-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/579f151353f9977f72c2ab19cba40f74.pdf
bf6d608e6ad0dfb1d262bebd1c2a3dd6
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
14422
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[State of the Union 1999] Crime - Community Empowerment
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
3
1
2
�HUD'S PROPOSED S T A T E OF THE UNION INITIATIVES
SENIOR HOUSING PLAN: A Comprehensive Housing Security Plan for Seniors
and INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING CENTERS ($660M). As the President has
often emphasized, our Nation will, over the next 50 years, undergo a demographic shift
unlike anything seen in our history. Home First will provide security and peace of mind
to coming generations of senior citizens, especially the rapidly growing number of frail
elderly over age 85—and at the same time create bridges across generations by adding
Intergenerational Learning Centers in elderly housing. Our strategy addresses six
stages in the continuum of housing need: (1) helping seniors stay in their own homes
when appropriate through housing subsidies and financing for needed health and safety
upgrades (Healthy Homes for Seniors); (2) helping seniors stay with their own families
whenever possible through special tax credits and vouchers; (3) ensuring the availability
and quality of government assisted senior housing when staying at home or with family
is no longer possible (flexible finance for the highly successful Section 202 program); (4)
providing coordinated health and other support services in existing housing, and
outfitting elderly buildings physically, so as to avoid the need to move to assisted living
with on-site health care until absolutely necessary; (5) ensuring that our nation's elderly
remain an integral part of our communities through caregiving for the young
(Intercjenerational Learning Centers on site); and (6) making assisted living more
affordable by ensuring the fit between housing subsidies and medicare coverage.
S T
A 2 1 CENTURY JOB CREATION INITIATIVE. While cities have made dramatic
progress in lowering unemployment and creating jobs as a result of the President's
economic policies, there remains a jobs gap in many communities. Our 1998 State of
the Cities report described how that gap was developing in central cities, which are
generating relatively few of the entry-level jobs their residents urgently need, especially
to ensure the success of welfare reform. HUD has become the investment banker of
choice for economic development in many communities. HUD's Community
Empowerment Fund ($125M) will combine grants and loan guarantees to create
100,000 needed jobs in distressed urban areas, emphasizing Administration-wide policy
priorities, including Welfare-to-Work targeted job creation and city-suburb business
connections that help central-city firms to "piggyback" regional prosperity. It will also
enable the creation of the first truly private secondary market for economic development
/loans—a genuine legacy for this President. The new American Private Investment
Corporation (APIC), like OPIC overseas, will create a highway for driving Wall Street
investment into distressed urban and rural areas, responding to the Trillion Dollar
Roundtable. A $50M credit subsidy will raise an estimated $1 billion in private capital for
\these communities.
x
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS: Funding Smarter Growth for Livable "New American
Communities" ($50M). The November elections showed that there is growing support
for local and state efforts to discourage sprawl and to sensibly manage metropolitan
growth. Cooperation across jurisdictional lines on these issues has increased in recent
years, and the Vice-President has called on Federal agencies to adapt their programs
accordingly and to cooperate in support of more livable communities. Regional
Connections will fund local partnerships to design and pursue smarter growth strategies
across jurisdictional lines. Such strategies will include: (a) compact development rules
and incentives for new growth areas; and (b) coordinated reinvestment in already builtPaue
�up and infrastructure-rich areas of participating regions. Participating regions will also be
asked to outline strategies for managing the economy and workforce in ways that
reinforce the overall development strategy. Eligible lead applicants will include states
and groups of localities (cities, counties, towns), but these will demonstrate active
partnerships with a wide array of stakeholders, including the private sector, nonprofit
institutions, and community groups.
A NEW NATIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP GOAL. The President should announce a
new, aggressive target of 70% homeownership by 2005. We are well on our way to
exceeding the year 2000 goal of 67.5%.
SMART GROWTH PARTNERSHIP OF BUILDERS AND MAYORS: 100,000 New
Homes per year built over the Next 10 Years. A vital part of any smart growth
strategy is aggressive reinvestment in already built-up urban neighborhoods where high
costs, a lack of development capacity, and red tape often thwart new construction.
