Where does CSBG go now?

To listen to the chatter in Washington these days, you would think every program is terrific. It seems every interest group around town is talking about how good their program is. This is why I have been asking Community Action agencies some tough questions: What don’t we do well? What do we need to improve? What are our weaknesses? What would we like to improve so that it can become a strength?
In asking agency leaders these questions, I often hear the same response: our weakness is that we don’t tell people how successful and good we are. We are one of the best kept secrets.

We are entering a phase in discussions and negotiations on the hill where we really need to dig deeper and understand how we need to improve. Those certainly are the types of questions people are asking. I don’t know if we are ready for this step but I think it takes strong leadership to ask those questions and be prepared to answer them honestly. I think answering those questions honestly will be incredibly important for the next phase in congress.

Along these lines, I heard members of Congress and the Administration want to know what programs can be consolidated and merged. This question is being asked a lot and it has gained traction in the last two or three weeks. Republicans and Democrats have suggested looking at programs that could be combined with CSBG. Some suggestions have been very surprising. Policy makers and those that advise them are thinking about this issue, looking across agencies, across departments, seeking new ways of efficiency and delivering services. CSBG is out there, in a positive way. This question has at least been an intellectually stimulating exercise.

Support for Weatherization

We are turning our attention to the FY12 budget and appropriation bills in HHS. Along with this, starting today, we will also be making hill visits where we will focus on weatherization. Although I believe DOE will be doing the right thing now and funding the basic 2011 program, I continue to hear the Administration wants to pull all the local Weatherization funding and move it into an innovation grants pool.

There are a number of unique challenges to Weatherization funding. I know on this issue, there remains a substantial amount of preparation that needs to be done. I need to find a base of support among both parties for this program. Also, I am uncomfortable that I have yet to find the unassailable answer to a big question that comes up from Congressional staff within both parties: why should the Administration invest $320 million in a low income program? It is too small an investment to make much of a difference. Yet, in this environment, there is not going to be a larger one made.

Some people see me as focusing most of my time on CSBG, but Weatherization will be taking a good chunk of time moving forward. I am looking forward to my hill visits starting this week.

On another subject: I want to mention that I am going to be pulling back on making too many travel plans during the next few months. It has always been crucial for me to travel to agencies, to learn about the work you do, to answer questions and to update you with my work. I am increasingly worried about not being present in Washington right now, though. As Congress returns next week, things get intense here very quickly. I will continue to have two or three meetings a day with congressional members and staff. It is tearing me up to make this decision, but for the immediate future, I am going to pull back on travel plans and focus on what needs to be done in Washington.

Community Action Survival: Embracing Change

If there is one word to sum up the climate in Washington today, that word is change. Whether in the result of elections or in the heated budget debates of late, change is in the air and has caught wind. It is a resetting of our nations priorities, reducing federal spending, and reevaluating the federal government’s role in American lives. Some fear this change. I’m embracing it, because at the heart of this movement is an incredible opportunity for success. How better to serve those who need us most than to be our own toughest critics?

What does this mean for community action? It means that in order to secure a future of giving voice and opportunity to our neighbors in need, change must be on our agenda. This means reevaluating our business model; which programs work? Which don’t? It means reevaluating how we judge our performance and define success.

Change means diversifying our funding sources. Developing private sector relationships that can help our programs thrive during public funding crisis. It means showing our audiences: legislators, community partners, and potential private donors, that community action is worth investing in. It means refreshing community action to effectively reach a new generation.

Change does not mean discarding our values, the trust we’ve built over decades of hard work, or denying the expertise we’ve honed in serving our communities. It does mean being willing to let go of the way things have always been done in order to consider perhaps better ways.

Change of this nature will protect the community action network. It will strengthen our role in the community and earn us recognition, respect, and resources from both our longtime supporters and those friends we’ve yet to make.

I wonder…are we ready for change? Are we open to creating new opportunities? Are we ready to listen to new ideas? I hope the answer is yes. For in order to live the mission of helping people and changing lives, we must be willing to embrace the opportunities provided by change.

A Great Speaker and a Great Strategist

Last weeks’ negotiations were an ugly process, but the principal actors, particularly Reid and Boehner managed a very difficult situation very well. I have always felt that Boehner has the potential to be a great Speaker. At the end of the day, he tries to make Congress work. He believes in the institution. He is in the middle of some tough issues right now, between the far right of his party and the Senate Democrats. I thought Boehner came out of this past week very well. I also thought Reid did well. I have always been a big fan of Reid, and have always found him to be effective. Former Senate Majority Leader Daschle once told me that Reid was the best strategist amongst Senate Democrats.

Top of the second inning, with heavy hitters on deck

Last week was one of the most challenging weeks for me ever. I had a hunch that we were not going to have a government shut down, but I didn’t talk with a member of Congress that thought we were going to avert a shut down. As such, Hill meetings Thursday and Friday were non-productive. Members and senior staff, in both the House and Senate, were not engaged or focused on the 2012 budget or the CR. Everything, and everyone, was focused on the looming showdown and the potential shutdown.

By last week Wednesday, what was clear to me was there was a dramatic change in the position of Senate Democrats. Women’s health – i.e. Planned Parenthood – became the paramount issue for them; cuts became secondary. This troubled me. I worried that something as small as our program might get lost in the shuffle.

That said, I continue to be extremely satisfied with the quality of the Hill meetings, the level of engagement, and the willingness to help. I know that we just covered the first hill and we now have mountains in front of us. But they are mountains we face, versus a great divide.

That was last week. So, where are we right now?

As of Monday morning, I don’t know the final numbers on the last CR, but I think CSBG will be fine. My intuition tells me we survived. I think we did better than anyone thought we would do, looking at other cuts in the CR. But, I am still nervous.

What worries me now, in baseball terms, is that we just made it through the first inning. The bases were loaded against us and we got out of the inning with no damage. But, the heavy hitters from the other team – debt ceiling and appropriations - are up to bat.

Remember Those House Democrats?

I spent the weekend at a policy retreat outside of DC with about twenty House Democrats. There were a few items that really struck me. One observation that surprised me was how little rank and file House Democrats knew about the CR debate and negotiations in contrast with how informed House Republicans were. I spent last week meeting with as many House members as possible. My schedule was full the entire week. House Republicans were pretty current with where negotiations
were, what items had been settled, where they felt key Republican compromises had been made. At the retreat over the weekend, Democrats basically said it was all in leaderships’ hands; they would find out later what compromises had been agreed upon.

I think the CR conversation will stretch into the weekend, but very soon a long term CR will be resolved. It is clear that if a deal is reached this week on a long term CR, it will pass the Senate with a strong bipartisan support. Equally clear is that the fate of the CR is going to be in the hands of the House Democrats. I expect a number of House Republicans, particularly, Tea Party members, will not vote for any CR if it includes $30 billion less in cuts than they are asking for.

So it is going to take the House Democrats to support the CR for it to pass. Unhappy with cuts made in the previous CR, there was a rumbling awareness amongst House Democrats that if they stick together, they may defeat some proposed cuts in a new CR. A lot of people have overlooked House Democrats but what these rumblings indicate is that it does not appear to be a done deal where they stand on the CR.

It appears the Senate will be able to deliver the votes on a CR. What is yet to be made clear is if the House will be able to – or even want to - deliver the House Democratic votes.