1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

In re: Governor's Proposed Budget - 1986-1987 Regional Hearing on the State Budget with Federal Augmentation ***** Stenographic report of Hearing held in the Rogal Roomf Second Floor, University of Pittsburgh Bellefield Annex, 365 South Bellefield, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on

Thursday March 13, 198 6 10:00 a.m.

HON. MAX PIEVSKY, CHAIRMAN Hon. Filliam J. Stewart, Vice Chairman Hon. David W. Sweet, Secretary Hon. Italo S. Cappabianca, Subcommittee Chairman on Health and Uelfare Hon. Joseph Steighner, Subcommittee Chairman on Capital Budget Hon. Edward A. Wiggins, Subcommittee Chairman on Education

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Hon. Mary Ann Arty Ron. Michael Gruitza Hon. Thomas R. Caltagirone Hon. Leonard Gruppo Hon. James M. Eurd Hon. Ruth Harper Hon. Gaynor Cawley Hon. Allen Kukovich Hon. Brian Clark Hon. William D. Mackowski Hon. Nick Colafella Hon. Richard A. McClatchy Hon. Roy W. Cornell Hon. Harold F. Mowery Hon. Ponald R. Cowell Hon. John M. Perzel, Jr. Hon. Alphonso Deal Hon. Thomas C. Petrone Hon. Roger Duffy Hon. Frank Pistella Hon. Dwight Evans Hon. George F. Pott Hon. Robert J. Flick Hon. Jere Schuler Hon. Stephen Freind Hon. Ted Stuban

Also Present: Steve Rosskopf Reported by: Cathy Varincar Cathy R. Mull Lisa Giuntoli 2

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: The hour of 9:00 o'clock having arrived and past somewhat, the House Appropriations Hearing will come to order. We are here this morning to take testimony on the Governor's proposed budget as well as suggestions for change. Let me at this point introduce the people at the front table. To my right is Steve Rosskopf from the House Appropriations Committee. I am Representative Joe Steighner, Subcommittee Chairman. This is Lisa Giuntoli from my Butler off ice. I would like, until we have microphones, which I understand the University is getting for us shortly, to ask a couple of things, that those people who testify would speak up as best you can and that we try to keep the conversation outside of the testimony down to a minimum so that the people who are testifying can, in fact, be heard. At this point, we will go right into the people to testify. For the North Hills Food Bank, Robert Crawford. Could you come up front, sir. Those people testifying, if you will sit right there. T7e are trying to help our stenographer as best we can here this morning. | 3

MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. ^

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Also, for anyone who has written testimony -- if you do, fine, if you do not, that is all right as well -- but if you have written testimony and any extra copies, we would like the extra copies before you testify. Robert, you may proceed. MR. CRAWFORD: Excuse me, my throat is a little sore this morning, but I will do the best I can. CHAIRMAN STEIGHFER: You are probably not alone in the room. MR. CRAWFORD: Robert Crawford. I am the Manager of the North Hills Food Bank. I also am Chairperson of the Pittsburgh Presbytery Hunger Committee and the Board of Directors of Hunger Action Coalition. I am a volunteer person and I have been in the Food Bank business, you might say, for the last five years, and we have seen our activity grow from nothing until now we are serving somewhere over 300 families a month, amounting to about 1200 people, and the trend has been a steady 25 percent increase each year over the past four years until we are at our present 4 level. I also meet with several Food Pantries in the northern area. We meet periodically to discuss the problems of Food Pantries, to trade customer lists and that type of thing and to see

if we can support each other in the problems of hunger primarily in the northern area of the county.

If it had not been for the Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture Grant that we have been able to receive over the past two or three years, we would not have been able to maintain the caliber of Food Pantry operation that we are now undertaking and there are many Food Pantries that are in the same situation, that if this Grant does not come into Allegheny County in '87, our Food

Pantry operation will either have to be cut v/ay back, and in many cases, there are Food Pantries that will just not be able to stand -- be able to stay in business and will have to close.

I don't know whether you would care to ask any particular questions on this or I know we are only allowed five minutes, I would be open to answering any questions that you might have pertaining to hunger in Allegheny County. I have 5 been very close to it at the grass roots level and

it just seems to me that until we can find a way

to put people back to work and find jobs for

people, I think that it is our duty and our

obligation to at least try to feed the families

that are having problems.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Let me ask you

this, just to double check on our numbers, your organization now is serving approximately 300 families which represents over 1200 people?

MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: You also mentioned that you incur 25 per cent increase each year over the last how many years?

MR. CRAWFORD: Over the last four years.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Are you aware

in the Governor's proposed budget, that he proposed in the Joint House and Senate, that he has proposed no dollars at all for Food Banks?

MR. CRAWFORD: I understand that.

You are talking about 1987?

MR. ROSSKOPF: Yes.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: If you could, in two sentences, if you were the legislator in 6 this district, based on your experience of the need and you had an opportunity to talk to the

Governor, what would you tell him? Obviously, his idea and your idea, you obviously disagree.

What would you tell him?

MR. CRAWFORD: I would tell the

Governor that he would be very welcome to come and visit any number of Food Pantries in the area and find out first hand. In other words, I feel that hunger is something, unless you see it or experience it, you don't think it exists, but it is out there. But you really don't know it is there until you get down into the field, let's say, and talk to the people that I deal with on a daily basis that come in for food.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: So you are saying not only does the need exist, but the need, at least in the organizations that you are associated with, it is increasing?

MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. That is right.

We are now -- you know, four years or five years ago, at the height of the recession, we were dealing with people that were unemployed that were receiving unemployment compensation. Now, four years later, a good many of those people have 7

certainly exhausted any unemployment compensation

and they are nov/ existing on Public Assistancer Food Stamps, whatever they can to have some income to feed their families and, without a doubt, the families that we talk to tell us that the little bit that we are able to help these families with is the difference between them making it and not making it from month to month. In other words, anything that we can help with, it saves them from spending the money on the fuel bills, the medical bills, the varied other things that come along that they have to take care of.

So, I feel that the need is definitely there for Food Pantries as far as I can see in the future, until we can find ways of getting people back to work, getting jobs and that they can support themselves. CHAIRMAN STEIGHHER: Okay. Mr. Crawford, we thank you and appreciate your testimony. Also joining us is Representative Italo Cappabianco. Welcome. nildred Burgess, Hunger Action Low Income Advisory Board. 8

If I might add, Mildred, before you start, the testimony we take this morning will be transcribed and will be delivered to the full membership of the House Appropriations Committee, as well.

Mildred, go ahead.

MS. BURGESS: Good morning. My name is Mildred Burgess. I am a member of Hunger

Action Coalition Low Income Advisory Board.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: If you have an extra one, we will take one for the steno, as well, an extra copy.

MS. BURGESS: Being a member of this organization has prompted me to give very, very, very, vital information and testimony which

I am quite sure will change your mind about cutting the needed funds.

Here is some much talked about information from information gathered by Hunger Action

Coalition and myself.

As a dispenser of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Emergency Food Assistance Program funds in 1984 and 1985, Hunger Action Coalition was able to distribute over $475,000.00 in state monies through its Pantry Assistance Funds. Over 9 this two year period, approximately 50 emergency food pantries and union-sponsored food distribution to the needy of various communities. Assuming that $20.00 worth of food feeds a family of four for three days, it may be estimated that these state monies enable local emergency food providers to assist 23,765 households, comprised of 95,610 individuals located throughout Allegheny County.

For many of these emergency food assistance programs, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture grant represented their primary source of income, enabling most to purchase enough food for six to eight months worth of distributions to clients each program year. Without assistance from the state, the likelihood that these emergency food assistance programs would continue to operate at current capacities is negligible. While some organizations would be forced to curtail services if state support were withheld, others would have to close their doors indefinitely.

Hunger Action Coalition subcontracting with the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, received funds through the Pennsylvania Department 10 of Agriculture's Emergency Food Program in both 1984 and 1985. The monies were distributed by Hunger Action Coalition to emergency food pantries and union-sponsored food distribution programs for the procurement of food for the unemployed and needy individuals and their families. According to the legislation, these emergency food assistance programs were required to use the state money to purchase food items at wholesale or competitively bid prices. Additionally, all monies had to be expended or returned before the state-mandated deadline of June 30th of each year.

Although the funds allocated through the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Emergency Food Program enabled the local emergency food providers working with Hunger Action Coalition to purchase and distribute $475,306.00 worth of food over a two year period, 1984 and 1985, the program's time frame created quite a number of problems. Because of delays at both State and County levels, Hunger Action Coalition functioning as the conduit for these funds, had to distribute and account for $193,941.00 within a two month period in 1984 and $281,365.00 within a three month period in 1985. Pot only did this put an 11 inordinate amount of pressure on the Hunger Action Coalition staff responsible for the administration of this program, it also placed a sizable burden on the personnel operating the emergency food pantries and the union-sponsored food distribution programs, the vast majority of which were volunteers. These volunteers were not simply responsible for buying food, they were responsible for safeguarding cash grants that ranged from $3,000.00 to $20,000.00; securing foodstuffs at wholesale or competitively bid prices; providing staff, transportation and storage facilities; and submitting the appropriate documentation to Hunger Action Coalition all within a matter of two to three months. While it is reasonable to expect these organizations to be accountable for the funds that they receive from the state, given the volunteer nature of the emergency food assistance network in Allegheny County, and the subsequent lack of resources, it is not responsible to expect that they do so in such a short period of time.

Therefore, Hunger Action Coalition is asking that you not deny thousands of households, hungry and needy people to starve in Allegheny 12

County. This year it is nine million and next year 12 million. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Mildred, if I may ask you, what has been your experience with your relationship with the state Department of Agriculture? MS. BURGESS: My experience? CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Good, fair, poor? MS. BURGESS: Well, I would say fair. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: You attached a chart to your testimony, Households Served from 1979 up to and including 1984. Do you have the figures available yet for 1985? MS. BURGESS: No, I don't. MS. RABINOWITZ: It is on the — CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: On the last page? MS. RABINOWITZ: It is also on the printout sheet that says December, '85. It says on top December, '85. MS. BURGESS: I see. On this here, sir. 13

MR. ROSSKOPF: Okay. MS. BURGESS: It says Emergency Food Assistance, December, 1985. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Representative Cappabianca. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Is your agency the lead agency for the County of Allegheny? MS. BURGESS: Yes. MS. RABINOWITZ: No. MR. REBSTOCK: Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: You are the subcontractor agency? MS. BURGESS: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: What was the total amount of money that the lead agency was given out of the $9 milllion Emergency Food Fund from the Department of Agriculture? What was your allotment?

MR. REBSTOCK: For this past year? REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Fiscal year« 14

MR. REBSTOCK: Current year is about a million two. The previous two years about $970,000.00. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: And then Mildred's agency in '84, if I understand this correctly, disbursed $281,000.00 or thereabouts of food stuff? MR. REBSTOCK: That is right. Not food stuff, they issued cash grants. Hunger Action only did cash grants. I am going to address that in my testimony next. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: I will see it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: The last question I have, Mildred, in your chart you have increase in households served since 1980. Do you see an increase in 1986 as well? MS. BURGESS: Yes, I do. At least 25 percent more. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Thank you. That is all I have. Thank you very much. Chris Rebstock from the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank. MR. REBSTOCK: My name is Chris Rebstock. I am Executive Director of the Greater 15

Pittsburgh Community Food Bank. To make the distinction in terminology, we define our operation as a warehousing operation. It is not a Food Bank in the sense of a pantry that distributes food to individuals. We operate a

160r000 square foot warehouse in the City of McKeesport adjacent to Pittsburgh here and we receive food from the food industry and private donations all over the country, warehouse it and distribute it to about 750 other non-profit agencies in a 21 county area of Pennsylvania and Ohio.