Mayors and builders have struggled with these impediments for years. Now, leaders of
the jslational Association of Homebuilders are committed to working with HUD and the
Nation's mayors to streamline barriers, add the needed capacity, and reduce land costs
so as create a million new homes in citiesj)ver the next decade, allowing
FROM BROWNYARDS TO BACKYARDS—REDEVELOPING 10,000 ABANDONED
BUILDINGS ($50M). Mayors, builders, and environmentalists all agree that blight
stands in the way of market redevelopment of central-city areas. This initiative will help
remove the number one source of blight in many urban neighborhoods—abandoned
apartment buildings, homes, warehouses, and commercial centers—where communities
develop a plan for aggressively leveraging private dollars to re-use the sites for priority
needs, whether residential or commercial. Communities will turn desolate "brownyards"
into backyards of economic growth and livability.
CITIZENS VOLUNTEER HOUSING CORPORATION ($5M). HUD will mobilize a corps
of citizens to help reclaim and rebuild abandoned and dilapidated housing in cities
across the country, expanding the supply of affordable housing and tapping into the
spirit of civic renewal and volunteerism, themes that have been a hallmark of this
Presidency. Working through the Nation's mayors and community groups, especially
with faith-based organizations, HUD will bring together in eighty cities a group of housing
rehab experts—drawn from the private and not-for-profit sectors—to train local citizen
teams to do housing reconstruction. Building materials and expertise will be provided in
large part by the leading organizations in the President's successful homeownership
coalition—the National Partners in Homeownership.
100,000 NEW HOMEOWNERSHIP VOUCHERS TO MEET WORST CASE HOUSING
NEEDS. Building on the momentum of last year's victory—the first new vouchers in
years and the boldest reform of public housing in decades—we will propose 100,000
new vouchers to meet the needs of the poorest renters. 65,000 will go to meet a variety
of worst case housing needs, 25,000 will expand the pool of critical welfare-to-work
vouchers, and 10,000 will be for homeless persons, to ensure the availability of
permanent housing solutions at the end of the Continuum of Care.
EXPANDING THE CONTINUUM OF CARE FOR THE NATION'S HOMELESS (a
record level of $1.1 B). Studies by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and leading
Page 2
�academics agree: the President's Continuum of care is a major innovation that works,
leveraging many times the investment of Federal resources at a time when demand for
homeless assistance is rising, especially in the "hot" local housing markets. A $150M
increase in homeless assistance, plus 10,000 new vouchers to create permanent
housing solutions, will address the housing needs of the most vulnerable Americans—
those making a transition from the streets back into homes and community life.
ONE AMERICA: FIGHTING HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ($47M). Even at the end of
the 20 century, housing discrimination, in both blatant and subtle forms, continues to
plague this home we call Amenca. It is time to get our house in order - eradicating once
and for all the scourge of racial discrimination in housing and homeownership. The
President should declare that in this great Nation, we should all be judged to qualify for a
home not by the color of our skin but by our ability to meet our commitments - in rent or
mortgage payments.
th
Last year, President Clinton announced his commitment to doubling the number of fair
housing enforcement actions by the year 2000. To help complete this effort, we will
increase the fair housing enforcement budget by $7 million over the 1999 enacted—to a
total of $47M. This increase in funds will support base activities and two major new antidiscrimination efforts:
(1) An expansion of our 1999 Fair Housing Audit. Last week we announced that
HUD would conduct the first national audit of housing discrimination. This landmark $7.5
million study will provide the only detailed breakdown of where and how housing
discrimination exists, both by industry sector (lending, sales, rentals), by location (cities,
suburbs, rural areas), and by minority group (African Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders). Preliminary results will be available within a
year, and will lay the foundation for Fair Housing enforcement well into the next century.
We propose that another 20 cities be added to this audit for FY2000.
