 |
Phone: 510-339-3801 Fax: 510-339-3803 E-mail: jmasters@cencomfut.com |
Mailing Address: Center for Community Futures P.O. Box 5309 Berkeley, CA 94705 |
                |
|
|
|
|
 | A primary goal is to transition recipients to
employment, so that cash benefits are no longer necessary; |
| Recipients must fulfill ongoing work requirements; and |
| There is a time limit on benefits. |
Requirements
vary by state.
Additional
nutritional programs include54:
| The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to
safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, & children up to age
5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement
diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care55 |
| National School Lunch Program - public or
nonprofit private schools of high school grade or under and public or
nonprofit private residential childcare institutions may participate in the
school lunch program. School districts and independent schools that choose
to take part in the lunch program get cash subsidies and donated commodities
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In
return, they must serve lunches that meet federal requirements, and they
must offer free or reduced price lunches to eligible children. School food
authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age
18 in after-school educational or enrichment programs. |
| Special Milk Program - the Special Milk Program
(SMP) provides milk to children in schools and childcare institutions who do
not participate in other federal meal service programs. The program
reimburses schools for the milk they serve. |
| The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides
cash assistance to States to operate nonprofit breakfast programs in schools
and residential childcare institutions. It is administered at the federal
level by FNS. State education agencies administer the SBP at the State
level, and local school food authorities operate it in schools. |
| Summer Food Service – this program ensures
that children who are eligible for free and reduced meals during the school
year continue to receive good nutrition during the summer. State education
agencies administer the program in most States. Locally, the program is run
by approved sponsors, including school districts, local government agencies,
camps, or private nonprofit organizations. Sponsors provide free meals to a
group of children at a central site, such as a school or a community center.
They receive payments from USDA, through their State agencies, for the meals
they serve and for their documented operating costs. |
| Child and Adult Care - FNS administers the
program through grants to States. FNS provides cash assistance to designated
state agencies for meals served to eligible children and adults in day care
centers based upon the participant’s eligibility under the Income
Eligibility Guidelines for free, reduced price, or paid meals. In centers,
participants from households with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty
are eligible for free meals. Participants in centers with household incomes
between 130 percent and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for meals at a
reduced price. Institutions must determine each enrolled participant’s
eligibility for free and reduced price meals served in centers. |
| More than twice as likely to have mental disorders
than high income individuals; |
| More likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors (smoking,
drugs, alcohol, poor diet, unprotected sex); |
| More subject to injury caused by violent crime; and |
| More likely to suffer the affects of pollution from
the neighborhoods in which they live. |
They
are also less likely to seek medical attention, particularly preventative
medical attention.
Medicaid
is the largest health and medical care
resource for low-income individuals. It is a federal program under Title XIX of
the Social Security Act, jointly funded by federal and state governments. The
program has greatly expanded since its inception in 1965 due to expanded
coverage beyond its original intent to provide medical coverage just to cash
assistance recipients.
Although
the federal government sets broad guidelines, individual states are authorized
to determine:
| Eligibility standards |
| Type, amount, duration, and scope of services |
| Rate of payment for services |
| Program administrative rules. |
Programs
therefore vary from state to state as well as within states over time. Not all
people in poverty are eligible, although to receive federal matching funds,
states are required to provide coverage for certain “categorical
needy” groups, including Supplemental Security Income recipients, and children
under age six whose family income is at or below 133 percent of the federal
poverty level.
