-mal—not even basic—computer skills. Although more training is needed, lack of resources has been identified as a barrier in providing training.

CSBG/IS Data Corner: NASCSP’s IT Survey Results

supplemental funding comes from a variety of local pri-vate funds and government funds such as Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH), Medicaid, Medicare, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and CSBG.

For more information on the Community Action Partner-ship of Natrona County’s Health Care for the Homeless Clinic, you may call their Executive Director, Dennis Royal, at 307/232-0124 or visit their website at http://www.capnc.org.


INTEGRATED AGENCY-WIDE DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM NEEDS Most CAAs have electronic customer data systems in a large majority of their programs. Sixty-one percent of CAAs reported having agency-wide electronic customer data systems. However, among all CAAs responding, just 53% have systems that contain data for a majority of agency clients. Beside cost, “differing data collec-tion/reporting requirements or mandated software by various funding sources of the CAA’s programs” was cited by a large majority of CAAs as a problem, and par-ticularly as an obstacle to building or expanding agency-wide data systems for CSBG reporting and other pur-poses.

CONCLUSION Clearly, the CSBG network has embraced informational technology and put it to use in its daily operations. How-ever, as the survey indicates, there are still critical needs and gaps that must be addressed to ensure that the net-work can keep up with the fast-paced environment in which we work. As a next-step to this analysis, NASCSP will be working with states and agencies to find solutions and help the network meet IT challenges. For more information on the Community Services Net-work’s technology needs and possible solutions, watch for the unveiling of the complete NASCSP report this Feb-ruary!

Community Action and the Earned Income Tax Credit By Ron Smith, Chief Volunteer and Community Partnerships, IRS and Ramsey Alwin

Over the last few years, the US DHHS Office of Com-munity Services (OCS) has partnered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to familiarize Federal grantees with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and encourage them to administer EITC assistance centers. Together OCS and the IRS have provided supports and resources to grantees that showed an interest in administering vol-unteer EITC assistance sites.

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Network has seized the opportunity to assist low-income workers as they file for the EITC. Many Community Action Agen-cies (CAAs) have worked closely with their local IRS Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication (SPEC) Division to promote Earned Income Tax Credit outreach and associated free tax preparation pro-grams. Below is a brief history of the program.

• OCS has been a national partner with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Stakeholder Partnerships, Educa-tion and Communication Division since 2002 for EITC outreach and free tax preparation. • OCS released Information Memorandum Transmittal 73 dated August 19, 2003 to introduce the CSBG Net-work to its partnership with the IRS and the framework for EITC work. • The Community Action Partnership, the national as-sociation for CAAs, is also a national IRS partner. The Partnership has held workshops at their annual confer-ences regarding the EITC.

NASCSP has also been a partner with the IRS since 2002 to promote the program to local agencies through state CSBG administrators. NASCSP has held work-shops at their annual conferences regarding the EITC. NASCSP has also published issue briefs spotlighting the work of the Network in providing EITC outreach and conducted conference calls spotlighting best practices in the area of EITC outreach.

OUTCOMES OF EFFORT According to the IRS, • for filing season 2005, 237 CAAs were involved in EITC outreach and free tax preparation nationwide; • the 237 CAAs prepared 46,968 tax returns for low- income families resulting in $58,166,192 in refunds (average refund $1,238). • seven of the Office of Community Services EITC specific grantees for filing season 2005 and their networks in their first grant year prepared 19,172 re-turns, resulting in $24,281,501 in refunds of which $12,330,580 was from EITC; and • community Action Agencies and their local networks prepared 10.3% of all Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) returns last year (excluding military and AARP) which is the largest percentage of any IRS national part-ner other than Military and AARP.