(2) More Help for Private Groups Fighting Housing Discrimination. Although we
have made good progress, the Federal government cannot do all the work alone. We
have good partners at the State and local level upon whom we should also rely.
Therefore, we will contract with State and local Fair Housing Organizations to further
enforce Federal fair housing laws at the state and local level.
/ (M€ unit
(
UJU>4*
///*-*
Page 3
�THE
TUK
WHITE
HOUSE
IS TUC
0
AT l O D / ^ ^
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I N GTO N
December 28, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Mike Cohen
SUBJECT:
ESEA Reauthorization Proposal
We have been working with the First Lady's office, OMB, the Vice President's office and
the Education Department to develop the strongest possible proposal to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, with the objective of transmitting it to Congress by
March 1. While there is still much to be done to shape and finalize this proposal, we have made
progress in addressing some of the most significant issues. (Although Secretary Riley has not
reviewed our suggestions in detail, Deputy Secretary Smith has been very closely involved in the
process.) This memo looks at how the 1994 reforms are working, where they are falling short,
and what improvements we are considering. We are planning to meet with you in early January.
I . Progress Report on the 1994 Reauthorization and Goals 2000
Our reauthorization proposal will build on theframeworkfor federal aid to elementary
and secondary education established in Goals 2000 and the Improving America's Schools Act,
the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA. In principle, both of these Acts overhauled federal
elementary and secondary education programs by:
•
Insisting that every state set challenging academic standards that all students are
expected to reach. Goals 2000 required states to set academic standards for all students
and develop assessments aligned to those standards. Title 1 of ESEA built on this
requirement by mandating that states use these standards for disadvantaged students, thus
ending the practice of setting lower expectarions for low-income students.
•
Providing schools, school districts, and states with the flexibility to determine how best to
educate students to meet high standards. Goals 2000 provided states ahd districts with
tremendous flexibility in how funds could be used, and for the first time allowed the
Secretary of Education to waive federal requirements if they impeded state or local
reform efforts. ESEA reduced regulations, paperwork, and reporting requirements;
launched your initiative to establish 3,000 charter schools; and permitted high-poverty
schools (with 50% or more students eligible for Title 1) to combine funds from separate
streams and use them to improve the whole school.
Holding schools accountable for the results they achieve, rather than for compliance with
�rules and regulations. Title 1 now requires states to set annual goals for each school and
district relating to the number of students who must reach academic standards; to report
progress annually for each school (disaggregating data by demographic subgroups); and
to intervene in schools that fail to make adequate progress.
These reforms have sparked considerable state and local education reform activity. There
is, however, still much more to be done to achieve significant improvement in elementary and
secondary education, especially in high-poverty schools. The key lessons from the
implementation of Goals 2000, ESEA, and related state and local reforms include:
•
Standards-based education reform works. A recent Rand study of education reform in
North Carolina and Texas - the two states with the best track record of improving
achievement generally and closing achievement gaps between minority and white
students — shows that a sustained, statewide approach of raising academic standards,
providing schools with the flexibility and tools they need, targeting resources for extra
help to low-performing students and schools, and holding schools accountable for results
produces results, particularly for disadvantaged students. Other studies also have shown
that states and school districts - including urban school districts like Philadelphia,
Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago - that have adopted similar approaches have shown
significant gains in reading and math. This data indicate that our overall strategy is
sound. If we maintain the recent direction of federal education policy while intensifying
our efforts, we can improve elementary and secondary education across the nation.
•
States have adopted policies effecting standards-based education reform, but these
policies do not go far enough. Forty-eight states have set new, more challenging
academic standards, and most states are working to develop or adopt new assessments
aligned with these standards. Fewer states, however, have adopted accountability
systems along with the standards. Only 25 states provide for intervention in lowperforming schools, as required by Title 1. In addition, only 17 states provide extra help,
such as summer school or tutoring, for students who do not meet the standards, and only
five states require students to demonstrate they have met the standards as a condition for
promotion.