Federal
policy requires states to offer basic services to individuals who fall within
the categorically needy populations. These services include:
| Inpatient hospital services. |
| Outpatient hospital services. |
| Prenatal care. |
| Vaccines for children. |
| Physician services. |
| Nursing facility services for persons aged 21 or
older. |
| Family planning services and supplies. |
| Rural health clinic services. |
| Home health care for persons eligible for
skilled-nursing services. |
| Laboratory and x-ray services. |
| Pediatric and family nurse practitioner services. |
| Nurse-midwife services. |
| Federally qualified health-center (FQHC) services, and
ambulatory services of an FQHC that would be available in other settings. |
| Early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and
treatment (EPSDT) services for children under age 21. |
The
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) gives
grants to states to provide health insurance coverage to uninsured children up
to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). The legislation sets eligibility
criteria. States can decide to cover all of those children or to target coverage
to a narrower group of children. The eligibility criteria are to cover uninsured
children who are:
| not eligible for Medicaid |
| under age 19; and |
| at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). |
Since
enactment of the SHCIP block grant program to states in 1997, the number and
rate of uninsured children has substantially declined for near-poor children,
those from families with incomes 100-200% of the federal poverty level. However,
it is estimated that 2.7 million near-poor children remain uninsured, despite
the fact that the vast majority would be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.57
While the near poor have experienced considerable benefit, there has been little impact on the poor themselves. “The most recent data suggest that 27.3% of all poor children and 24.9% of all poor citizen children are uninsured, despite the fact that all citizen children in this income range were eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP in 2000.”58 Reasons parents gave for not enrolling their children included lack of knowledge of the program, administrative hassles involved with enrollment, and not wanting their children covered by public programs or thinking it wasn’t needed. Information about requirements in each state can be obtained through the Insure Kids Now! website at http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/states.htm.
Clearinghouse
services: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Primary
Health Care, maintains several databases,
including geographic listings of health centers that provide free or low-cost
care and a pharmacy database for reduced cost medications (http://bphc.hrsa.gov/bphc/database.htm).
There
are also a number of smaller targeted programs that include block grants
for maternal and child health services; community health centers; migrant health
centers; and the Indian Health Service.
Section
8 Housing Choice Vouchers allow very low-income families to choose and lease or
purchase safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing.
The trend has been to move toward a voucher
process and away from public housing projects. The majority of people receiving
Section 8 assistance now receive vouchers rather than live in housing projects.
There are several types of vouchers, including:
| Conversion - If a family lives in a public
housing unit that is scheduled to be demolished, disposed of or converted,
they will be contacted by the public housing agency (PHA) when they are
eligible for a conversion voucher. The PHA compares the family’s annual
income (gross income) with the HUD-established very low-income limit or
low-income limit for the area. The family cannot earn more than this limit.
It is the responsibility of a family to find a unit that meets their needs.
If the family finds a unit that meets the housing quality standards, the
rent is reasonable, and the unit meets other program requirements, the PHA
executes a housing assistance payment (HAP) contract with the property
owner. This contract authorizes the PHA to make subsidy payments on behalf
of the family. |
|
Family unification - Family unification
vouchers are made available to families for whom the lack of adequate
housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat of imminent
separation, of children from their families or in the prevention of
reunifying the children with their families. Family unification vouchers
enable these families to lease or purchase housing that is affordable in the
private housing market. |
| Homeownership - Homeownership vouchers assist
first-time homeowners with their monthly homeownership expenses. The home
must pass an initial housing quality standards inspection conducted by the
PHA and an independent home inspection before the PHA may approve. PHAs may
choose to administer a homeownership program, but are not required to do so. |
| Project based - Project-based vouchers are a
component of a (PHAs) housing choice voucher program. A PHA can attach up to
20 percent of its voucher assistance to specific housing units if the owner
agrees to either rehabilitate or construct the units, or the owner agrees to
set-aside a portion of the units in an existing development. There are no
appropriations for this program and HUD does not allocate funding for
project-based voucher assistance. Instead, funding for project-based
vouchers comes from funds already obligated by HUD to a PHA under its annual
contributions contract (ACC). |
| Tenant based - Tenant-based vouchers increase
affordable housing choices for very low-income families. Families with a
tenant-based voucher choose and lease affordable privately owned rental
housing. Very low-income families (i.e., families with incomes below 50% of
area median income) and a few specific categories of families with incomes
up to 80% of the area median income are eligible. These include families
that are already assisted under the 1937 U.S. Housing Act, such as families
physically displaced by public housing demolition, and owners opting out of
project-based section 8 housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts. |
| Vouchers for people with disabilities –
elderly and non-elderly families that have a person with disabilities are
eligible. As part of a demonstration program between HUD and HHS, 400