As you are aware, the Legislature for the last three years has appropriated funds for the purchase and distribution of food to needy individuals. In each of the first two years, the amount appropriated was $8 million and the current year was S9 million. These funds were turned over to the Department of Agriculture for administration and the Department of Agriculture, according to a formula that they have developed, allots cash grants to each of the 67 counties to be administered by the — at the county level. In some cases, the Commissioners designate 16 a lead agency to handle the program and in some counties the Commissioners themselves administer the program. In Allegheny County, the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank has served as lead agency each of the three years of the program. We have, because of the very nature of our organization, been able to expend approximately $1 million each year in a timely, cost efficient manner, providing our constituent agencies with more than 2 million pounds of food per year in a wide variety of nutritious, staple products for their distribution. We have been able to reach nearly 100,000 people with the food purchased through this program.

To address Representative Cappabianca*s earlier questions, the way we did that for the first two years of operation was to subcontract with Hunger Action Coalition to award cash grants to those agencies that were eligible to participate in the county, but were not member agencies of the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank. The reason we did that was during those two years we were housed in an 8,000 square foot 17 warehouse here in the city and we barely had the room and the dock facility to be able to provide service to our own member agencies, let alone the additional 30 or 40 that existed in the county, so that the arrangement that we came up with was that the Food Bank would take 75 or 80 percent of the funds, it differed each of the first two years, purchase food and distribute that through our regular operation and turn over the other 20 or 25 percent to Hunger Action Coalition to award cash grants to those agencies that couldn't get into our operation.

This year because we are in our new facility and have room to deal with anybody that needs to be dealt with in the county, the Food Bank is the sole agency administering the program. We have received 1.2 million and will be purchasing food to distribute to any eligible agency regardless of their ability to be members of the Food Bank. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: If I can. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Go ahead. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Your agency, your Food Bank is the lead agency, you 18 have your own network of pantries? MR. REBSTOCF: Right. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Through your pantries, they distribute just food, right, not cash grants? MR. REBSTOCK: That is right. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: It is the 20 percent not members of the Pood Pantry agency system that gives out the grant assistance money?

MR. REBSTOCK: They didn't give cash out to individuals. The Food Bank took 20 percent of the funds and turned it over to Hunger Action. Hunger Action gave cash grants to Pantries and the Pantries went out and bought food to operate the regular programs. They weren't actually giving cash grants to any individual recipients. The Pantry turned it into food at their level and then just incorporated it into their regular program. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: There was always food given out, it was not a cash grant to an individual?

MR. REBSTOCK: That is right. That is right. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Thank 19 you. MR. REBSTOCK: Unemployment is a major cause of hunger in the Greater Pittsburgh area and often affects the new poor; those households which formerly lived on comfortable salaries but are now impoverished. Much of this region's unemployment stems from the decline of the metals industry. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, full time employment in the local steel industry has dropped from a pre-recession total of 74,300 in June 1979 to 29,400 in September 1985. Although the unemployment rate in Allegheny County has fallen from 15.5 percent in October 1982 to 7.6 percent in September 1985, there is still much misery in this area. According to a Pittsburgh Post Gazette article on December 30, 1985, 59 percent of those former steelworkers surveyed from 11 mills and factories still have no full-time work and almost 2/3 of those no longer receive state unemployment benefits. Because they no longer receive benefits, they are eliminated from the unemployment figure as being out of the work force. Their lives, however, continue. The 20 article goes on to say that 41 percent who do have full-time jobs are earning less than 2/3 of what they did in the mills and almost half receive no employee benefits. 55 percent of those who are not working full-time have found part-time jobs, but the majority earn less than $5.00 per hour. For most of these people and their families, future employment prospects are bleak. Forced to cut their food buying budgets to pay rising utility bills and mortgage or rent payments, these families face hunger on a regular basis. There are also large numbers of chronically needy men, women, and children. The 1980 census, taken before the recent economic recession, showed that 10.1 percent of the people living in the Pittsburgh SMSA which includes Allegheny County lived on incomes below the poverty line, or $852 per month for a family of four. Since then, this percentage has increased to 13.8 percent in 1983 as a result of the hard economic times. Social welfare programs usually do not provide sufficient assistance for staving off hunger. For example, the maximum welfare payment for a family of four is $401 a month; the maximum food stamp allocation for the same size 21 family is $268. Obviouslyr then, the maximum total of cash benefits and food stamps is considerably less than the poverty line. Currently, over 130,000 men, women, and children in Allegheny County depend on food stamps for nutrition. As a result, many chronically poor families encounter hunger on a monthly, even weekly, basis. The scale of the resulting hunger problem in Allegheny County can be seen in the rising caseloads of most charitable organizations. For example, the Direct Services office of Hunger Action Coalition has provided aid in 1985 to 10,046 households, compared to 2,538, 6,041 and 8,500 in 1982, 1983 and 1984 respectively. You just saw the chart that showed the growth.

Most other concerned organizations, particularly church pantries, the Salvation Army, Meals on Wheels, soup kitchens and union food distribution programs report similar increases. In 1985 nearly 90 percent of our member agencies which operate emergency food assistance programs reported increases in excess of 15 percent in requests for assistance. The bottom line on these figures is that 22 those agencies providing food assistance in Allegheny County desperately need more food than is available to them from private sources. A major source of foods used by these agencies over the past few years has been the State Appropriation. As I stated before, the State's Emergency Food Assistance Program, as I am calling the $9 million appropriation, should be made a permanent program of the state and should be funded at $12 million for the next fiscal year. The quantities of food purchased with the $9 million have basically provided a source adequate for less than nine months distribution statewide. If the program were funded at $12 million, the service agencies distributing food to the needy would have a stable, consistent, and nutritious supply to see them through the year.

Although others will be addressing these points later in the hearing, I would like to speak on behalf of State supplemental funding for WIC and the passage of House Bill 2080.

WIC is a tried and true program which very successfully provides for pregnant and lactating women and young children. Supplemental funding 23 for that program will bear benefits far beyond the obviouSf and actually will save significant amounts of money in future costs for human services.

House Bill 2080 would create and fund a separate commission to administer such programs as the Federal Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, Cheese and Butter Program, and the State's Emergency Food Assistance Program. Such a commission would allow both programs to operate more cooperatively and would make the logistics easier to handle. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I would be happy to address any questions you might have on these issues.

CHAIRMAN STEI6HNER: Chris, we thank you, particularly for your figures and your testimony. Just a brief comment from me, your term on page 2 of new poor, it would also seem to be the newly forgotten as well as the new poor. MR. REBSTOCK: That is right. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: That is all I have. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA; I would 24 like to commend you, Chris, on your organization and the fine job you are doing. My brief experience with our Department of Agriculture when I chaired the Special Committee to investigate their understanding of the situation left a lot to be desired and that is the reason for House Bill 2080, to try to get the Emergency Food Program which, by the way, they didn't even ask for in this present budget.

It seems like every year the House of Representatives has to place back that Emergency Funding into the budget and hope that it stays in and we have been fortunate enough for the past two years.

We probably will be asking for $12 million this year. We have to keep our fingers crossed it is not blue lined out. The Department of Agriculture seems to not recognize the fact there is hunger. You want to know why they want to administer the program, why should they object if we take the program and put it in a separate committee that at least has sensitivity and understanding that there is still hunger in Pennsylvania. I understand you mention you go into Ohio, 25 as well. MR. REBSTOCK: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Does the State of Ohio contribute or do anything similar to what we have been doing in the past two years? MR. REBSTOCK: Not to my knowledge. My understanding is that their biggest participation is just in administering the TFAB program. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Not a separate food program? MR. REBSTOCK: No. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: That is a compliment to Pennsylvania. MR. REBSTOCK: I wanted to thank you for the help you have provided in the last couple of years in getting that into the budget. REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Joni Rabinowitz from the Hunger Action Coalition.

MS. RABINOWITZ: Good morning. I'm Joni Rabinowitz and I'm the public policy advocate for Hunger Action Coalition. With me here in the 26 audience is Dorothy Kolodner, Allegheny County Director of Nutrition Services and Director of WIC, who will be happy to answer any questions you might have after my testimony is finished. Today I want to talk about the WIC program, and put forth an urgent plea for you to put $13.7 million in next year's budget to supplement this vital federal program. Contrary to what we may think, Pennsylvania has not taken much leadership in meeting the needs of the poor and hungry, in picking up where the federal government is dropping out. The Governor's budget, calling for tax cuts, is an example of the obscene lack of concern by the administration for our poor citizens -- those who need your help.

Hunger Action has served 20 percent more people in the last year with emergency food assistance. These aren't people supplementing their regular diets with some federal butter and cheese every month. These are people whose cupboards are bare — families who perhaps have-a few slices of bread, a half quart of milk and a can of tuna fish to feed three children until their next allotment of food stamps arrives in 27 five days. We helped over 24,000 of those people last year. 41 percent of those were single parent, female-headed households. These are the households most likely to be poor and thus most likely to let their nutrition slide. So this means that at least 4,166 unborn infants in Allegheny County were at risk of being born with problems for lack of adequate nutrition.

These are the people whose needs we are addressing today. Do we need to hear more statistics about the needs of Pennsylvanians? Probably not, but there are just a few salient points we want to make. In Pennsylvania, 13 percent of all births are to women under 20 years of age, and over half of these births are out of wedlock. These are the vulnerable people -- children having children with no resources to raise them. In Pennsylvania a family of four with no other income gets about $444 a month of AFDC. That's 49 percent of the federal poverty level. Could you support a family of four, with adequate nutrition, on $444 a month? And most striking of all, is the by now 28 well known fact that Allegheny County and Pittsburgh have the dubious distinction of leading the nation in black infant mortality. This is certainly not something we are proud of. Certainly a social factor we should want to do everything we can to turn around.

Aren't these figures evidence enough to compel us to want to do something about the situation? We think WIC is part of the answer. WIC is a federal program -- Women, Infants and Children -- which provides a carefully designed package of highly nutritious foods and nutrition education to low-income, nutritionally at-risk pregnant and post-partum women, infants and children under age five.