•
Implementation of state policies providing for standards, assessments, and accountability
leaves room for improvement. Title 1 includes a series of deadlines for implementing
state policies on standards, assessments, and accountability. Although not all ofthe
implementation deadlines have been reached, it is already clear that many states are not
on track to meet them. In addition, some states are failing to implement these policies as
envisioned. For example, some states have evaded the full extent of their responsibility
to set goals for "adequate yearly progress" for students and schools. And although half
the states have policies that provide for some kind of intervention in low-performing
schools, many have shown themselves unable or unwilling to take the actions necessary
to turn around these schools so they provide an acceptable education.
�•
Improvements in the quality of teachers and teaching are urgently needed. Governor
Hunt's National Commission on Teaching and America's Future has underscored the
difficulty of recruiting and retaining talented and well-prepared teachers, especially in
schools with the most disadvantaged students. About 50,000 teachers each year enter the
profession with emergency or substandard licenses. Nearly one quarter of secondary
school teachers lack even a minor in their main teaching field, and in schools with the
highest minority enrollment, students have less than a 50% chance of having a math or
science teacher with a license and degree in the field. On average, 22% of new teachers
leave the field within three years, and in urban areas 30-50%) leave within five years.
Paraprofessionals are widely and increasingly used to provide instruction to lowachieving students in Title 1 schools, with as many as 20%) of Title 1 instructional aides
providing instruction without a teacher's supervision. By one estimate, instructional aides
account for roughly half (67,000) of the entire Title 1 instructional workforce, and Title 1
aides are being hired at twice the rate of Title 1 certified teachers.
The Eisenhower professional development program, the main federal program to improve
teacher quality (Goals 2000 and Title 1 also provide some funds for this purpose), has
failed to improve the situation in any significant way. Recent evaluation data suggest that
in many districts, the Eisenhower program funds activities of limited effectiveness. And
even where the activities are effective, the program often fails to fund them at an
adequate level. The Higher Education Act you signed last year includes a new program
to provide scholarships to highly qualified individuals who commit to teaching in highpoverty schools, but the current appropriation is sufficient for only about 1,400 of these
scholarships.
I I . Major Changes to ESEA
Our budget contains a number of initiatives to expand educational opportunity in the
elementary and secondary grades: school modernization, class size reduction, after-school
funding connected to social promotions policy, and an increase in Title 1 funding for the specific
purpose of intervening in low-performing schools. Our ESEA reauthorization can build on these
initiatives by insisting on what the studies suggest we most need: accountability — for students,
teachers, and low-performing schools. With this Congress, we may not be able to enact every
ESEA reform we want - indeed, we may not be able to get ESEA done at all this year - but we
can frame the debate in the right way by putting forward a bold vision ofthe future of education
reform.
Our proposal would include a new set of accountability requirements as a condition for
any state or district to receive any ESEA funds (not just Title 1). States and school districts
would be required to produce annual school report cards, end social promotions, intervene in the
lowest perfonning schools, and end the use of unqualified teachers. Taken together, these new
requirements represent a fundamental change in federal aid to elementary and secondary
�education. For the first time, the federal government would link investment in state and local
education systems with their commitment to take the steps necessary to enable all students,
teachers, and schools to meet high standards. In effect, we are saying that the best way for the
federal government to help students is to insist that states and local school districts live up to
their responsibilities, rather than to try to compensate after-the-fact for their failure to do so.
Along with the investments in your budget, this approach is intended to help close the
opportunity gap by lifting achievement in low-performing schools and making sure that
disadvantaged students are not left behind. We think the approach would be compelling enough
to unite most Congressional Democrats, the education community, and the public, as well as to
counter an expected Republican push for vouchers and block grants.
A. Annual School Report Cards. Our proposal would require annual report cards,
easily understood by and widely distributed to parents and the public, for each school, school
district, and state. The report cards would include information on student achievement, teacher
quality, school safety, and class size. Where appropriate, the data collected and published especially on student achievement - would be broken down by demographic subgroups, to allow
a greater focus on the gaps between minority and majority, low-income and more advantaged
students.