For filing season 2006, there are 10 additional EITC specific OCS grantees, bringing the total grant funded programs to 17. As a result, the IRS projects that OCS grantees will continue to be the single largest provider of


WAP Corner: What Can WAP Expect in 2006 by Robert Adams

The New Year is a few weeks old now. The parties are over; the decorations are gone; many of our resolutions are already broken; and the work of the Weatherization Assis-tance Program goes on. No one can actually tell the future and accurately predict what 2006 will look like but there are plenty of signs that can help us speculate about our Program’s fortunes in the New Year. Knowing what we do about 2005, here are a few predictions for 2006: FUNDING It is official! For 2006, WAP will receive $245 million through the Department of Energy ($240.5 in WAP, $4.5 in Training and Technical Assistance, with a one percent across the board rescission). When Congress passed the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and sent it to the President for signature, it contained the highest level of funding for WAP ever provided – topping last year’s high mark by nearly $15 million. This new plateau in funding is in keeping with the President’s 2000 commitment to keep WAP as a “priority” program within his National Energy Policy and increase the Program’s funding by $1.4 billion over 10 years. But there are underlying factors that must be examined. The Administration asked for only $230 million in the 2006 budget, far short of the $291 million requested in 2005. When Energy Secretary Bodman was asked during the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hear-ings why the President reduced his request so significantly, he responded that the Administration only asked for what Congress had provided in the past. However, it was Con-gress that provided the additional $15 million for 2006, not the Administration. Prediction: The Administration’s reluctance to ask for an increase in 2006 signals that the days of WAP being a “Presidential Priority” are over. Since DOE has a set re-quest allowance in the budget, it has also decided not to use its allowance on requesting increases for WAP but to increase other initiatives it finds more attractive. The

2007 budget released in early February will not contain an increase in WAP funding. In fact, the funding re-quest will likely be less than 2005 and could be as low as $200 million to make room for other DOE priori-ties. REGIONAL OFFICE CLOSINGS The Senate included language in the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report that a consolidation of regional office operations was sound management and a cost effective action to be undertaken by DOE. The six regional offices were recommended to be closed and their responsibilities and staff moved to the two Project Management Centers (PMC) in Golden, CO and Morgantown, WV. DOE took no exception to this language and began moving rapidly to close the of-fices within the deadline set in the final Appropriations bill. NASCSP, along with many of the network partners and supporters, waged a campaign throughout 2005 to stop the closings. We met with DOE management to lodge our objections to such actions. We met with staff from dozens of House and Senate members trying to explain the negative impacts of these closings. We met with staff from the Energy and Water Committees to im-plore them to change or expunge the language referenc-ing closings. We sent letters to the leadership in the House and Senate providing alternate language that would delay DOE’s actions until a study of the impacts could be completed. We provided staff from the Office of Management and Budget with outlines of responsi-bilities within the network to show the importance of these offices. Everyone involved fought hard to win the argument but we were unable to shift the opinions of those who made the original decision. Prediction: Unfortunately, this one is easy. The DOE Regional Offices in Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chi-cago, Denver, and Seattle will be closed by early sum-

free tax preparation programs nationally. Keep up the great work!

For more information on starting an EITC outreach

program, please contact Ron Smith, Chief Volunteer and Community Partnerships, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication Division, IRS, phone: 404/338-8512, email: [email protected].

it a permanent reassignment. The National Evaluation will move forward because the Office of Management and Budget is calling for it to occur now. What is un-known is who will conduct the evaluation, what will the final scope include, and whether it will actually begin in 2006. As for the continuation of training, technical as-sistance, and communication through DOE headquar-ters, DOE managers have given their promise that these initiatives will continue and we must take them at their word. When we reflect on the WAP activities for 2005 we can be very proud of what we accomplished. More than 100,000 homes were weatherized using nearly $600 mil-lion in public and private resources. New technologies were deployed throughout the country. We responded to the worst natural disaster in our history in the Gulf states. We helped conserve millions of barrels of oil at a time when energy prices spiked to their highest levels ever. And we convinced Congress that, at a time of do-mestic spending cuts throughout government, WAP was a wise investment of public funds and should be in-creased. With a successful resume like that, our future should be bright and exciting. But deficits loom ahead for Congress. DOE is crafting its legacy for the future and it may not include the WAP. And the way DOE will deliver the Program is also in transition. Prediction: A tough year ahead for WAP. Again, Happy New Year and best wishes from NASCSP for a healthy, safe, and productive 2006.