WIC serves 149,000 people in the state, only 45 percent of those eligible. We're seeking a modest $13.7 million to add 34,000 people to the roles -- to increase the percentage to 55 percent. You know, I'm sure, that numerous studies show that WIC is extremely successful. I'm making available a summary of a major five-year study commissioned by DSDA and released on January 10 of this year. Among other things, this study includes new data showing that WIC participation 29 reduces fetal deaths, improves prenatal care and reduces premature deliveries. There is no absence of evidence from across the country that WIC works. And here are some other aspects of WIC which you might not be aware of. In many rural counties, WIC is the ony sources of health care for many poor women and their babies. In these places, because the existing services are so sparse, nutrition counseling and food packages might be the only pre-natal care they get. Secondly, the no-show rate is very low for WIC. In Allegheny County, it's only 4-7 percent of no-shows for scheduled appointments. For anybody familiar with the social service sector, this figure is phenomenal and attests to the importance of the program and the seriousness with which the recipients view this service. Third, WIC provides prevention and education as well as meeting immediate needs. As women go through the program they learn to make permanent changes in their food habits. This is because the WIC packages provide food which is within their budgets and which provides them with 30 better nutrition per dollar -- fruit juices instead of sugar-laden drinks, iron-fortified cereals instead of sugar-coated, low-fat milk, where indicated. So the program teaches people the most nutritious way to spend their food dollar -- habits which they continue throughout their lives. Fourth, the economic aspects of the program, WIC brings dollars and jobs into the state. Every year $5 1/2 million worth of food products, through WIC, are purchased in Allegheny County stores alone. Not only in supermarkets, but also in mom and pop stores for whom the business from WIC makes a big difference in their monthly receipts. And finally, as a prevention program, FIC is cost effective -- for the taxpayer and for the average person who has to pay for medical insurance. The cost of keeping a woman and her infant on WIC is infinitesimal compared to the cost of treating a damaged low-birghweight infant in the hospital, and perhaps throughout their entire life. Let's just look at the hypothetical case 31 of the woman who gets WIC for eight months of her pregnancy. It costs the taxpayer $30 a month, or $240 for the duration of her pregnancy. If she remains on the program for six months after her baby is born, it would cost an additional $180. So the total investment for this family would be $320.

Now, let's look at the other side. It costs $600 a day to keep a low birthweight baby with complications in intensive care. The average length of stay for these babies is 40 days in the hospital, bringing the bill to $24,000. $24,000 and this might just be the beginning of a lifetime of medical costs for poor children who lacked only $320 for a fair chance at a healthy birth.

Is it worth $320? We think so. We think the small investment we're asking for the state is a minor amount compared to the millions we will save through prevention. By getting women onto the program, providing them with concrete aid and education, we not only help them develop habits which last a lifetime, but we are saving millions of dollars in taxes.

In conclusion, we remind you that this funding for WIC is only part of the program we're 32 requesting this year. We're also asking for the emergency food program to be funded for $12 million, and we want Bouse Bill 2080, for an emergency food commission, to be included in next year *s budget.

At a time of increasing hunger and poverty, at a time when the state budget shows a surplus and the governor wants a tax cut, at a time when states all across the country are beginning to grapple with the implications of Washington's withdrawal of their commitments to human needs, we hope that the state of Pennsylvania will take leadership and not let our poor and hungry citizens fall through the cracks. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Joni, thank you. I had a question when we got to page 4, but you answered it when we got to page 5. I wanted to know if you had a dollar comparison of what the investment is compared to what the cost is and I was glad you included that with your testimony. MS. RABINOWITZ: Many of the studies across the country, one of the most popular figures that is quoted from studies across the country, for every dollar spent on WIC, $2.00 are saved on medical costs. 33

That is a generalized figure, future medical cost. That has come out of the study. There is a big discrepancy, but it is clear it does save. Thank you. Any more questions? CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: I guess no more questions. MS. RABINOWITZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Al Condeluci, United Cerebral Palsy.

If I could ask, we had an option of taking six or less people to testify today and giving them more time or a number of people, and correctly or incorrectly we chose to take as many people as we could. Particularly the written testimony, which we will have transcribed and delivered to the Committee as a whole, if you could take your testimony and try to paraphrase it, it would save us some time and allow the other people to make sure they have an opportunity to speak this morning.

Al, go ahead. MR. CONDELUCI: Good morning, Chairperson and Committee Members. We thank you for the opportunity to testify and we will do 34

precisely what you recommend. The written testimony is for the Record, for you to keep. We will address very briefly the concerns that we have. My name is Al Condeluci, Program Director at United Cerebral Palsy. I wear a number of other hats, Chairperson of a task force on independent living, board member, Head Injury Foundation and also a member of the Advisory Committee on Attendant Care state-wide.

We really want to focus on five issues very briefly, the first two are interrelated. We would like to speak to the issues around independent living as written in the Governor's budget under the Department of Labor and Industry.

About three years ago, four years ago, the Department of Labor and Industry decided to focus on service to severely disabled individuals, on rehabilitation effort in Pennsylvania. That move mandated the need to come up with creative programs. One type of creative program is independent living rehabilitation, which essentially attempts to assist very severely disabled men and women in becoming more functional in living skills which leads to becoming more 35 functional in job skills. Over the past couple of years we have developed some exciting programs. This year the Governor has in his budget 1.07 million for independent living services. We would like to recommend that the Committee suggest an increase in that to $2 million this coming year.

It is important that we have independent living for severely disabled individuals and this line is a very essential one. I might point out that last year a conference committee at the 11th hour took this out of the budget because it was confused with attendant care in Pennsylvania.

Attendant care and independent living are interrelated, but very different, but there is a need for both concepts. With that being said, let me emphasize that in the Department of Public Welfare there is a line item for attendant care and the difference between independent living and attendant care, independent living is a broader concept that talks about assisting severely disabled men and women in developing skills.

One such way of developing living skills is through attendant care support so men and women 36

can live in the community. It has been observed that assisting severely disabled men and women with their life needs, independent living, is the broader concept that orchestrates attendant care, so by keeping attendant care and striking out independent living last year, I think the conference committee made a very severe error.

We would recommend to this Committee that the line item in the Department of Welfare's budget for attendant care, which is $5.4 million be increased to $10 million. > We are asking that because presently the attendant care program in Pennsylvania only serves 37 counties. We would like to see this particular program expanded to serve the rural communities which have always been dealt an unfair hand in our budget and by increasing the budget to $10 million, we think that this can be done.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Al, if I may interrupt you. I have one question and that is where it was, that is why I wanted to ask you now. The 5.4 to 10 to attendant care, so you can go -- presently you are operating in 37 counties -- to go to 67 — MR. CONDELUCI; Yes. 37

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: — do we need a separate attendant care program for the Elk

County/ for Mercer County areas, so to speak?

Does each county have to have their own?

MR. CONDELUCI: Not each county.

This is where the two are closely interrelated.

In Pittsburgh/ we have a center for independent living that will be testifying a little later this morning. That center is made possible by the independent living monies through Labor and

Industry. That program orchestrates attendant care to six counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

You don't have to have a center for each county in order to have attendant care in those counties.

My recommendations would be in our rural counties that we have one area where attendant care is centralized, but then it gets networked out to other counties. The budget under Labor and

Industry will ask for development of two new centers, which could do that in more rural areas of our state.

I might also add that in our urban counties, as well, we have a long waiting list of individuals who could benefit from attendant care.

In Pittsburgh alone, we have 175 people on the 38 attendant care waiting list. That is over and above the 75 folks that are receiving attendant care.

The attendant care is cost effective and

it is important for this Committee to know that

individuals who would not have this service would end up institutionalized.

One example we have done in Allegheny

County at Kane Community Service is process 32 people from Kane Hospital, a large geriatric facility in our area. We are able to service those individuals using attendant care monies in the community for far less than the per diem at

Kane Hospital in much more dignity and much more humane environments. That is not to say it is not a good environment at Kane. For a younger, 27 year old, in a facility where the average age is

82 or 83, I don't think anyone on this Committee would like to live in that kind of environment.

Three other very quick items. Under

Department of Public Welfare, there is a bold initiative put forth by the Governor to increase community living arrangement beds for the mentally retarded by 5,000 over five years, 1,000 this particular year. We strongly support that, but we 39 want to point out that it is important that we maintain and establish our existing CLA's and to run off and increase programs without tending to keeping the ones we already have going running smoothlyf we are probably making an error. So we suggest that the Committee support the 1,000 beds this year and the increased budget, but that the Committee look at the maintenance of existing CLA programs in the state of Pennsylvania. Next, we want to call attention to the Committee on the line item in the Department of Education for early intervention. The Governor has proposed $10 million for early intervention for handicapped children. We strongly support that. As rehabilitation specialists, it is known that the sooner you can get to someone with treatment, with service, with support, the better off they are going to be in terms of their own independence and early intervention is a critical area. We support the $10 million line item for that particular part of the budget. Finally, we want to make a strong statement around the human services development fund line item. This was initiated about three 40

years ago. It gives the counties the control and the decision to decide what is important in those counties. We think that that is smart as it relates to human services programing because someone in Harrisburg telling us in Allegheny County what we should and shouldn't do in human services is making some assumptions that might or might not be accurate. In line with that thinking, what we do in Allegheny County is going to be different than what they do in Potter County or Elk County or one of the other counties in the rural area. The Human Services Development Fund allows us, the providers in those counties, to make the decision to keep the service local and detailed. We support the concept and we hope you will, too. I just want to thank this Committee for the opportunity and also thank you for allowing a broad based testimony, even though they are very quick and people are coming in front of you in a parade, I think it is important that you hear as much input as you possibly can. We thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: We thank you. 41

Al, if you would stay just for a second. MR. ROSKOPF: I have just a couple of questions. You raised a number of interesting issues in your testimony this morning. Do you have any notion of what the waiting list looks like state-wide for attendant care services? MR. CONDELUCI: The estimates were based on a study done by the University of Pennsylvania two years ago and that study indicated that there were, I believe, 32,000 individuals in the state of Pennsylvania that could benefit from attendant care. That was done by a phone survey and mail survey to a random sample.

The present service in Pennsylvania, there are ten attendant care programs throughout Pennsylvania, each of those programs are serving about 100 people, so that gives you some sense of the service delivery presently as opposed to the need projected by the University of Pennsylvania study, so that we recognize and understand that not every one can be served and we continue to try to come up with other creative ways of serving them, but there are many men and women that 42

through just a few hours of attendant care in the morning and evening can be maintained in the community. I might also call your attention -- and I think you already know this — but the attendant care program is broken into the Department of Public Welfare and Aging; 5.4 in Welfare and 5.1 million in Aging. There is close to $10.5 million in the state of Pennsylvania. With attendant care we would like to see a better cooperative venture between Aging and Welfare in running that program and dealing with that program. A good example is that in our Kane Project, we have moved some folks into apartments

in Allegheny Countyr 58, 59 year old folks moving out of Kane under the Welfare attendant care program that next year will be eligible for the Aging program. I think there is a need for interrelationship beteen those two departments. As you well know, sometimes those departments don't cooperate as much as we would like to see them. Maybe some urging from the legislature would help. MR. ROSSKOPF: You have raised the 43

issue about allocation at the local level. One of the concerns that we raised with the Department of Welfare this year during the agency hearings was that the proposal to take 16.7 million from Mental Health Mental Retardation, Child Welfare and put it into block grants in our minds, at least from what we have seen, jeopardizes some of this money being used for the child welfare program, maybe it would go for Mental Health, maybe it would work the other way.

Our concern is that if you do that, you have essentially reduced the amount of dollars that are available.

I will again just use child welfare as an example, how can we best address that to insure that those people who would have received those services through those dollars, if the funds had not been transferred, continue to receive those services in the future? MR. CONDELUCI: Two points to that question. Very lucid point and very complex one.