B. Ending Social Promotions. Our proposal would require states and districts
participating in ESEA to adopt policies that (1) require students to meet academic performance
standards at key transition points in elementary and middle school and for high school
graduation; (2) use objective measures - Le^ tests valid for these purposes - to make an initial
determination if a student has met the standards; and (3) permit other, non-objective factors,
including teacher judgment, to enter into a final determination as to whether the student has met
the standards. States and school districts would have to show how they will help students meet
promotion standards by (1) strengthening learning opportunities in the classroom with steps such
as clear grade-by-grade standards, small classes with well prepared teachers, high quality
professional development, and the use of proven instructional practices; (2) identifying students
who need help at the earliest possible moment; (3) providing extended learning time, including
after-school and summer school, for students who need extra help; and (4) providing an effective
remedial plan for students who do not meet the standards on time, so that they do not repeat the
same unsuccessful experiences. The proposal would phase in this requirement over five years;
design the requirement to fit state governance systems (allowing "local control" states to delegate
responsibilities to the local school district); and base the requirement on state or local rather than
national standards. The Secretary would review and approve each state's plan, with continued
funding conditional on adequate annual progress ii implementing the plan.
To reinforce this requirement and encourage local school systems to address it even
before the enactment of ESEA, your FY2000 budget contains a $400 million increase in funding
for the 21 ' Century Learning Center program, half of which will be reserved for after-school and
summer school programs in school districts implementing policies to end social promotions.
s
�C. Accountability for Teachers. Our proposal would require states and local school
districts participating in ESEA to phase out the use of unqualified teachers over five years. In
particular, states and school districts would have to end the use of (1) teachers with emergency
rather than full certification; (2) secondary school teachers teaching "out of field" - Le., teaching
subjects for which they lack an academic major or minor; and (3) instructional aides serving as
lead instructors. Ending these practices is particularly important for high-poverty schools, where
the practices are most prevalent. States also would have to adopt teacher competency tests for
new teachers, including tests of subject-matter expertise for secondary school teachers. States
and school districts would be able to use funds from a number of ESEA programs, including
Title 1, bilingual education, and a new grant program focused in part on teacher quality, to help
meet these requirements.
In addition, we are working with the Education Department to fashion a requirement for
states and school districts to deal with low-performing teachers. We are exploring a number of
approaches, including (1) requiring periodic recertification of teachers, and (2) requiring school
districts to adopt procedures to identify low-performing teachers, provide them with needed help,
and remove them fairly and quickly if they do not improve. We will work closely with the NEA
and AFT over the coming weeks to try and fashion a provision that will meet our objectives
while addressing their concerns.
D. Accountability Fund for Title 1 Schools. Our proposal would strengthen
accountability requirements in Title 1 so as to require and adequately fund immediate and
significant state and local intervention in the lowest performing schools. Because the schools of
greatest concern are invariably Title 1 schools and because Title 1 already contains certain
accountability provisions, we believe we should incorporate these provisions into Title 1, rather
than imposing a broader ESEA requirement.
Our proposal would retain current provisions for states to adopt performance standards
and assessments by 2001. In addition, it would strengthen the current provisions in Title 1
relating to low-performing schools by: (1) requiring the immediate public identification of and
intervention in the lowest performing schools in each state - Le^, schools with very low levels of
achievement that have made little or no improvement over the previous three years; (2) setting
aside 2.5% of Title 1 funds to support aggressive intervention in these schools, including an
external assessment of each school's needs and the implementation of needed improvements
(such as addressing school safety and security needs, providing better teacher training, acquiring
up-to-date textbooks, technology, and curriculum materials, and extending learning time to help
students catch up academically); and (3) requiring states to provide recognition or rewards to
Title 1 schools showing the greatest improvements.
To increase the appeal of this approach, your FY2000 budget contains a significant
increase in Title 1 funding, of which $200 million is specifically dedicated to this initiative.
�III.