mer. Staff will be reassigned to the PMC’s and will be asked to report by June 30 or before. What is still un-clear is how many staff will report. The WAP network runs the risk of losing important and skilled DOE staff familiar with the Program and the states. In addition, these Regional Office staff will likely be assigned other duties once they become PMC staff that will take away from the attention WAP may require. This will be a transition year for the DOE and the signs are very hazy. We will have to wait and see whether this experiment is successful. DOE HEADQUARTERS OPERATIONS A few months ago, the NASCSP Board leadership for WAP and staff met with several DOE managers to dis-cuss the states’ concerns regarding the future of WAP. NASCSP provided four priority areas for 2006 and be-yond that they wanted to be addressed by DOE. These included: • Continuation of DOE supported training and techni-

cal assistance activities to enhance the service delivery; • Continuation of the communication devices in place

within the network to provide everyone serving the WAP with up-to-date information about best prac-tices, new technologies, better administrative tech-niques, and other Program improvements;

• Naming of a permanent national WAP director who could provide leadership for the Program within DOE; and

• Completion of the National WAP Evaluation to rees-tablish the metrics of the Program.

DOE management concurred with our assessment of the needs for the future of the Program and indicated a will-ingness to make these issues a priority for staff. We have since held discussion with key DOE staff to determine whether these priorities will be part of the 2006 workplan for DOE and how NASCSP and other interested parties can enhance the successful implementation of these initia-tives. Prediction: This one is a bit more difficult since there are so many complex components involved. DOE will name a permanent WAP National Program Manager. Cur-rently, Jim Powell, Southeast Regional Office Director, is filling the “Acting” position. He has indicated a willing-ness to remain in that position and DOE will likely make


SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

February 2006

2006 NASCSP MID-WINTER ORIENTATION/TRAINING CONFERENCE

FEBRUARY 13-17, 2006 WASHINGTON MARRIOTT HOTEL

1221 22ND STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC


Making the Right Presentation

by Robert Adams

Have you ever attended a workshop or other training functions and found yourself lost by the presenter? Or has the room set-up or audio/visual equipment place-ment made it impossible for you to see or hear? Or has the presenter simply missed the mark on what you thought you were there to learn? We have all experi-enced these communication breakdowns from time to time. They are usually not a reflection of the presenter’s qualifications or knowledge but, but more often than not, a lack of preparation for the podium. Public speaking still ranks as the number one fear among professionals. Since all of us from time to time are called upon to make a presentation about a subject with which we are familiar, these ten simple tips may prove helpful as you prepare for your podium experi-ence: 1. Have a clear purpose for the presentation and state

it in your opening. Clarify the two or three impor-tant points you intend to make and then begin.

2. Start and stop on time. 3. When presenting with other experts, be flexible and

be able to cut the talk short if asked. 4. Dress appropriately. Always dress one step above

the audience. If it's business casual, be a little dressier than casual.

5. Know your audience and make sure you know what the audience expects. If you have to, ask them what they expect. And get a sense of who’s in the audi-ence through one-on-one discussion or polling.

6. Check out your room set-up, audio/visual equip-ment, and other conditions for any potential prob-lems. Give yourself enough time to make the room right for you.

7. Knowing your subject is not enough. Find a way to excite the audience and keep their interest. Also find a way to involve the audience in the educa-tional experience.

8. Know when to stop. Too much information is as bad as too little. The audience can only absorb so much in an hour or so.

9. Always be sensitive to the audience. Never use pro-fanity, ethnic stories or off color remarks. Politics and religion should be avoided unless you are a member of the clergy or Congress.

10. Finally, have fun and use humor if you can. People like to laugh and injecting humor lightens the at-mosphere and makes it more conducive for the au-dience to listen and enjoy the material.

Follow these tips and who knows – the audience may actually learn something from you and you can over-come any fear you may have and enjoy the experience as well.