vouchers were awarded in Fiscal Year 2001 to 11 lead PHAs to partner with
Medicaid agencies in providing housing assistance to non-elderly disabled
persons transitioning from nursing homes into the community. |
| Welfare-to-work vouchers - To address the lack
of stable, affordable housing available to families moving off of welfare,
HUD awarded approximately 50,000 additional housing choice vouchers to
housing authorities throughout the country through its Welfare to Work (WtW)
Voucher Program. According to
the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the housing voucher program is
generally successful, but could be improved. They note that: |
 | Different administrators in the same housing market
require different forms and procedures, making it difficult for owners and
tenants to maximize their use of Section 8 and inhibiting the portability
of vouchers; |
| Owners are sometimes deterred from participating
because of late rental payments from administrators or difficulties with
tenants; |
| Administrators contend that their parent housing
authorities skim off a portion of the administrative fees they receive
from HUD, impairing their ability to run their programs efficiently. |
The
Coalition has made recommendations for improvement, including setting payment
standards at levels that allow voucher holders to maximize opportunities to use
the voucher, and conducting thorough rent reasonableness determinations to avoid
excess subsidy payments.59
“Housing
vouchers look particularly promising as a tool for promoting employment. Studies
have identified a distinct advantage to vouchers compared to public housing
projects… Data from the National Survey of American Families show that among
poor families who left welfare between 1997 and 1999, those with housing
assistance had significantly higher barriers to employment— low education
levels, poor mental and physical health, and lack of recent work
experience—than those without it. Despite these barriers, however, they
achieved employment rates and incomes equal to or above families without subsidized housing. A study in
Massachusetts also found better employment outcomes among families with housing
assistance despite greater employment barriers, including a longer history of
welfare use.”60
However, there are waiting lists
for these vouchers, and only a small percentage of eligible individuals receive
them.
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federal program
under the authority of the Office of Community Services that helps low income
households pay for heating and/or cooling their homes. The program targets two
groups of low-income households that have the highest home energy needs:
| Vulnerable households, which include frail older
individuals, individuals with disabilities, and very young children. |
| High energy burden households, i.e., those with the
lowest incomes and highest home energy costs. |
LIHEAP
applications, eligibility, assistance, and benefit levels vary among LIHEAP
programs and individuals must contact their individual state agencies to find
out about requirements. LIHEAP grantees can spend a portion of their funds on
weatherization or low-cost energy related repairs for homes, but they are not
required to do so. If they wish, they can use some of their funds to do such
things as fix leaky doors or windows, install insulation, or repair/replace
defective or inefficient furnaces or air conditioners. Sometimes, grantees will
not weatherize rental homes or apartments unless the landlord agrees to pay for
a portion of the cost or agrees to other conditions.
The
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also administers a program called the Low
Income Weatherization Assistance Program (LIWAP) to weatherize homes or
apartments of low income people. This program is usually run at the local level
by Community Action Agencies.61
The
federal government operates a National Energy Assistance Referral (NEAR) project.
NEAR is a free service for persons who want information on where to apply for
energy assistance. Individuals may call toll-free at 1-866-674-6327 for energy
assistance referral, or e-mail for help at energyassistance@ncat.org.
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) was created in 1996 to consolidate several fragmented programs. The fund subsidizes childcare for low-income families to enable them to work or participate in education or training. Assistance is provided in the form of:
| A contracted child care slot; or |
| A voucher that may be used to access care by any
provider that meets state requirements. |
The
subsidy is usually paid directly to the provider and covers the difference
between the family’s co-payment and the actual cost of care. The cost of care
is capped by maximum state payment rates. The co-payment is based on factors
that include income, family size, and the number of children in care. CCDF
subsidies are not a federal entitlement. Not everyone who is eligible receives
subsidies. Only Rhode Island guarantees benefits to all eligible families who
apply. Nearly half of the states keep waiting lists for subsidies, and more than
500,000 children were on these lists in 2003.62
CCDF provides states with an annual base amount
as well as matching funds, as long as states meet maintenance of effort and
matching requirements. States may transfer money into CCDF programs from TANF
and other sources.63
Because
of the variety of state rules and programs, there are websites available to help
people get to the information they need about local eligibility. These include
the National Child Care Information Center at http://nccic.org/statedata/statepro/index.html
and Child Care Aware at http://www.childcareaware.org/en/.
The
United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development programs
offer loans to develop community facilities, which may include childcare
centers. Public entities (such as counties and cities) and non-profit
organizations (under certain conditions) may be eligible for the loans. For
details, consult USDA's web site at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/index.html.
The Senate voted on March 30, 2004 for an amendment to the TANF reauthorization
bill that would increase funding for child care assistance by $6 billion. The
Senate has not yet passed TANF reauthorization. The House, in 2003, passed a
TANF reauthorization bill requiring $1 billion in additional childcare funding.
