should decrease our outreach and monitoring capability by $7.5 million because USDA is supposed to pick that up. Mr. FLOOD. How will the $22 million that is in your request for community food and nutrition be used? What are your plans for 1979? Ms. OLIVAREZ. Our plans for 1979 are to place an emphasis on self-help projects. We have been fairly successful in funding at the local level self-help projects such as co-ops, canneries, community gardens, and food banks. The emphasis will be on self-help and selfreliance. In addition to that, we will always have to be available for crisis relief, for supplemental feeding programs. For example, right now there are 1.1 million infants participating in the women, infant and children program. There are 4 million infants eligible for that program. There are a lot of feeding programs, that are not reaching everybody because outreach capability has been limited. We will continue to use the funds for supplementing current programs until such time as this effort is picked up by the existing programs. We will also continue to do evaluation of what is being done with our program money at the local level. ENERGY CONSERVATION Mr. FLOOD. Congress appropriated $65 million in 1978 for the emergency energy conservation program. Ms. OLIVAREZ. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. How much of that has been obligated to date? Ms. OLIVAREZ. As of right now we have set aside $600,000 to help those states that have been declared disaster areas. Now a lot of the states and community action agencies still have 1977 money left over from the crisis intervention program, the $200 million. That money is still available in many states. We expect that money to run out in May of this year, at which point we will obligate the $65 million. Mr. FLOOD. Do you distribute these funds on a formula basis? If you do, what is the formula? MS. OLIVAREZ. Mr. Rollis has the formula. Mr. ROLLIS. Various formulas have been used. They are adjusted each time to take into account the history of the previous funding, but basically they concentrate on the weather expressed in heating degree days of an area, the percentage of elderly households, substandard housing, and the numbers of poor. We would be glad to put in the exact formula that was used. Mr. FLOOD. Suppose you do that. [The information referred to follows:] For purposes of determining the allocation a base of $18,000 was assigned for each local project or local CAA to undertake a project with these funds, reflecting an agency policy to encourage each project to hire an energy coordinator and permanent work supervisor(s). The remaining funds were allocated among the states according to population weighted degree days times the number of poverty households plus the number of elderly below 125 percent of the poverty income level. Mr. FLOOD. Is there a local share in this program? Mr. ROLLIS. On the weatherization portion there is, but on the crisis intervention there is not. Mr. FLOOD. How many houses have you weatherized since this began? MS. OLIVAREZ. In the neighborhood of 250,000 home. Mr. ROLLIS. That is what we expect to weatherize with the 1978 appropriation. Ms. OLIVAREZ. Almost 500,000 homes have been weatherized since the inception of the program. Five hundred thousand homes have already been weatherized. We anticipate weatherizing 250,000 with our 1978 money. Mr. FLOOD. What is the cost per house? MS. OLIVAREZ. It is around $160. Mr. FLOOD. How much of that is for materials and supplies, and how much for labor? MS. OLIVAREZ. Seventy percent of that money would go to materials and supplies. Mr. FLOOD. Suppose you tell us again your reasons for reducing the program to $10 million in 1979. MS. OLIVAREZ. As you know, the President, in his creation of the Department of Energy, did it with the idea that all energy-related programs should be under one agency. Our agency is in the business of experimenting and piloting programs to help the poor. We feel that we have already proved that weatherization is a good program to serve the needs of poor people. As a result of that, and given the history of the agency, that program having been proved successful, should automatically go to the Department of Energy for their implementation. Otherwise we wind up administering every pilot program that we test, and relieving other agencies of their responsibility to respond to the needs of the poor. Mr. FLOOD. How will the $10 million be used? MS. OLIVAREZ. For crisis intervention, for technical assistance, for training, and for research and demonstration. It is a small amount, and we realize that. CRISIS INTERVENTION PROGRAM Mr. FLOOD. I understand. Congress appropriated $200 million in fiscal 1977 for a special crisis intervention program to assist lowincome families with the payment of utility bills. In your opinion how successful was that program in achieving its purpose? MS. OLIVAREZ. It was successful when you consider we had $200 million to distribute and get rid of right away. We have not had any problem so far with misuse of funds, with the funds not going for the purpose they were intended. We feel it was extremely successful. We also feel, though, that it was a little bit late in coming down. We were hoping we would be responding to the distribution of another $200 million this year when it was really needed. But I would say it was highly successful. I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that it was not enough. Mr. FLOOD. Have you done or are you doing a formal evaluation of the program? Ms. OLIVAREZ. Yes, sir. We have a contract out with the Urban Institute to give us a professional evaluation of how successful that program was. Mr. FLOOD. Who is doing that? MS. OLIVAREZ. The Urban Institute. Mr. FLOOD. When is it going to be done? MS. OLIVAREZ. It is underway already. We expect to have the results by October of this year. Mr. FLOOD. Will you make sure the committee gets a copy of that evaluation? MS. OLIVAREZ. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. Was that $200 million appropriation allocated by formula among the states? What was the formula for that? MS. OLIVAREZ. The formula was laid out in the Senate and House records. It was designed in Congress. Mr. FLOOD. That may very well be. We do a lot of things in the course of a year. What was the formula? Ms. OLIVAREZ. It had to do with, if I remember correctly, heating days, heating degree days-the same information already given by Mr. Rollis. Mr. FLOOD. If you have any doubt, be sure to place that in the record at this point. Maybe you would rather do that. Mr. ALLISON. I believe the information Mr. Rollis just introduced on the formula, all of this information is verified by the Department of Energy. Mr. FLOOD. Place it in the record. MS. OLIVAREZ. Fine. [The information referred to follows:] 25-260 (Pt. 7) 0-78-2 CRISIS INTERVENTION PROGRAM Allocation Formula for $200 million Appropriation The factors used in the formula are (1) Heating Degree Days (2) Number of Poor Households within 125% of the Poverty Line (3) Number of Elderly Poor within 125% of Poverty Line and (4) a Regional Pricing Factor. (1) Heating Degree Days Heating Degree Days are determined for the current (2) Number of Poor Households below 125% of Poverty Line The number of poor households is determined by adding the number of heads of families that are below 125% of line and the number of unrelated individuals that are below 125% of the poverty line. The figures are derived from the 1975 Survey of Income and Education published by the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (3) Number of Elderly below 125% of Poverty Line (4) The number of elderly persons 65 years and older who are Regional Pricing Factor For each standard federal Region, there is calculated The formula computation is as follows: 1. For each state, the total number of heating degree days for the year is determined. This figure is then squared. (Colder states are given preference by this procedure.) 2. The number of heating degree days squared is multiplied by the number of poor households in the state. The result is divided by one billion to make the factor more manageable. 3. The new result for each state is added. The total for all states is divided into the total for each state to derive a percentage factor for that state. 4. The percentage factor for each state is multiplied (or weighted) by ten. (This emphasizes the importance of weather and poverty in allocating funds.) 5. The number of elderly for each state is determined. State totals are added to give a national total. The percentage of the national total for each state is computed by dividing the national total into each state total. 6. The state's percentage factor for the elderly poor is added to the heating degree day and household poor percentage factor (multiplied by 10) as produced in number 4 above. 7. The pricing factor for the federal Region is provided to each state in the Region. 8. The heating degree day and household poor percentage factor (Step 4) plus the elderly poor percentage factor (Step 6) plus the regional pricing factor are added up to a total for each state. 9. State totals are then added to yield a national total. By dividing the national total into a state total, there is derived a percentage factor for that state. 10. The percentage factor for each state is the proportion of the $200 million to which the state is entitled. |