The War on Poverty and Welfare Reform

Editorial by James Masters, Center for Community Futures

I think the “War on Poverty” is a misunderstood and misused term. In his State of the Union message on January 8, 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson announced the War on Poverty and listed 23 strategies related to this new “war.” These strategies are not a unified field theory of poverty and they do not add up to a stand-alone strategy that can be compared with any other single strategy, espe-cially with welfare reform. Of the 23 specific strategies that LBJ mentioned, three of

them: an emphasis on state and local strategies, enacting youth employment legislation, and establishing a Na-tional Service Corps, were explicitly included in the Eco-nomic Opportunity Act of 1964. The community ac-tion program subsequently worked to carry out many of the other strategies, e.g. better schools, better homes, and instrumental support for Medicare and Medicaid. In the process of developing and passing the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and in the first couple of years


after it passed, Congress added at least nine more new strategies through the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) and Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to the list originally proposed by LBJ, including: Legal Ser-vices, Head Start, family planning, senior community employment, senior citizen food programs, adult basic education, Upward Bound, Title VII Special Impact Programs (Community Development Corporation net-work), and community health centers. All of the 12 strategies from the first couple of years of the Economic Opportunity Act -- the original three and the nine added later -- still exist. In fact, last year funding for these 12 “EOA affiliated” programs was over $10 billion, and that does not include LIHEAP and Weatherization, which were developed by CAAs later. So, when people talk about how the War on Poverty failed, I always want to know exactly which of the 32 strategies failed. Since all of the 32 strategies are still being supported by the Federal government, it makes you wonder what people are talking about. I don’t think you can characterize the “War on Poverty” as being either a success or a failure. I do not buy the argument at the level of generalization that “poverty is still with us,” therefore everything failed. The end game of this line of thinking is that that there should be NO ROLE by the Federal government if it cannot totally eliminate the problem (which is itself, a whole other ar-gument). Poverty is endemic to all types of economic systems and all national social structures. The causes and conditions can be reduced or eliminated through a variety of actions by government, the private sector, by citizen organiza-tions by families and by individuals. Many of the strate-gies listed by LBJ have been very successful in reducing the causes of poverty (e.g., anti-discrimination, Medicare, increasing the minimum wage, Job Corps) and many have had some success (e.g., improving schools, training), and a few work only under special circumstances (e.g., tax cuts) even though some people think they are a pana-cea. And, some were less than successful.

My point is that success has to be measured at the specific strategy level and not at the slogan level. And at the strat-egy level there have been many successes and partial suc-cesses. The 1972 amendments to the Social Security Act were pushed through with support from President Nixon and reduced the poverty rate among senior citizens from 34% to 14%, virtually overnight. Should those amend-ments be repealed because they ‘failed’ to totally eliminate poverty among senior citizens? I don’t think so. All-or-nothing thinking leaves us with... nothing. The “War on Poverty” is not a meta-strategy, and it is not even a linked set of complementary strategies. It was a slogan. You can make the same kind of analysis and argument about “welfare reform.” Are we talking about the reforms of the 1960 and the 1962 Amendments that added moth-ers and fathers, e.g. AFDC? Or, the 1967 reform that separated income maintenance and social services? Or the creation of the WIN program in 1967, which was one of the few truly harmful examples of a public policy. Or, are we talking about the WIN demonstration programs of the 1970’s? The biggest "reform" was probably the 1988 Amendments that created the JOBS program, because the 1995 work requirements were just a modest expansion of the JOBS requirements. Or, maybe we mean the 5-year time limits. What do we mean by "welfare reform?” For some people, a welfare reform is anything that gets people off welfare. For others, a real reform has to move people out of poverty. I think that trying to compare the War on Poverty with “welfare reform” is a treacherous exercise that immediately takes us into a morass of contradictions and faulty logic. The pathway to developing more effective strategies lies elsewhere. James I. Masters: Center for Community Futures, www.cencomfut.com NASCSP welcomes your feedback, comments and perspective. If you wish to comment or submit a response to our Editorial column, please email: [email protected].