Individuals programs such as WIA are allowed to provide vouchers to participants
for childcare while they are in training, although they are not required to do
so.
| Only about 6 percent of welfare recipients owned
automobiles; |
| Two-thirds of all new jobs were in the suburbs, but
three-fourths of welfare recipients lived in rural areas or central cities; |
| In metropolitan areas with excellent public transit
systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by public transit.64 |
Further,
many low-income workers must work 2nd or 3rd shifts when public transportation,
if it is available at all, may not be in operation.
Meeting
transportation needs has been traditionally handled on an individual basis, with
participants in programs such as WIA, Welfare-to-Work, and other job training
programs receiving vouchers, bus passes, and taxi reimbursements from program
funds. Whether to use such funds for transportation supports is at the
discretion of the individual program grantees. The U.S. Department of Labor,
Federal Transit Administration, and HHS developed guidance that clarified that
TANF and welfare-to-work funds could be used for:
| Contracting for shuttles, buses and car pools |
| Purchasing vans, shuttles and minibuses |
| Purchasing rider slots, passes or vouchers |
| Facilitating the donation and repairs of older
vehicles |
| Providing loans to eligible individuals for lease or
purchase of vehicles |
| Making one time or short-term payments for repairs and
insurance65 |
The
Federal Transit Administration found that "most state welfare plans
submitted to the federal government barely mentioned transportation.”66
The
Department of Health and Human Services has provided guidance on how to use TANF
s a match for car purchases with IDAs. Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma,
Illinois, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maine have policies supporting matched
saving accounts for car purchase, and some of these states use TANF to match
savings.67
On
April 2, 2004, the House passed the federal transportation bill ensuring
programming for low-income workers, the disabled, and seniors with enhanced
funding opportunities for rural communities. The bill retains funding for the Job
Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program. JARC, which originated in 1998,
provides grants to transportation projects that connect low-income workers to
employment and related services. Several grants provided new transportation
services to low income workers. According to a survey completed by the
University of Illinois at Chicago, sixty-six percent of workers who used these
new services said that they had total reliance on the new service and could not
get to work without it, twenty-seven percent of respondents said that they did
not work prior to new services being provided as a result of the program and
thirty percent earned more income due to the service.68
Many
states have their own minimum wage laws. Between 1979 and 1989, the number of
states with minimum wages higher than the federal level went from one to 15.69 Twelve
states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington), and the District of
Columbia have established a minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour, with a high rate of $7.16/hour in Washington, and
$7.15/hour in Alaska.
Attempting
to raise wages of some low-income workers closer to a level sufficient to
support their families and set an example through jobs created by public
funding, over 50 localities have enacted “living wage” ordinances. In the
cities and counties where ordinances have been initiated, they generally apply
to employers who have a contract with local government or businesses that
receive economic development subsidies from the locality. The wage rates
specified by the living wage ordinances range from just under $7 an hour in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a high of $12 an hour in Santa Cruz, California. More
than half of the ordinances also require or encourage employer-provided health
insurance.
-----------
1 Personal Finance and the Rush to Competence: Financial Literacy
Education in the U.S.,
Lois A Vitt, Carol Anderson, Jamie Kent, Deanna Lyter, Jurg Siegenthaler, Jeremy
Ward, Institute for Socio-Financial Studies, 2000.(www.ISFS.org)
14 Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work, A program Evaluation,
Manpower Distribution Research Group, 2000
24 www.gottman.com/marriage
25 www.couplecommunication.com
26 www.imagotherapy.com
27 www.pairs.com
28 www.retrouvaille.org
29 Beyond Marriage Licenses: Efforts in States to Strengthen Marriage and Two-Parent
Families, A State-by-State Snapshot, Theodora Ooms, Stacey Bouchet, and Mary
Parke, CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy), April 2004. Also at http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1082987634.24/beyond_marr.pdf%20
30 Incarceration and Bonds Among Parents,
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University,
2002
32 http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/capital
33 Human Capital,
Gary Becker, in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, The Library of Economics
and Liberty, at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html
34 Supports for Low-Income Families; States Serve a Broad Range
of Families through a Complex and Changing System,
United States General Accounting Office, January, 2004.