We feel that two things are important to understand. One of them is that the old methodology of categorically identifying the problem and throwing money at it is one way to 44 address human needs. But it might not be a good one. As those problems get solved, as things change -- and what seems to happen in state government is a category is created because a problem exists in I960, a budget is created and then as that problem starts to get addressed through that process and those persons get service, the walls begin to develop and we maintain a bureaucracy even beyond the need for that service.

I am not suggesting that we don't have a child welfare problem. In fact, here in Allegheny County, we do have a child welfare problem. But the point is, I think we need to be creative in how we fund human services programs so we can move out when we solve a problem, we can allow the influx of new problems and new services to be developed in our community. MR. ROSSKOPF: So you are not concerned that there -- by doing this, by putting money in human development funds, people currently receiving those services would not receive them?

MR. CONDELUCI: I don't think so. I think that that allows us opportunity locally to make decisions around what is happening with 45

population at risk and how we can move dollars in and out. I think some of the testimony this morning is a good example, as new problems emerge in our community, we need the flexibility to solve them, that are inherent to our community, unemployment, hunger, those kinds of things are different here in Pittsburgh than they might be in some of the other communities around Pennsylvania, but yet if we have Harrisburg telling us what and who it should be done for, it doesn't allow us much flexibility to solve our own problems. MR. ROSKOPF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Representative Cappabianca? REPRESENTATIVE CAPPABIANCA: No. MR. CONDELUCI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Sandy Sutton, Three Rivers Center for Independent Living. Before you start, I would like to welcome Cathy Varincar from the House Minority Staff for the Appropriations Committee. Go ahead. MS. SUTTON: I am here representing Three Rivers Center for Independent Living. My testimony goes right in line with Al*s regarding 46 independent living. It is rather short and if you don't mind, I do chose to read it. During the fiscal years 1980-85, the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) was unable to serve 20,250 persons because they were too severely handicapped to meet Federal eligibility criteria. The people most affected by this Federal eligibility criteria are the severly physically handicapped mobility impaired. Once declared ineligible for OVR services, this group has no recourse whatsoever for agency services in Pennsylvania other than Independent Living.

I'd like to share the following case statement: Brian M. is a 36-year old man with a disability of quadraplegia resulting from an automobile accident. He is unable to sit and uses a prone cart for mobility. When initially referred to the Center for Independent Living two years ago, he was living in the basement of a public housing project -and facing eviction because he was considered a health and safety hazard. He had lived in this building before his injury and was confined to the basement after his injury due to lack of accessibility within the home. He had 47 systematically been denied other public housing opportunities because management considered him not capable of taking care of his apartment. Due to the lack of accessibility in his home, he was completely dependent on his family. The Center for Independent Living staff was able to intervene in the eviction attempt and connect Brian with Neighborhood Legal Services to aid in his efforts with public housing officials. Throughout this period, he was counseled in his home on issues relating to independent living skills and community services. Efforts were still being made to locate appropriate, affordable housing. On December 3, 1985, all the work over the last two years came to a climax as Brian moved into his own apartment. Through the coordination of community support services such as Visiting Nurse Association, Meals on Wheels and Helpline, he is independent in all daily activities and self care. He has begun to supplement his income by refinishing furniture. His social contacts have increased and he has joined the Tenant's Card Club. Severely handicapped people can, with 48 appropriate services, live independently in the community and be responsible for their own affairs. With independent living services, lifetime institutional confinement is no longer inevitable. Independent Living programs promote independence for the severely disabled, in order to: 1. Enable them to take control of their lives,. 2. Maintain a choice of acceptable options that minimize reliance on others in making decisions and in performing everyday activities. 3. Enable them to actively participate in society (i.e., to work, raise a family, have a home, etc.) 4. Ensure that the necessary support services are available and,. 5. Prevent unnecessary institutionalization. We speak of Independent Living as services that enable severely disabled people to achieve their due measure of self-fulfillment. In many respects, "service" is a misnomer. Instead, the movement for Independent Living defines the 49

problem to be one of "barriers". The denial of rights and entitlements is a barrier. Inadequate personal care is a barrier, unadapted housing is a barrier. When the problem is defined in terms of barriers, the goal of independent living is at the forefront of change. I represent one of four Centers for Independent -Living in Pennsylvania. The definition of an "INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER" is a community based non-profit, non-residential program which is controlled by the disabled consumers it serves, provides services directly or coordinates service indirectly through referral services to assist severely disabled individuals to increase personal self-determination and to minimize unnecessary dependence upon others. The minimum set of services that are provided by an Independent Living Center are housing assistance; attendant care; reader and/or interpreter services; peer counseling; financial and legal advocacy; and community awareness and barrier removal programs. The Three Rivers Center for Independent Living encourages the expenditures of state funds for services to people v/ith disabilities. 50

Examples in this year's budget include the

Department of Labor and Industry's request for

$1.5 million for Independent Living services. We applaud this initiative but request $2 million for a state-wide expansion of independent living.

Additionally, the Department of Public

Welfare has requested $5 million for attendant care services. We would like to see this program expanded to S10 million so that more of the states citizens can be served.

Finally, any efforts to use the Adult

Services Block Grant funds for services to stay out of insitutions and participate in the life of their community is strongly encouraged.

We also have an attendant care program.

We are presently serving 59 clients in a six county area and hopefully by the end of March we will be serving 25 more clients. Our waiting list is in excess of 125 clients.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Sandy, thank you. You just mentioned that your waiting list is approximately 125 clients. With an increase 1.5 million to 2 million in Labor and Industry's budget, how many more people do you think you would be able to serve? 51

MS. SUTTON: That is for the Centers for Independent Living. For the Attendant Care Program, that is separate money. That will come out of the 10 million. Hopefully, all of them. Hopefully we can not have a waiting list. We have people coming to our center every day that need attendant care, so those lists increase every day, so hopefully we won't have any waiting list. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Any questions? Thank you very much. Miss Gerry Daniel from the University of Pittsburgh. MS. DANIEL: Gerry Daniel. I am the immediate past President of the Pennsylvania Association of Child Care Agencies and currently a member of the Board of Directors of that organization. We are an advocacy group advocating on behalf of children and families in Pennsylvania for child care. At this time last year the Pennsylvania Association of Child Care Agencies emphasized the dire straits of the subsidized child care industry which had not received an increase in reimbursement rates in four years. Our 52 professional analysis of the problem after surveying providers was that in order to even begin to come to terms with the fiscal realities of rising costs for supplies, equipment and fringe benefits, the subsidized system needed an infusion of $14 million. In the end the legislature increased the child care allocation by $3 million.

We were encouraged by your acknowledgement of the problem.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the child care industry continues to struggle along with insufficient funds. The skilled staff working directly with the children continue to subsidize the system through their low wages. Our newest threat is liability insurance where costs have tripled, quadrupled and more regardless of the claims record of the program.

We are struggling perhaps more than you know. The three million additional dollars allocated last year is still not yet fully in the system with 75 percent of the fiscal year having passed by at the end of this month. The legislative mandate is at best slowly and only partially being carried out. We know of no provider to date who has received a signed 53

contract amendment for the full rate of an annualized 4 percent increase. Providers did not receive any relief from the 1980-81 rates until October 1985. Therefore, providers have essentially operated a fifth year without a sufficient increase in funds. Approximately a million dollars went to the Saturation Work Program in Philadelphia. Our best information is that these funds are still in negotiation. Again, 75 percent of the fiscal year is gone. We must ask who is in charge? Just what are the priorities? Child care is an economic development issue. The findings of the recent Bush Center Study at Yale found that the needs of the economy as well as those of working parents and their children are best served by an ample parental leave policy when the child is born plus quality child care during parental working hours. The study points out that the United States trails behind the rest of the world which understands that proper attention to child care issues is a cost effective business expense. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has an additional advantage in its subsidized child care system. Subsidized child 54 care breaks the cycle of poverty. It enables families to become self sufficient. It enables families to contribute to the larger economy in positive ways. Attached to this testimony is an analysis of the economic issues related to child care. That is the yellow flip sheet you see there. Please look these figures over carefully as you prioritize Pennsylvania's economic development issues for fiscal 86-87 and beyond.

We know you want the best for Pennsylvania's families, children and overall economy.

PACCA has recommended a $10 million increase in funds for subsidized child care. A breakdown of how those monies can best be spent can be found on the last page of the PACCA analysis. The division is as follows:

$2 million for cost of living increase to all programs; $1 million for rate adjustments to programs significantly below the ceiling; $1.5 million for expansion of eligibility income levels; $4.5 million for expansion of service; $1 million for training for staff.

In closing, we must caution you to be ever watchful. There is still ample evidence that DPW is managing the system without regard for history, 55 past failures, common sense, good business sense, or any sense of long range planning or timely implementation. Thre brief examples of current problems are: 1. Act 33. Questions abound regarding implementation of the lav/. Responses from DPW have been confusing, contradictory and without widespread dissemination to the parties concerned. 2. DPW has indicated that there is no evidence to support a rate increase for subsidized child care in 86/87. The system is five years overdue. 3. DPW is attempting to im*pose a county-wide voucher system in Allegheny County. Again, planning and timing are askew. It takes three months to contract for the status quo. They are proposing to "fix" the system by turning it inside out in the same scant three month time period. The lessons to be learned from the problem plagued Lehigh County voucher program are for naught since DPW is not waiting for the evaluation report due the end of March, 1986. Finally, the Governor's budget proposes a $600,000.00 increase for subsidized child care. This figure is the equivalent of spinning the 56 poverty wheel faster rather than breaking the cycle for poor families. It is the equivalent of turning our backs on working parents, excluding them from what should be Pennsylvania's forward economic development thrust. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STEIGENER: Thank you. Questions? MS. VARINCAR: Is your association against the concept of the voucher system? MS. DANIEL: Our position is that after purportedly studying it a while, the DPW cannot yet tell you what they mean by voucher system. The program in Lehigh County that is going on is one in which providers report that the vouchers are hard to collect and cash from parents, so it is plagued with problems and what we are saying is there hasn't been enough planning to even define the system, what they are talking about and then intelligently approach it. You can't do that in three months if you don't even have a definition of what you are talking about. MS. VARINCAR: Thank you. 57

MR. ROSKOPF: I have just one, one question along the same line. Do you have any information at all about what is going on in the voucher program in Lehigh County? Because we haven't seen anything. MS. DANIEL: We have letters from providers attesting to the problems in Lehigh County that I can certainly make available to you. I don't have them here with me. I will have them this afternoon -- wait one second. We will have it this afternoon. I can make that available. MR. ROSKOPF: You can do that through Tomr if it is more convenient for you. MS. DANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Gerry, we thank you very much for your testimony. Mark Zabierek, representing Mayor Caliguiri. How badly did I mispronounce it? MR. ZABIEREK: Mark Zabierek, and I am the Assistant Executive Secretary to Mayor Richard S. Caliguiri and I am here on his behalf this morning. I thank you all for the opportunity to come here and share some of the Mayor's views on some specific parts of the state budget. I won't read my testimony. You have it in 58 front of you and I will leave it to you to review at your leisure. I want to make several points about the Mayor's views on some of the things in the state budget and leave you with a couple of thoughts and let those more eloquent than I speak before you.