Other Changes in ESEA
A. Charter Schools and Public School Choice. Earlier this fall you signed the Charter
Schools Expansion Act of 1998, which strengthened incentives for states to (1) increase the
number of high-quality charter schools, (2) strengthen accountability for charter schools, (3)
maximize flexibility for charter schools, and (4) provide charter schools with their proper share
of federal program funds. We believe, along with most in Congress, that no further changes
relating to charter schools are needed in the ESEA reauthorization process.
Our proposed ESEA legislation, however, would include new authority to enable the
Education Department to support other, new approaches to expanding public school choice. At
present, the Department has authority only to support specific approaches to choice, such as
intra-district magnet schools in the context of desegregation efforts, and (as of last year) high
schools on community college campuses. We will propose a new competitive grants program
that will give the Education Department the ability to support a much wider range of choice
approaches, including district-wide public school choice systems, interdistrict magnet schools
and other interdistrict approaches, work-site schools, schools-within-schools, and post-secondary
enrollment options.
As a first step in this direction, your FY2000 budget proposal will contain funds and
necessary authorizing language for three specific choice initiatives: $10 million in grants to
school districts to establish work-site schools; $10 million to support interdistrict magnet
schools; and (as already authorized) $10 million to establish high schools on community college
campuses.
B. Bilingual Education. Our proposal would make changes to the Title VII Bilingual
Education program and to Title 1 (which serves more than 1.1 million LEP students) consistent
with statements you and Secretary Riley made in opposing California's Unz Initiative. These
statements called for (1) expanding the flexibility given to local communities to select the
programs they believe will best educate LEP students; (2) making sure teachers are well trained
to teach LEP students; and (3) strengthening accountability for programs serving LEP students
by including a goal that all LEP students reach English proficiency within three years.
To expand local flexibility and parental choice, we would remove the Title VII provision
in current law that limits expenditures on English-language (rather than bilingual) programs to
25% ofthe funds available. We also would require parental approval for participation in any
program funded under Title VII. To improve teacher quality, we would phase in a requirement
that schools receiving Title 1 funds provide LEP students with appropriately trained teachers.
We also would strengthen the teacher training provisions in Title VII by giving funding priority
to school districts and institutions of higher education that have implemented proven programs to
hire, train, and support new ESL and bilingual teachers.
In Title 1, we would require that LEP students be included in the assessment and
�accountability requirements for each school. Assessments would be in their language of
instruction and, after three years of schooling in the United States, in English. We would require
schools to disaggregate data, so that they would report -- and be accountable for - both the
academic achievement and the English language proficiency of LEP students. We also would
require schools receiving Title 1 funds to provide alternative instructional strategies for LEP
students who do not make adequate progress in English proficiency after three years. Finally,
we would cut off Title VII funding to a program after three years if it could not show that
students made significant gains in both English and academic subjects.
C. Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. As you announced at the White House
Conference on School Safety, we would significantly overhaul the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program to improve its effectiveness at promoting drug-free, safe, and disciplined learning
environments. Our proposal would accomplish this by (1) requiring states to allocate funds to
local school districts on a competitive basis, with funds going to the districts with the greatest
need and highest quality proposals; (2) requiring local school districts receiving program funds to
develop and implement a rigorous, comprehensive approach to drug and violence prevention
based on proven practices; (3) requiring every school district receiving funds to have a full-time
program coordinator; and (4) requiring all schools to issue report cards that include data on
crime, disorder, and substance abuse.
D. Class Size Reduction. We would include authorization for our Class Size Reduction
initiative in our ESEA package, since the provisions in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act
provide funding and authority for only one year. Although we do not expect Congress to enact
the ESEA reauthorization this year, we believe that transmitting authorization legislation will
strengthen our ability to fight for additional funds for class size reduction in the FY2000
appropriations bill. Unlike the provision enacted last year, our original proposal required local
school districts to provide matching funds (an average of 20%, with a sliding scale based on
poverty levels). We intend to include the matching requirement in our ESEA authorizing
proposal, so that we can reach our goal of providing 100,000 teachers within 7 years. In all other
respects, our proposal would reflect the agreement reached with Republicans last year, which
itself was fully consistent with our original proposal.