39 Getting ahead: A survey of low-wage workers on opportunities for
advancement, conducted by
Lake Snell Perry & Associates for Jobs for the Future, September 2003
45 Steady Work and Better Jobs: How to Help Low-Income Parents Sustain
Employment and Advance in the Workforce,
Strawn and Martinson, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, June 2000.
54 United States Department of Agriculture, at http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/
55 USDA Food and Nutrition Service, at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/default.htm
56 Health Policies for the Non-Elderly Poor, Mullahy
and Wolfe, in Understanding Poverty, Danziger and Haveman, Russell Sage
Foundation, 2001.
61 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Questions and Answers Support, at http://faq.acf.hhs.gov
62 National Center for Children in Poverty; http://www.nccp.org/pub_swf04.html
65 Transportation: The Essential Need to Address the "To" in
Welfare–to-Work; Kaplan;
Welfare Information Network; Issue Notes; Vol. 2 No. 10, June, 1998.
67 National Economic Development and Law Center; http://www.nedlc.org
68 A User Survey of Transportation Services Funded by the
Job-Access-Reverse-Commute Program;
Sööt, S., Sriraj, P.S. and Thakuriah, P., prepared for the Federal Transit
Administration, Urban Transportation Center, University of Illinois at Chicago,
2002, at http://www.utc.uic.edu/~fta/Reports/survey02.pdf
Creating A 21st Century Model To Address Poverty
Research Brief
August 31, 2004
Developments
in IT over the next five years will significantly change how individuals,
governments and societies deal with information. There will be new and better
ways of presenting, analyzing and using information. There will be improved
mobile devices for end users, much-improved middleware, better-conceptualized
standards, wider connectivity, new collaboration tools, and new and better
models for doing business. Many upcoming technological innovations will change
how people, teams, enterprises, governments and even whole societies interact
with and share data. Imagine a world where objects can sense, reason,
communicate and act. The explosion of smaller, cheaper sensors, continuously
connected through wireless communications, will create a sensory web where we
will see the physical world online – this will change everything.
The main drivers are standards for improved interoperability, improved
understanding of information supply chains, wider connectivity and some key
technologies like micropayments, digital rights management, extensible markup
language and ontologies. Many of the implications are beyond providing better IT
infrastructure. They are more about doing business completely differently.
If
we consider the state of the world technologically as it was in 1994 - just 10
years ago, we would be without email, without a cell phone, without instant
messaging. We would not be browsing the Internet nor would we be transacting
business via e-commerce. We would not have Personal Digital Assistant’s (PDAs)
or web kiosks. We would be technologically immature. In year 2014, we will look
back to 2004 and we will appear to have been technologically immature. Instead
of carrying a computer around, computing environments will be available
everywhere for personalized access to anytime/anywhere information via modified
TV, electronic kiosks, or airplane display monitors. Voice activated
applications will have substantially reduced the need for keyboard typing.
Physical hardware computing machines and “boxes” as we know them will
have been replaced by virtual networks. All relevant information will be
connected and accessible to anyone granted permission to access it - at any
time. Electronic devices will integrate and communicate wherever we are, giving
us any information that we need. The network will be the heart of it all —
personal and pervasive. Emerging technology and trends will transform the
ability of businesses and people to control their work and personal
environments. The Human Services infrastructure must successfully face the
business and human challenges that will arise in the always-on, always-connected
world of 2014.
Experts
maintain that a new US and world economy has emerged – a new stage of global
capitalism. This new stage is referred to by some as post industrialism or
informationalism. Informationalism represents a third industrial revolution
(table 1.1). The first followed the
invention of the steam engine in the eighteenth century and was characterized by
the replacement of hand tools by machines. The second followed the harnessing of
electricity in the nineteenth century and was characterized by the development
of large scale factory productions. The third revolution came to fruition in the
1970s with the diffusion of the transistor, the personal computer and
telecommunications. In other words, what we have is not an Internet economy but
an information economy in which computers and the Internet play an essential and
enabling role. Experts have identified four features that distinguish
informationalism from the prior industrial stage: the driving role of science
and technology for economic growth; a shift from material production to
information processing; the emergence and expansion of new forms of networked
industrial organization and the rise of socioeconomic globalization.1
Table 1.1 – The Three Industrial Revolutions
|
|
First |
Second |
Third |
|
Beginning |
Late 18th century |
Late
19th century |
Mid
to late 20th |
|
Key Technologies |
Printing
press, steam engine, machinery |
Electricity,
internal combustion, telegraph, telephone |
Transistor,
personal computers, telecommunications, Internet |
|
Archetypical Workplace |
Workshop |
Factory |
Office |
|
Organization |
Master-apprentice-serf |
Large
vertical hierarchies |
Horizontal
Networks |
The changes to date in the world’s economy (as noted above) as well as
emerging technologies that are changing business practices as we know them,
create the need for all industries to reevaluate their use of technology to
achieve goals and objectives.