You all are aware of the Mayor's commitment to project strategy, environmental improvements and tax reform. It is one part of the state budget which the Mayor wants to address today and I will summarize his thoughts in three easy bullets for you. The Mayor is disappointed that the administration decided not to include money for emergency food in this year's budget. The Mayor would request that the legislature, as it has in the past, through their leadership, include $12 million for emergency food, a minimum of $12 million in this coping year's budget. Secondly, the Mayor heartedly supports the call for 13.7 million in the WIC supplement. Third, the Mayor is in support of House Bill 2080, which would creat an Emergency Food Board and I need not elaborate on those proposals. You are familiar with them and I wanted to let 59 you know how the Mayor felt about them. Let me leave you with a couple of thoughts. One of the things that is emerging now is that we are into the second phase of the new federalism. In 1981 the federal government drastically began to reduce its commitment to human service programs, hunger, poverty programs and there was a certain amount of reaction from state and local government. We are now, frankly, into the second phase of that where they are not only not going back on that, on that commitment to reduce federal spending, they are continuing it.

We are now getting into the economies of scale where entire programs are being cut out and needs just are not being met. The reduction in the commitment from Washington, however, has not ireant a reduction in need. To the contrary. As folks like Joni Rabinowitz and others will tell you today, if anything, the demand has gone up. We all lived through the economic winter of 1982 and 1983 and for many of us, that was a very unpleasant memory. But for many people here in Pittsburgh and in Allegheny County and across the state of Pennsylvania, that reality is still with them and these programs are desparately 60 needed. We can't shut our eyes to them. We have a state budget which allocates a lot of money to health care, to recreation, to education. I can't think of a better complimentary program to something like recreation, something like education, something like health care programs than nutritional supplements. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when you are setting priorities to ignore the nutritional needs of our most needy citizens and provide parks and schools and hospitals for them after they are already sick or already unable to participate in these particular programs. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have about the Mayor's thoughts and I appreciate the opportunity to appear in front of you today.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Mark, first let me say that the Committee appreciates the Mayor's interest and also your testimony on his behalf and also the written testimony which again we will, in fact, make part of the record. Particularly I appreciate his support in the three areas that you pointed out. Somebody 61 had mentioned earlier, I think, in the testimony, that many times we know what the problem is in Harrisburg and, therefore, we fix it and then we come out here to find out, one, that that wasn't the problem; two, that wasn't the way we should fix it either and it is good to come out and at least get some response from the Mayor, who I know is aware of the problem not only in Allegheny County, but in Western Pennsylvania, particularly.

MR. ZABIERER: If I could add one thought to that. With the second phase of the new federalism, as we politely call it, more and more groups, people, individual citizens are coming to local government to ask us to solve problems for which we have no money, no bureaucacy, no expertise, we are not equipped to deal with some of these problems. Now in the past we could have referred them to their local legislator or local state office or in the case of federal programs, federal offices. Those things no longer exist.

The ability, for example, in a WIC program, you know, food stamps, if you are eligible you get food stamps. WIC is not an 62 entitlement program. I need not explain this to you. When the money runs out, they don't get the aid, they don't get the services and we find that that is happening increasingly. It is very frustrating and it creates a lot of spin-off attendant, ancillary, whatever you want to call them, problems, which we do have to solve, whether it is public safety problems, or education problems, kids going to school without proper nutritional care, all of those things which,enter into it and we get it after it is already a big problem.

I think this is not new to you, but I would like on behalf of the Mayor to reiterate that and if we could invest some money in preventing -- at least seeking to prevent some of these problems, we would certainly appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Questions? Thank you very much, Mark. We appreciate it. We have Representative Ron Cowell from

Allegheny County. Paul Barbish, Operating Engineers Local 66. MR. BARBISH: I don't have a typed 63

out testimony for everybody. I just put this together last evening. My name is Paul Barbish. I am a business representative of Operating Engineers 66. It has become old hat testifying on committees. I represent a local union that covers 33 counties of Pennsylvania and three in Ohio. We have currently 7,268 members. We run a local wide food bank and we have since 1981. Right now we are facing probably 60 to 70 percent unemployment in our local union and considering a lot of the other local unions in the area, we are doing pretty good.

We started, like I said before, this program in 1981 and it was a much needed program. Representative Cappabianca was in Earrisburg quite a few times fighting the Department of Agriculture and the Governor. I believe many people in our state don't believe, like we.have heard earlier, there are hungry people.

I believe the Governor is one of them and his ace man, Mike McGovern, is the second one. My god, all they have to do is stand around a little bit, go to the unemployment office 64

or go to the food banks that are distributing food and take a look at the people coming. They are proud people. I know my members. They set steel, they run big rigs, they run scrapers, dozers, move all kinds of dirt, they are very proud people. I don't know how to put it, but when you see these same people in a line going for a box of food to support their families, that is the only thing they have got between that and starvation, it is touching.

This is one of the reasons I got involved with this thing. I feel the drastic need for it. I know these people. They would rather be working, but until that time we get them working and are able to supply the jobs, we have to keep 'the food pantries open and Hunger Coalition going. Without help from like the Westmoreland County, Allegheny County Food Bank and Hunger Coalition, we would not have been able to run our operation. We have been cut back, we have been forced into other avenues. We are using donations, anything we can to help our members through this time.

I believe charity begins at home and we 65 have a Governor and an administration that believes in giving millions of dollars to third world countries to wage war, buy paintings, land, we ought to be able to find a few dollars, keep it home to support our people. They are Americans.

I was also -- I testified earlier this month or last month in Irwin and I was asked do you think the tides are turning? At that time I did, speaking of my own experience, but they created a monster in Washington called Gramm Rudman. That is killing us. I see work stopping now that was scheduled to come out this year. Things were turning, I don't think they are. I think they are going to get worse. I was reading the paper this morning in the Tribune Review, and that is one of our local papers, and they believe things are going great. Things are fantastic.

I sat at a meeting not too long ago and they were talking about putting people back to work. Things are really going great, but we are putting them back to work at three, $4.00 an hour and they are not going to survive.

If we ever hope to turn this country around, we have to put middle class America back 66 to work. We have to give them a wage they can live with so they can pay the tax dollars and reduce the deficit. Until that time, we have got to help them. I guess basically, in closing, I would like to ask you gentlemen, representatives, to please, you know, support the $12 million so these food programs can continue, so these people can have something until the tides turn and for goodness sake, support 2080. We have to get that out of the Department of Agriculture, because I could go on for hours and tell you exactly what they have done to our organization, for hours. We ran probably one of the best food banks state-wide and half the state-wide. We could account for everything, yet we were constantly hassled, we were put down, we were lied to.

Like I said, I could go on forever. I guess really the end of it is all -- let's show the people of Pennsylvania they do have a friend in Pennsylvania. Thank you. I will answer any questions you have.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Paul, we thank you for not really just your testimony, but your efforts in the past on behalf of the people who 67 you represent. You represent them well.

Questions?

MR. BARBISH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Thank you.

Leonard Hess.

MR. HESS: My name is Leonard Hess and I serve the Pennsylvania Federation of

Sportsmen's Clubs as First Vice President and

Environmental Affairs Advisor.

For those of you who may not be familiar with our organization, it was formed by sportsmen

54 years ago for the sole purpose of protecting and conserving our natural resources so that our sport would survive into the future for our children and grandchildren.

We are the largest conservation organization in the Commonwealth v/ith approximately 75,000 members and 530 affiliated clubs and we are the state affiliate of the

National Wildlife Federation, which is the largest conservation organization in the world.

We welcome this opportunity to present our concerns on this vital issue, especially since the

Federation was very much involved in the formation of the Department of Environmental Resources. 68

In reviewing this budget, we are deeply disturbed with the continuing emphasis on federal funds. About 90 percent of DER field positions are now federally funded. We also note that 80 percent of the Office of Resources Management budget is derived from federal funds. In department after department, DER projections show federal funds continuing to remain constant or increasing through 1990-1991. This is not likely to happen. The original purpose of federal funding was to augment state funds, to permit states to do more than they could afford on their own. Instead the Thornburg administration used federal funds to replace state funds, while declaring budget surpluses.

Now the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill threatens to cut off the flow of federal money, and Governor Thornburg has publicly stated that they will not be replaced by state monies. Not only does this dependency on federal funds now come back to haunt us, but it also results in federal priorities being emphasized instead of state priorities, both in the field and at the top administrative levels of the department.

One of the particular areas of the budget 69

that we are concerned about is the Bureau of Forestry. Almost one-third of the Bureau's budget is now coming from timber sales. DER is now approaching 100 percent of the allowable cut on state lands. The allowable cut is the amount of timber that can be cut in one year and still allow regeneration of the forest. When the percentage gets this high, it means that timber is being cut at the minimum harvestable size, resulting in a loss of actual board feet of lumber produced, which is a waste of the resource and it is also being dumped on a deteriorating or depressed lumber market in order to fund the agency.

State appropriations for forestry operations have decreased $1 million in the last two years, while timber sales have increased by $2 million. There has also been a 50 percent reduction in the budget for Forest Insect and Disease Control. Taken together, these figures indicate that the forest resource is not being protected. I would like just for a moment to deviate from my prepared testimony and read to you as an example of what I am talking about a letter to Secretary DeBenedictis from Ralph Abele, Executive 70

Director, Pennsylvania Fish Commission in regard to the 1986 black fly area spraying program. This program started about two years ago, '84, to control black flies in the Susquehanna River Basin. In '84 - '85 the state appropriated $581,000.00. This tripled in '85 - '86 to one and a half million. This year the state's share of the funding for this program is $2 million.

Let me read to you what Mr. Abele has to say about this. In 1985 only a few sections of larger streams in Cumberland and Dauphin Counties were involved. This year the proposal involves some 22 rivers and streams and 17 counties including Supreme, South Creek and Tionesta Creek. A total of 357 sites will be treated with each site receiving between six and 14 applications of BTI. It is our understanding that the estimated cost will be two and a half million dollars, of which aproximately 75 percent is state funded and 25 percent local. The benefit derived is strictly to control a nuisance organism which has no public health implications. The situation regarding proposed treatment has changed radically from the past through experimental treatments in Susquehanna River and neighboring streams. Most 71

of us felt this activity would soon pass out of existence after the exorbitant cost for the program were made public. We, of course, were wrong, because now even the Governor has given his blessing. With the program's expansion to infertile streams like the Laurel Creek, the matter takes on a new significance. We were lead to believe that the only problem waters for the black fly were large warm water streams and rivers, but obviously that wasn't accurate. We have asked Mr. Arbigast of the Bureau of Community Environmental Control what monitoring programs have been used by his agency to determine effects on non-target organisms. The response was vague and no one has identified any study reports for our reference. Apparently the Department has not made an effort to check for BFI effect on non-target organisms including fish. It would seem specifically clear the two and a half million dollar program should receive some kind of quality control and impact monitoring to determine if not target organisms are being adversely affected or if the removal of the black fly larvae themselves causes an ecological problem. 72

They go on to request that just that be done. The think I am pointing out is that this year the budget for Forest Insect and Disease Control to protect a vital resource of the Commonwealth was cut in half, $600,000.00 was removed from that budget and yet there is $2 million to expend for something that is strictly a nuisance It has no health implications and does no damage to the natural environment. Something is wrong with that kind of priority system.