Come Visit the NASCSP Website @ www.nascsp.org


1. Include a staff development section in your state CSBG and/or WAP

plan that covers the attendance of conferences and trainings, such as the NASCSP Mid-Winter and Fall Training Conferences.

2. In your request for approval to attend the conference, point to the fact that this has been included in the state plan which was approved by OCS and/or DOE.

3. As you complete your annual operating budgets, set aside CSBG and/or WAP administrative funds for the attendance of conferences.

4. Have the state office include the attendance of training conferences in the job descriptions of CSBG and/or WAP staff.

5. It’s often difficult to get approval for more than 2 or 3 state staff to attend a single conference. One rationale that works is that more than one person is needed to cover all of the workshops available.

6. Establish a policy of rotating the attendance of state staff at the NASCSP conference. This will give more staff the opportunity to attend and the fact that a staff person has not been to a conference in some time can be a good justification for approval.

Written by Dennis Darling, Former NASCSP Board Chair

How to Ensure your Attendance at NASCSP Conferences

It’s not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one that is most adaptable to change. — Charles Darwin


Give the gift of INFORMATION!

Your Community Action Agencies need to be in

the know!

START THE NEW YEAR RIGHT! 12 ISSUES $100.00

NASCSP NEWSLETTER 12 ISSUES $100.00 Please send 12 issues of the NASCSP Newsletter. Enclosed, my check for $100.00. Please send 12 issues of the NASCSP Newsletter and invoice me for $100.00. Please send 12 issues of the NASCSP Newsletter to each of my ______ Community Action Agencies @$100.00 each

(address list of CAAs attached) and invoice me/check enclosed for $______________. Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Agency: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ________________________ Fax: ________________________ Email: ________________________ Please mail to: Terry Joyner NASCSP 400 N. Capitol St., NW-Suite 395 Washington, DC 20001 Fax: 202/624-8472 Email: [email protected]

Community Services Network News Now!

On November 9, 2005, I

testified to a joint hearing

of the House Appropria-

tions Subcommittees on

Interior, Environment and

Related Agencies and

Energy, Water Develop-

ment, and Related Agencies

on the effects of rising

natural gas prices on the

poor. I thought you might

be interested in my testi-

mony; it is excerpted below.

“I am very grateful to both

of the distinguished Chair-

men, to Mr. Obey, the

Ranking Member of the

Committee and to Mr.

Peterson for this opportu-

nity to talk about the

nation’s 16 million low-

income natural gas consum-

ers. These families have

every reason to be fearful of

the high bills that are

waiting for them this year.

NASCSP Newsletter National Assoc ia t ion for State Commun ity Serv ices Pr ogra ms

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: VOLUME 20

Hill Testimony and Next Steps on LIHEAP

by David Bradley

A majority of the poor, like

the majority of the nation,

uses natural gas for heat.

Most cannot afford the bills

they received last year, and

this year is going to be far

worse.

Rising natural gas prices are

a serious problem for

American families, but most

especially , low-income

households. This is not a

Katrina-like exceptional

disaster, but rather a long-

term problem that has been

several years in the making

and will continue for several

years to come.

The 3-year-long surge in

natural gas prices has cer-

tainly raised the pressures on

Community Action’s LI-

HEAP and Weatherization

programs. Not only are we

seeing a great increase in the

Articles Pg

Legislative Corner 3

CSBG Spotlight: 3

The 2005

NASCSP Fall

Training

Conference

5

CSBG/IS Data

WAP Corner: 9

CAA and Katrina: 11

CAA and Katrina:

Lewis County

14

NASCSP

Recognition

14

NASCSP

Recognition

Awards Nomina-

15

NASCSP STAFF

Timothy R. Warfield

Executive Director

[email protected]

Robert Adams

Director, WX Services

[email protected]

Ramsey Alwin

Director, Program

Services

[email protected]

Jenae Bjelland

Director, Research

[email protected]

NASCSP

November 2005

Documents

National Association for State Community Services NASCSP ...Making the Right Presentation 9 The War On Poverty and … 9 How to Ensure Your Attendance at NASCSP ... 11 Start the New