Human
services programs have evolved dramatically during the past several generations,
often experiencing tectonic shifts as political perceptions evolve regarding
their need and value.2
Prior to the Great Depression, most human
services needs were addressed by the families or religious institutions of those
in need. However, because the Great Depression generally overwhelmed the ability
of families and charities to care for all of those in need, government programs
were created. In the mid-1960s, the number and complexity of government programs
grew dramatically as part of the "war on poverty." As political
leadership challenged the effectiveness of these programs in the 1980s, their
growth was slowed and more flexibility was shifted back to lower units of
government. Since the mid-1990s, even more flexibility has been granted to
noncentral governments and private agencies to offer new or more-flexible
services (see Figure 1). (Gartner Group)
Source: Gartner Research (August 2003)
The
upper portion of Figure 1 graphically depicts the relative role of government in
the delivery of human services during these eras. The lower portion of Figure 1
depicts how the role of technology has evolved. Early on, IT was nonexistent.
With the development of mainframes and large-scale payroll systems, technology
began to play a more prominent role in human services during the 1960s as
agencies moved management of cash assistance programs onto computers. However,
until the late 1990s, little of this technology development was specifically
designed for or targeted at human services agencies. Other than financial
management, technology played little or no role in far more-qualitative
activities, such as case management, until very recently.3
When
human services were primarily the responsibility of the family and charities,
the beneficiaries of those services were given only those things that were
perceived to be necessary in the short term (such as money, clothing, food,
spiritual guidance and job tools). Through the 1970s, as the government's role
grew, services became more homogeneous (for better or worse). With welfare
reforms beginning in the early 1980s and continuing into the mid-1990s, more
programs have become available to meet the unique and highly varying needs of
each case. Yet, because of the complexity of administering all of these
programs, few government jurisdictions or policies have adapted to better apply
these programs to the needs of their constituents.
Human
services agencies work to support complex financial and social needs of
qualifying individuals and families. By their very nature, these needs may vary
from one individual or case to another. Human services programs provide income
to people or families in need, provide assistance to enable self-sufficiency
from these programs, or which help support or protect children, the disabled,
and the elderly in situations where they are dependent on others. Because
societal needs are so diverse, a wide variety of programs has been, and
continues to be, created to address varying conditions. Each of these programs
may have different eligibility criteria and administrative distinctions.
Resources to support eligible clients exist in federal, state and local
governments, community action agencies, faith institutions and other not-for
profit entities.
As
important as efficient client management is to reducing poverty, the Human
Services community does not have a single system capable of fully integrating
program and resource information holistically to empower those most in need.
Most of the problems that the low-income people face in seeking remedies can be
ascribed to the nature of human services programs and the lack of timely,
accurate information needed to make sound and rapid decisions. This lack of
timely accurate information (which should be available on demand) forces the
system into a generally reactive mode. Neither case managers nor clients are
able to see opportunities or obstacles in advance.
While
there are a few exceptions, for the most part, the Human Services infrastructure
is limited by stove-piped systems that are independently operated and managed
throughout the various layers of the infrastructure. Data currently resides in
redundant, stovepipe applications that reflect decades-old business processes.
System functionality limitations, lack of integration, and operating
difficulties result in extensive manual efforts and inefficient business
processes. These conditions require field staff to focus an inordinate amount of
time and effort collecting data and shuffling paperwork. This does not allow
sufficient time for analysis and service intervention.
The
most significant administrative challenge human services agencies will continue
to face will be marrying the specific needs of each client with the most
appropriate solution or program. This is, first and foremost, a problem of case
management for employees of human services agencies and the technology
infrastructure intended to support them.