We should also note that a proposed Program Revision Request to staff the Cooperative Forestry Program was rejected by the Governor's office. The Cooperative Forestry Program is a program that has been in existence for many years in which state foresters work with private timber owners to develop wise timber management for their resource. There is some feeling in the Governor's office that this can better be done by private consulting foresters rather than state foresters. We submit to you that there is a serious problem with that because the private consulting forester is paid on the basis of a commission on timber sold, so his incentive is to cut as much as possible on that private land owner's property. 73

The state forester is not paid on a commission basis, is on a salary from the tax payer and, therefore, is more concerned with providing a timber management plan to the private land owner that provides for a wiser use of the natural resource and continued protection of the resource for future use. This proposed request by DER would have funded 20 existing positions at a cost of $890,000.00 for increasing productivity on private lands. The Bureau of Forestry had previously lost 14 positions. They also had requested 28 new positions which were not filled, for a net loss of 42. We are asking the legislature to restore the $890,000.00 for the Cooperative Forestry Program. The members of this committee and all members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly should be aware that 260 DER positions previously approved by the General Assembly have never been filled. This year 128 new positions are being requested and many of these will not be filled because the Governor will not permit it. It is our understanding that he intends to cut 1,000 additional state employees during his last year in office. Plans to close the 74

V7ill iamsport DER office have been curtailed and all 21 positions there will be retained, but the

Governor's office has informed DER that 21 other positions in the department must be eliminated.

The Federation considers this to be a counter-productive policy, and recommends that the

Legislature consider bringing suit against the

Governor to require that all approved positions be filled, and as quickly as reasonably possible.

Many of the problems associated with DER are reflected in what is not in the budget. For example, it is our opinion that DER is totally incapable of responding to a hazardous waste emergency. Six emergency response vans are still sitting in a parking lot in Harrisburg, where their equipment is deteriorating to a point of being non-workable, and no personnel have been trained in emergency response. The vans should be located out in the field, at the regional offices, with trained teams to man them. Why isn't this being done? There is no funding in the budget.

There are many similar examples. The

Non-Coal Surface Mining Act to cover quarries, etc., was passed about three years ago, but still hasn't been funded, so it will not be enforced. 75

Someone should ask why? We have the issue of residual wastes in Pennsylvania, as some of you may be aware, solid wastes are classified in three classifications, municipal residual or hard residual are discarded materials or wastes resulting from industrial mining, water treatment, waste water treatment, air pollution control, provided it is not hazardous.

No regulations have been approved to deal with residual wastes, and over a thousand generators of these wastes still have no permits. Despite the Governor's lip service to the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay, a Program Revision Request to fund a Chesapeake Bay Technical Assistance Program on non-point source pollution was not approved by his office.

A Program Revision Request to provide funding for the sampling of public water supplies and to establish nine positions for permitting of these water supplies was also disapproved by the Governor, so it is unlikely that any public water supplies will be tested by DER in the coming year, except in emergency situations. With the problem we are having in this area and other areas of the 76

state with giardiasis, we think this is ridiculous. DER is currently not meeting mandated inspections in water quality, primarily because of a shortage of staff. The Bureau of Water Quality is currently trying to operate with 28 fewer people than it had in 1980.

In the category of Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Assistance, almost $3 million was appropriated in 1984-85, $3 and a half million in 85-86, and nothing in 86-87. Solid Waste Disposal Planning Grants and Resource Recovery Grants have been eliminated. Why? Is this a ploy by DER to pressure the legislature to pass SB 1211 the Solid Waste Initiative in order to fund this program?

All of these deficiencies in DER*s budget point to a larger problem. It is the opinion of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs that there is no real commitment by the Thornburg Administration to protect Pennsylvania's environment. If you read the purpose of the Department of Environmental Resources as stated on the cover of the budget, you will not find the words environmental protection anywhere. Instead 77

you will find that DER is to promote the development of our environmental resources. This was not the purpose of DER when it was formed, and we submit that it should not be their purpose today. We respectfully urge you to take whatever steps are within your power to return the department to its original purpose, which is the protection and wise use of our natural resources. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: We thank you. I really don't know where to start, considering the time restraint we have. Maybe just to make a couple comments on some of the things you said. It has been extremely frustrating to many of us, not only DER, but other departments as well, when we allocate the funds for various positions within that department to be filled and we are two-thirds into the fiscal year and those positions still go vacant. The timber sales, the allowable cut is a maximum level. This administration uses that as a target simply to generate funds for the department.

You will be happy to know that since the emergency van issue was brought to light 78

publically, they have now moved those vans out of the parking lot. They are at regional offices. There is still no one trained to operate the vans, but at least they are not in the parking lot any more.

You have a paragraph or two on solid waste. I witnessed first hand DER employees testify under oath before the House Conservation Committee concerning a site in Western Pennsylvania, that the site was safe, that they had inspected it routinely, that there was no leaks involved at the site and I watched the same employees less than 12 months later, after the Environmental Protection Agency closed the site, where there was not danger, I watched the same DER employees testify that there was, in fact, a danger at the site, there was a leak.

The whole atmosphere of DER, I guess, does not lend itself to a whole lot of credibility. Somewhere along the line DER has surpassed the Department of Transportation, I think, in lack of public trust and confidence, something that I thought was absolutely impossible to do, but they have successfully done that within Environmental Resources. 79

I think the whole crux of your testimony and the public's view of DER and DER's view back towards the public is summed up in that paragraph that you referred to on the cover of their packet. I see DER's charge as stated in the state constitution. The Secretary himself does not see it that way because when he appeared before this full Committee in Harrisburg less than two weeks ago, to quote him, he sees the charge of the DER to be to balance the environmental and economical concerns of the Commonwealth. That, at least in my opinion, is absolutely ludicrous. We have the Department of Commerce, we have the Department of Labor and Industry, a myriad of economical development agencies, so to speak, as far as economic revitalization, and I don't see where DER is supposed to be the balancing apparatus of the Commonwealth, but that is how the Secretary sees it.

I think your points are well taken and particularly your specifics in your testimony. MR. HESS: I would just comment in response to that, the Department and the Secretary's view is one that is being dictated straight from the Governor's mansion and that is 80 where the problems in DER will not be corrected until the situation in the Governor's mansion is corrected. Just let me give you one example and I don't -- DER has problems, but a lot of the things they want, they didn't get, but just let me give you one example here. In regard to the regulation of mining, this objective, according to the publication, is to maximize the economic benefits for mining activities while minimizing the negative environmental, health and safety consequences of such activities.

That statement is exactly reversed from the way DER sent it to the Governor's office. They sent it to the Governor's office stating that the primary thing was to minimize the negative environmental effect, it came back to maximize the benefits first, so the policy is coming directly from the Governor's office, and the only people that can do anything about it through our system of checks and balances are you people in the General Assembly.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHFER: Any other questions? 81

REPRESENTATIVE COWELL: Just to clarify on the bottom of page 2, 128 new positions being requested, are they in the Governor's budget? What do you mean by being requested? MR. HESS: They are being requested in DER's budget that was approved by the Governor's office and came back to DER. Those 128 positions were approved by the Governor and were in the package that the legislature would deal with, but the Governonr has no REPRESENTATIVE COWELL : He has requested funding for the positions? MR. HESS: Right. But there is no intention of filling them, not all of them at any rate. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Leonard, we thank you for your testimony. At this point, to give the stenographer a break, we v/ill take a five minute recess and resume in five minutes with Marty Friday from the Women's Shelter and Center. (Thereupon, a recess was taken). CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: We have a number of commitments that I have accepted that we be out of here at least by noon because a number 82

of people have other commitments, as well, so we will simply attempt to do that. The next presenter will be Marty Friday from the Women's Shelter and Center. Marty. MS. FRIDAY: I am Marty Friday, the Executive Director of Women's Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh and today I am representing the Western end of the state for domestic violence programs. I would like to take a minute to introduce others from domestic violence programs here today, not individually, but by asking them to stand and say where they are from. VOICE: Women's Center in Beaver County. VOICE: McKeesport Women's Place. VOICE: McKeesport Women's Place. VOICE: McKeesport Women's Place. VOICE: McKeesport Women's Place. VOICE: McKeesport Women's Place. VOICE: Women's Center and Shelter. VOICE: Women's Center and Shelter. VOICE: Women's Center and Shelter. VOICE: Women's Service of Westmoreland County. 83

VOICE: Women's Service of Westmoreland County. MS. FRIDAY: Yesterday I decided to take a risk and not be as traditional in my testimony as has been customary for domestic violence programs, but I still would want to convince you, of course, beyond any doubt, that domestic violence programs need money to operate. We need big money, good money to continue to operate, all of us, state-wide.

Coming from Women's Center and Shelter, one of the first six domestic violence shelters in the United States, I can tell you that our counseling costs are under $5.00 per hour. Our shelter cost per night is $16.00 per night. You can compare these costs to any other residential social service or any other counseling program. It is good and we are proud of our low cost, but we can't keep it up this way indefinitely and we certainly can't go lower.

We and all the other domestic violence programs, now 50 in Pennsylvania, must operate on a sound financial basis or we can't make it. We have received a huge percentage increase in the Governor's budget for domestic violence, which I 84 am sure you all know, over 50 percent. We have stayed at status quo in the Title 20 funds allocation, so the net increase for domestic violence programs is 28 percent. Probably three or four years ago, we would have been jumping up and down like that is the most dramatic thing that has ever happened to us. But during that same period of time, the tremendous increase in domestic violence services have occurred in the past few years.

Women's Center and Shelter has increased service by 60 percent since August of 1983. Services provided to domestic violence victims has increased by 282 percent in Pennsylvania in the past five years while state and local funding has increased 56.6 percent. So, V7e recommend that $5,400,000 be allocated in the 1986 - '87 budget so that victims across the state can continue to receive critical domestic violence services. This is an increase of $1,015,000 over the proposed 1986 - '87 allocation.

Now, so far I doubt that I sound untraditional in my testimony, but where I am choosing to deviate from the past is by taking the 85 chance that today I do not need to describe the nature of domestic violence or domestic violence services and the impact we make. I do this because I believe we have talked to you before and you have really listened and you have really responded. Marital Rape legislation, Probable Cause Arrest legislation, passage of this kind of legislation indicates that you have listened very well and you have been supportive to domestic violence programs.

We have not -- what we have not yet articulated is the tremendous costs of the effects of domestic violence and abuse to society. I don't have the dollars and cents figures today because no one has those, but I can say that approximately one-third of police time, court time and hospital emergency room time connects to domestic violence. Paramedics, parole and probation officers' time is heavily involved in domestic violence. These are all people we train. We are speaking from experience.

Society is picking up the pieces of the fallout from domestic violence at a shocking rate. Jails are full of abuse victims. Severe classroom disruptions, failure to thrive and failure to 86 learn problems result from domestic violence. It is our problem, society's problem -- not an individual problem. In addition to the operating funds which I have just been talking about, there is also an urgent need for funding of capital expenditures for shelter fcilities in the amount of S6 million is really the state of the need. I thank you for your previous support and consideration of our requests today. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Marty, we thank you. REPRESENTATIE COWELL: What is the $6 million for capital expenditures, what is it designated for? MS. FRIDAY: Buildings and renovations. REPRESENTATIVE COWELL: Do you have a number of beds, number of people? MS. FRIDAY: We can get that to you. The Pennsylvania Coalition has compiled the figures. REPRESENTATIVE COWELL: I haven't seen that. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: If you could 87 furnish us with that information, it would be helpful.