In the future, human services must “invert the paradigm”. The Human Services infrastructure must consider that the system should operate from the perspective of meeting the individual need of the client rather than supporting organizations and programs. The process must begin with the individual by providing tools and resources to allow the person in need to design a navigation strategy. Governmental resources could then be used to support service delivery issues which are more complex and not easily solved by technology. Technology is in place to support the inversion of the paradigm. Technology allows for self-service strategies to empower individuals and communities to address their own unique needs.
There
have been mixed reviews in terms of how technology has been leveraged to date by
communities and individuals to deal with issues of poverty. As of August 2001 an
estimated 513 million people around the world had Internet access. This
represents 8.4% of the world’s population4.
Even though Internet access has been increasing rapidly in some
countries, access remains highly stratified by region. The number of people with
Internet access ranges from 57.2% in North America to .5% in Africa. The reasons
for the disparity in Internet access rates are multiple and involve issues of
economics, infrastructure, politics, education and culture.
Although
access is an issue, a computer and the Internet are not much use without content
and applications that serve people’s needs. According to Warschauer in Technology
and Social Inclusion, the United States which leads the world in Web site
production suffers from significant content gaps that affect underserved
communities. In other words, the applications or service interventions that
technology affords are not available to meet the needs of individuals and
communities to the degree needed. Additionally, an in-depth study of Internet
content and diversity was carried out by the Children’s Partnership5.
They identified four main content-related barriers that affected large numbers of Americans. The greatest barrier was the lack of locally relevant technology applications and information to address the needs of at-risk populations. According to the study, low income users seek practical, relevant information that affects their daily lives.
Information
of this nature is not consistently available at the local level to empower
communities and individuals.6
Locally relevant applications and information
must be available as follows:
| Education – Adult high school degree programs, adult
literacy programs, financial aid, homework assistance, tele-mentoring |
| Family – Low-cost child care, low cost enrichment
activities for children, public assistance programs for families |
| Finances – Public benefits news, consumer
information, credit information |
| Government advocacy – Immigration assistance, legal
services, tax filing support |
| Health – Easy to understand health encyclopedias,
local clinics, low cost insurance resources |
| Housing – low cost housing, low cost utilities,
neighborhood crime rates |
| Personal enrichment – foreign language newspapers
and search engines, communities of interest for youth and adults |
| Vocational – Low cost career counseling programs,
job training programs, job readiness programs, job listings |
The
author of Spanning the Digital Divide summarized some key questions/issues that
must be addressed if technology is to be leveraged to successfully impact
individuals and communities in the 21st
century. The questions/issues are as follows7:
|
Physical Access |
Is there physical access to technology? People will only
use technology if it is available within a reasonable distance from their
home or work. A computer that lacks adequate power supply, connection
(internet capabilities), and software will not be effective in helping
people see the relevance of technology to their lives. |
|
Capacity |
Do people
understand how to use technology and its potential use? People must be
able to effectively use the technology. Further, it is essential that
people understand the broader potential for technology applications, so
users can be empowered to creatively apply the technology to other parts
of their life. |
|
Affordability |
Is technology affordable enough for people to use? The
cost of hardware, phone lines, electricity, internet connection, software,
and maintenance must not be so expensive it excludes many people and
organizations from using technology. |
|
Trust |
Do people have confidence in and understand the
implications of the technology they use, for instance in terms of privacy,
security, or cyber crime? |
|
Relevant Content |
Is there locally relevant content in the local languages?
Content is only relevant when its substance is interesting to users given
their culture background, and accessible given their reading, writing, and
language skills. |
|
Integration |
Does the technology further burden people's lives or does
it integrate into daily routines? |
|
Socio-cultural Factors |
Are people limited in their use of technology based on
gender, race, or other socio-cultural factors? People are often excluded
from using technology based on ethnic, gender, or other
socio-culturally-based inequalities. These factors must be considered and
addressed. |
|
Appropriate Technology |
What is the appropriate technology that meets the needs
and desires of people? A wide variety of technologies are available.
Policy makers and users must be able to critically assess which kind of
technology is appropriate for the intended use. |
|
Local Economic Environment |
Is there a local economy that can sustain its use? The
local economic situation will determine the level and frequency of
technology use. Technology that can be used to foster economic growth will
foster use in the community. |
|
Legal and Regulatory Framework |
Do laws and policies foster technology use? What changes
are needed to create an environment that does? |
|
Macro-economic environment |
Is national economic policy conducive to widespread
technology use, for example in terms of transparency, deregulation,
investment, and labor issues? |