MS. FRIDAY: Be glad to.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Mary Ellis

Babusci, Center for Violent Crimes.

MS. BABUSCI: Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. We appreciate the support we have had from the legislature in the past and want to present testimony today on behalf of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape.

I am Mary Ellis Babusci, the Executive

Director of the Allegheny County Center for

Victims of Violent Crime. Half of the victims that we provide court advocacy for and assistance for are rape victims.

We are founding members of the

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and I was the

President from '73 through "75, an era of tremendous growth for the coalition.

Joining me today is Molly Knox for

Pittsburgh Action Against Rape. On behalf of both of us, we submit the written testimony from the

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. We thought, however, though for you to measure the impact or measure the difference between where what the 88

Governor has indicated should go to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape or whether what our request is should be what you consider, which is an increase over that amount, that we would tell you how this all plays out and how it all works out in a larger area.

The Center for Victims is a 12 year old agency, the first comprehensive victims center in Pennsylvania. I gave you some information about the center which you may want to look at later. It gives you some idea of the tremendous impact and the number of clients we deal with in a year's time. Allegheny County, because of this rich history with PCAR and the Center having over 12 years of experience in many cases feel we have achieved in some ways the state of the art when it comes to rape crisis center operations. We provide technical assistance throughout the state, training and in other states, also. The comprehensive nature of the program in Allegheny County, which could be affected by any kind of cut back is indicated, I think, in two number s.

The center for victims receives 86 percent 89 of all of its cases through a referral process from the police and the District Attorney. The police provide 75 percent and the DA provides 11 percent. Pittsburgh Action Against Rape receives 25 percent of their cases by agency referral. The scope -- and what that means is that not only those victims who file police reports, who prosecute the cases, who choose to go through the court system, but many of those who are not reporting, victims of incest, many families currently in incest situations are receiving service.

In many of our centers that are only five years old, they are beginning to identify the scope of the problem you deal with. We have known it for many years and have known that the needs in Allegheny County are that broad and that comprehensive. We realized this full potential in the county inspite of receiving less than 45 percent of our money from the state through some local support that has enabled us to do that.

I think the one question that I v/ant you to think about a little is why must more be provided to PCAR plus more to Allegheny County 90

through PCAR and I think basically the point is that victimization hurts. We had, by way of an example, there was a recent case in Allegheny County where there was a rapist who raped many women in three adjacent communities, Shadyside, Greenfield and Highland Park. Once the perpetrator or the suspected perpetrator was caught -- it was nine months after the first assault had occurred — the impact on these victims was very great. Every one of these moved, lost rental deposits, lost lots of things and relocated within one week. One moved out of the state. The majority of them are in counseling right now and our anticipation is that if anything were to come to trial, it would be in the next fiscal year, the year that we are talking about.

What happened to the community around that situation was also one where there were many women, as weeks went on and as the attacker was at large, were paralyzed with fear. We received over 100 telephone calls in a two month period of time. Many of the people were calling because they wanted to get some information about how to feel safer, how to make their place of living safer. There was a tremendous impact. It altered 91 the behavior of all working women downtown. There was a direct affect with this one person being at large and we see this on a constant basis. This is the case that received media attention, but we have seen this happen in hundreds and hundreds of situations in a year's time. I think that if you also want -- when you are faced with a decision as to how much money should go for rape crisis centers in the next fiscal year, you may also want to know one of the statistics, I think, that is included in the PCAR report.

In Allegheny County in 1972, when both the centers came into being, the conviction rate in rape cases was 22 percent. In 1984, the conviction rate was 68 percent. Do you really want to make any kind of decision that is going to put the women who you work with, the women in your family, the children you may have at a higher rate of risk? We support -- we would be willing to support efforts in trying to find additional resources or supporting some of the kinds of measures that may be under consideration for funding other resources that could be put toward 92 the problem in Allegheny County. I would like to turn over to Molly Knox and then you can ask both of us questions. MS. KNOX: My name is Molly Knox, Executive Director of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape.

I will only take a moment of your time to talk about the comprehensive picture of rape in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The FBI tells us that rape is the most under reported crime in the state and we know that to be true. Locally they believe that between 50 and 90 percent of the rapes and the child sexual assaults in this county, and especially in this county, are not reported.

At Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, we see a large number of those people who do not report and if you look at the statistics, the police tell us that in Allegheny County last year there were approximately 350 reported rapes. What we saw in one agency was 1300 clients.

Mow, the amount of funding that we get from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape is less than 50 percent of our budget and those of you who go back a long time with the movement of 93 domestic violence and rape know that we have worked and worked and worked and worked and worked to meet the demand when the dollars were not there and now in this year's budget the Governor had suggested an increase over last year of 16 percent and I say to you we think that that is wonderful, but not enough, because the increase that we faced from 1983 to 1985 was a 60 percent increase in the demand for service and we cannot continue to produce thousands and thousands of hours of volunteer time. We have to get closer to matching up what the percentage of increase in the demand for service is with the percentage in the budget. So, we ask you and Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape has asked you in the testimony before you to consider an additional increase to $2.5 million. That is the whole state allocation for rape and child sexual assault, $2.5 million. What is in the Governor's budget is 1.9. We need that money desparately so that we can keep up with the demand and if we get $2.5 million that will only, in places like Allegheny County, fund half of our budgets, but we would be delighted if we could get that much. Thank you for your time. 94

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Molly, we thank you. Any questions? Dr. Ronald Herberman, Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. DR. HERBERMAN: I am Dr. Ronald Herberman, Director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and talk with you about the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. I have been Director of the Cancer Institute for the past six months. I am the first Director.

The Institute is now in its second year of funding from the state. This was an appropriation of $250,000.00 which was initiated a year and a half ago and has been one of the sources of funding for organizing and building the Cancer

i Institute. We have been quite distressed recently to learn that the appropriation for the Cancer Institute for next year's budget was deleted from the budget proposal and would like to gain your support to reinstate the appropriation for the Cancer Institute. In checking with Secretary of Health Muller and his office, we have been told that the 95

Secretary and the department do not oppose the

funding for the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, but

simply don't place this high enough in their

priorities to build it into their budget. They

have also pointed out that since this in the past

has been a legislative initiative, that it should

be part of the legislature to continue support for

the Cancer Institute.

We actually feel that it is a particularly

difficult time to have this deletion of funding,

just as we are essentially getting off the ground.

The monies that have been provided up until now

for the Cancer Institute have been extremely

helpful in the initial organization and recruiting

of staff. We now have a nucleus of staff, we are

beginning to rapidly implement programs and feel

essentially that with the loss of funding, this

would be a major setback in the momentum which is

just beginning.

We would further request, in fact, that in

order to maintain the momentum and establish the programs which we feel are quite important, that not only the $250,000.00 appropriation which we

previously received be reinstated, but that we

receive an additional $100,000.00 in order to move 96 the programs as expeditiously as possible. There is no room to go into the details about what the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has been doing. There is a letter that has been prepared that is being sent to you and the other members of the legislature which you should find in your offices the beginning of next week. But basically, one of the points or the maiden objective to keep in mind, is that more than 27,000 people each year in Pennsylvania are dying of cancer. The National Cancer Institute has established a goal for the United States of decreasing by at least 50 percent the deaths from cancer by the year 2000 and we would certainly like to have the state of Pennsylvania contribute to that national objective.

I personally was with the National Cancer Institute for a period of 19 years before I came here and I am very familiar with the national program and think we have an excellent opportunity to make this type of objective a reality in Western Pennsylvania.

I would point out that Pittsburgh Cancer Institute is the only university based cancer institute within the entire Western Pennsylvania. 97

Just to give you a couple of examples of the type of activities that we have already gotten extensively involved in, one is an early detection and control program which we think is particularly important. The Pittsburgh Cancer Institute played a leading role in organizing the public screening effort that just went on last month for detection of occult blood in the stool in which there have been about 100,000 participants in the region. This is to detect in an early and treatable manner the type of cancer that President Reagan had. It is the type of cancer, when found early, is curable.

Efforts like this to detect and treat cancer while it is still in a curable stage is one of our center objectives. We have already established a local oncology program. We will start within the next month clinical trials with a series of innovative approaches. For example, we will be starting within one month a clinical investigation with interlucan-2. This is the substance that gained national attention about two months ago and is a substance that I have extensive research 98 experience with myself. In this particular area we, in fact, have successfully come to an agreement with a company that is being organized to provide this service to hospitals on a national basis. We have convinced them because of our expertise and interest in this area, to base this company in Pittsburgh and work closely with the Cancer Institute. I will point out that the amount of appropriation that we have been getting from the state only represents about 10 percent of our initial budget, but we feel that this money is a very critical need for several reasons.

First of all, it represents a demonstration of confidence that the state has in the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, that we can point to to help attract money from private and other sources. In addition, it represents an attempt at least to provide some stability of funding to help to recruit outstanding clinicians and investigators who otherwise would have to be dependant on the vagaries of grant support and if we had some alternative backup, like the state appropriation to carry developing programs, I am 99

very confident that this small investment from the

state would pay off many fold, both in terms of

the amount of federal dollars that would be

attracted in support and from the pharmacology

industry and from other sources and also in terms

of the impact it will have on health care in the

state.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Doctor, we

thank you. Just one question I guess I have.

Do you believe the 50 percent reduction in

cancer deaths by the year 2000 is an attainable

goal?

DR. HERBERMAN: Definitely, but

only if there is continued solid support for the

research efforts. The Gramm-Rudman bill has already been alluded to. This is having

significant impact in the fight against cancer and

unless local initiatives rise to the occasion, the cutbacks that are occurring in the federal level,

I don't know if it will be attained.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Thank you.

Any other questions?

REPRESENTATIVE COWELL: Just if I may, a quick comment. You folks indicated last 100

year that you could take a prospective state

appropriations at that time and leverage it into

very substantial investments or grants from other public and private sources and I just want to compliment you on what you have been able to do.

You certainly delivered on what you thought you, would be able to do or promised to do last year and as you have indicated, you have been successful in identifying and attracting other grant money. You have demonstrated a good track

record to this legislature on that particular point.

DR. HERBERMAN: Just to amplify on this in a little more detail, in the six months that I have been at the Institute, we already have agreements or serious negotiations with more than a half dozen biotechnology and pharmacological companies for cooperating with them for innovative phase 1 evaluation of their agents. These will all attract in contract support, will allow substantial increase in staff and so forth and I think your characterization of the state appropriation as leverage for being able to do a lot more is a very good one.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER; Doctor, we 101 thank you. Jeff Thomas? Not here. Richard Morris, Ernest T. Williams Memorial Center. MR. MORRIS: I would like to first of all thank you for this opportunity. I am here representing Western Region Pennsylvania Association of Child Care Agencies and I am also a state PACCA board member.

Many of you have been made aware that in the past several weeks the Department intends to operate a voucher program in Allegheny County. I would like to bring you a little information on that. First of all, the Department of Welfare is negotiating a contract with an agency to provide a contract -- to provide a voucher program without putting that contract up for bid. The state has indicated to all providers that contracts must be bid. However, a contract to implement a voucher project was let to an agency without a bid. Second, the Department of Welfare is allowing 90 days to both plan and implement a voucher program. This voucher program will affect 1,735 children in Allegheny County and a $4.6 102 million allocation to Western Region. Now, one of the interesting things about this is that the Department does not have a rate structure or a financial plan that will enable it to write contracts both in Allegheny County and in Western Region. Theoretically, they have indicated that the dollars that providers utilize for eligibility will now be available to provide to a voucher agency. However, what we are saying is that there needs to be some investigation of that, because if a rate structure is set, some of those dollars may be sucked up in the rate system.

In addition, the Department has a Lehigh County Valley Project that it is now involved in. We have found that there are several problems, one is that there is not good coordination between the voucher agency and those agencies that receive the voucher. Two, there is a problem in reference to collection of vouchers from parents and payments to agencies once those vouchers have been received.

Three, there is not a clear financial accounting trail that enables the voucher agency to determine how many dollars are available at any 103 particular time. That is simply because you may have, in the case of Allegheny County, 700 parents running around with vouchers -- I don't want to say running around — having vouchers in their possession that have not been cashed. So you do not at any time have a clear picture of how many dollars are available.

We are asking that the Committee strongly look at this and ask the Department to take its time and to plan this process out intelligently. Clearly, as most of you know, 90 days is not enough time to change the system that has been in operation for over 16 years. There is need to discuss all the angles and particularly in a county such as Allegheny, as large as it is, and the urban and rural populations that it sees, there will be some need to discuss the availability of intake workers, too, and how workers will get to parents that are eligible for Title 20 service.

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity and if you have any questions, I would be able to answer them.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Richard, we thank you. Just to get back to the Lehigh Study, 104 that is to be finished at the end of this month? MR. MORRIS: The update is by the end of April. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: It is like the pilot program? MR. MORRIS: Right. They have a dual system, both a voucher program and they also have a subsidized provider program. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Who is doing that study? MR. MORRIS: It is a firm out of Philadelphia. Community Conservation, Inc., is doing that study.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: That is all I have. Any questions? Thank you very much. Richard Christner, Northside Common Ministeries. MR. CHRISTNER: Robert Christner, I am the Director of the Community Service Center, Northside Common Ministries. I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you and to just remind you of the continuing need for adequate funding for emergency food and shelter programs and thank you for your initiative and real help that they have given over the last 105 couple of years. The Northside Common Minitries is a non-profit corporation made up of some twenty churches and organizations on the city of Pittsburgh's Northside to address pressing needs of the most common necessities of life -- food and shelter. I have the privilege of directing the Community Service Center which provides food, utility assistance through the Dollar Energy Fund, clothing, and other emergency needs to some 600 Northside households each month. Our organization also operates Pleasant Valley Shelter providing hot meals, a warm bed, and shower and laundry facilities for twenty homeless men each night of the year. We rely extensively on food purchased with funds currently provided from the General Fund for Emergency Food Programs and on food commodities from the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The Northside Common Ministries is urging you to provide adequate funding for Emergency Food Programs in the 1987 budget. We also want to reiterate our support of House Bill 2080 creating an independent Emergency Food Assistance Commission to insure a reliable flow of USDA 106 commodities and an adequate level of funding for the purchase of emergency food. I would like to briefly outline what this emergency food means to a program like ours, which is typical of many hundreds of other programs in Allegheny County. As you probably know, the Northside has long been an economically depressed area of the city. While much work has been done to revitalize the area and much progress has been made, the communities are still a long way from being economically self-sufficient. In 1985 our Community Service Center assisted households comprising over 15,000 individuals. We distributed 230,000 pounds of food, of which nearly 63,000 pounds -- 28 percent of the total -- was food provided through funding from the General Fund for Emergency Food. This food had a value of roughly $31,500.00 if we had had to buy these items ourselves, assuming we had the money to do that.

In my opinion, this program as we have participated in it through the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank has been the single most effective source of support we have for food purchases. It is, therefore, tragic that Governor 107

Thornburg's fiscal 1987 budget contains no money to continue this program. Coupled with the USDA commondities we received and distributed last year — 19 percent of our total food -- the food provided under this Emergency Food funding constituted nearly one-half of the food assistance we were able to give. In closing, I must say something about the continued need we see for food, shelter, and other emergency assistance. Despite the widely held perception that things are getting better, our experience, borne out from the statistics we keep simply does not indicate this. First in the three months of November and December, 1985 and January, 1986, we have received requests and have assisted fully 25 percent more households than a year ago. This is more or less consistent with the pattern of increase for our services that we have seen over the three years our organization has been in existence. Nearly one-quarter of those coming to us are unemployed, 35 percent are disabled or handicapped, 40 percent are single parent mothers with children.

Over 20 percent of our clients have virtually no income at all -- the majority as a 108

result of being cut off of welfare as a result of

Act 75. The effects of this bill have been

largely hidden as these people have been forced to

move in with friends or relatives. Frequently, we

see households of four or five people living on

the welfare benefits of two or three. Then there

are the emergencies that develop in people's

lives, crime, delays of checks or food stamps

caused by broken computers or over-worked

caseworkers in the Welfare Department. We simply

are not seeing large enough numbers of people

moving into jobs and off of our records. So the need for efficient, adequately financed food

programs is as critical today as it was three or

four years ago when these programs began in their present form and we urge you to continue them.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Richard, we

thank you. Questions? Thank you for your

testimony.

MR. CHRISTNER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Mr. Christner,

I may owe you an apology. On one sheet I have you as Richard and on another I have you as Robert.

MR. CHRISTNER: It is Robert.

CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: Okay. Thank 109 you.

Don Faden, Pennsylvania Citizens for

Better Library Access.

MR. FADDEN: Don Fadden,

Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Library Access.

We are an organization of about 900 individuals and fringe groups throughout the state of Pennsylvania. There are about 350 library friends organizations in Pennsylvania. I know that the hour is late and everyone would like to get to lunch and since I have only taken a half day off — I am a volunteer, part-time -- so I will come right to the point of why I am here and

I will allow you to read from the information I have given you what the essence of our hopes are for legislation.

I guess I am here because when I was nine years of age, I went into a library looking for some help. I needed a book. I needed something to -- I come from a family of seven. I would say middle class, lower middle class. We did not have a lot of money.

I walked in at the age of nine and needed a repair manual. My father had a '48 Ford and I asked the librarian if he could give me something 110 to help repair this automobile. It was the drive axl e. Well, this man brought to me a Chilton's manual. This is an auto repair manual. It cost about $45.00. I was quite impressed.

I took this Chilton's manual and walked out of the library, age nine, thinking, isn't this wonderful. Who has provided this for me? How did this happen? I was informed this is through the government and so, of course, I wanted to know who is the government? What is this all about? How does this happen that the government is giving me this wonderful manual that I need? All I had to do was sign my name on the library card. So, from that experience, I learned two things, or I have two impressions that have stayed with me. No. 1, is that the libraries are very important institutions. No. 2, government is an important institution. That is why I am here today. I believe that -- well, I shouldn't say just why I am here today. It is why back in 1976 when some people in my hometown said they are going to close the library, can you help, we organized the Friends of Ill

Libraries group. We raised funds, we raised S40,000.00. We kept the library open, we were then, some of us, asked to go to the state conference of libraries which was a pre-requisite to a national conference called the White House Conference in 1980. At the time we went to the Governor's conference in 1979, people said now we are going to send delegates to the White House conference and I was impressed with what happened at the Governor's conference, but when they elected myself and some other people to go to the White House conference, I said, I don't know, I really question this. I don't know whether I want to spend Pennsylvania's money going to Washington to talk about these things. My experience is that it doesn't really work out very well. A lot of people get together, spend ny money, taxpayer's money, and the result isn't what I would like, usually.

The people involved said no, there will be something coming out of this, so taking that with a grain of salt, I went to the White House conference and through that a group of citizens in Pennsylvania formed what is Pennsylvania Citizens 112 for Better Library Access. We have worked with the state library since 1981 holding sessions all across the state, a long process involving, as we say, a cast of thousands, and it has been, in every county in the state. People who are not librarians, primarily, they are library users, have come out and we have worked together to get a program for what libraries in Pennsylvania might ideally be, what they could be, and what we came up with was 64 points. Of course, that was a little pie in the sky, so that was honed down and honed do\vn to 17 points. Those 17 points were again honed down to about five.

What you see here in Library Access, which is the budget item and school library catalogs is the final honing down. We would like to see the 67 items addressed, of course, but this is the essence of it and what this can do for Pennsylvania in terms of its children and more importantly jobs, is just exciting to anyone who has been involved with the process.

For example, the school library catalogs, this is going to allow any child in the state of Pennsylvania ultimately to walk into his school 113

library, go over to an Apple computer and type in the name of a book, whatever book he wants or a subject. He will get the complete holdings of libraries in the state of Pennsylvania to choose fron. He will then ask his school librarian, or she, for the book that he wants, or she.

The school librarian will order it, it will be sent to this child from anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania. In other words, you are going to put $330 million in the budget of every school in the state of Pennsylvania just by this very, very economical process of providing these children with the information to where the information is.

I could go on and on. I would just like to wrap it up by saying I really appreciate -- this is the first time I have ever had an opportunity -- I was President of Pennsylvania Citizens, but I was never perceived as being a public speaker, which I am sure I am not, so I was never allowed to go out and speak to groups such as yours. I really enjoy taking part in the democratic process. I really do believe in it. I have seen Pennsylvania respond and I hope once again our legislature will respond. 114

I thank you and please ask me whatever questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STEIGHKER: First, you can report back to your organization that you did extremely well this morning.

You got my interest when you say an additional 330 million extra dollars to education, and I know Representative Ron Cowell, who is a leader in the House and is interested in higher education. Maybe we could reduce the other appropriations by S330 million.

I think you put forth your position very well. I don't have any specific questions. Does anyone else have any questions?

We thank you very much. MR. FADDEN: Thank you very much. Here is the other copy. CHAIRMAN STEIGHNER: That only leaves us with Jeff Thomas from the Urban League of Pittsburgh, who was not here earlier at his designated time. That brings us to the conclusion of this hearing. We thank you for your testimony and as I stated a couple of times earlier, it will be reprinted for the Chairman and other members of 115 the Committee and with that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 11:40 o'clock a.m., the hearing was adjourned). 116

CEPTIFICATE

1 If Cathy R. full, the undersigned Notary

Public in and for the Commonwealth of

Penrsylvania, do hereby certify that to the best

of my knowledge, the proceedings are contained

fully and accurately in the Record taken by re of

the Hearing in the previously entitled matter, and

that this copy is a correct transcript of the

saire.

IF WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office at/fiittjburgh,

Pennsylvania, this //"' day oi^dCtAtJLj , \$U?

Cathy /y/r.ull, Notary Public

in end for the Ccmircnuea 1 th of Pennsylvania

?!y Corliss ion Expires:

April 15, 19PS