E. School Modernization. We also intend to include our school modernization
proposal, with only minor changes from the one introduced last year, in our ESEA package.
F. Ed-Flex. Our proposal to expand Ed-Flex (which gives states the authority to waive
many statutory and regulatory requirements in ESEA) to all 50 states died last year, caught
between Democrats who opposed granting greater flexibility and conservative Republicans who
insisted on a more sweeping block grant proposal. Governors ofboth parties aggressively
promoted Ed-Flex until the very end ofthe session, and Governor Carper has indicated that the
NGA will take up the cause again next year. Although we believe we should continue to support
some version of Ed-Flex, we will need to think carefully about the scope ofthe proposal. We
think it would be a mistake to allow states to waive the full set of accountability provisions
7
�described above or the requirement for using class size funds to reduce class size to 18 in the
early grades.
G. Preschool Education. Our ESEA proposal would retain provisions in current law
allowing the use of Title 1 funds for pre-school, and would expand the Even Start Family
Literacy program to reach greater numbers of children and adults. We also would strengthen the
quality of pre-school programs and enhance school readiness by providing funds to local school
districts, on a competitive basis, to (1) work with Head Start and other pre-school programs to
identify the basic language and literacy skills that children need when they enter school and to
design a curriculum to help students acquire these skills; and (2) provide professional
development for child care providers and other providers of early childhood services to help
children build these basic language and literacy skills.
IV. The future of Goals 2000 and continuing support for standards-based reform.
Goals 2000 has been the flagship Administration initiative promoting standards-based
reform, and recent studies show that it has been successful. We do not believe we should let the
program expire simply because of the political opposition it faces in Congress. At the same time,
we do not believe it is wise ~ either for substantive or for political reasons - to submit a
proposal that simply extends the current program. We are instead looking for a way to advance
standards-based reform in a somewhat different form - a kind of second-generation proposal that
will reflect the current state of the standards movement.
Most educators agree that while states have made significant gains in developing
standards, they still face great challenges in actually putting those standards into place in the
classroom. To meet these challenges, schools must have talented and well-prepared teachers,
who themselves have the tools — curriculum materials, instructional approaches, technology,
and the like — to engage all students in learning to higher standards.
Several currently existing formula grant programs — Goals 2000, the Eisenhower
Professional Development program, and the Title VI Block Grant - could contribute to this
objective. We are considering a number of approaches involving these programs, including
proposals to consolidate some or all of them into a larger program, which would be designed to
help move standards into the classroom and would have a strong focus on improving teacher
quality. Such a proposal effectively would create a "responsible block grant," with clear
purposes and accountability. Some Congressional Democrats - including Senator Kennedy are also looking at this approach, in part because it would respond to the Republican push for
block grants and in part because it would create a large funding stream to address issues of
teacher quality. We still have much work to do on this issue, and we will outline more concrete
options in a subsequent memo.
�December 23, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Mike Cohen
SUBJECT:
ESEA Reauthorization Proposal
We have been working with the First Lady's office, OMB, the Vice President's office and
the Education Department to develop the strongest possible proposal to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, with the objective of transmitting it to Congress by
March 1. While there is still much to be done to shape and finalize this proposal, we have made
progress in addressing some of the most significant issues. (Although Secretary Riley has not
reviewed our suggestions in detail, Deputy Secretary Smith has been very closely involved in the
process.) This memo looks at how the 1994 reforms are working, where they are falling short,
and what improvements we are considering. We are planning to meet with you in early January.
I. Progress Report on the 1994 Reauthorization and Goals 2000
Our reauthorization proposal will build on the framework for federal aid to elementary
and secondary education established in Goals 2000 and the Improving America's Schools Act,
the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA. In principle, both of these Acts overhauled federal
elementary and secondary education programs by:
•
Insisting that every state set challenging academic students that all students are expected
to reach. Goals 2000 required states to set academic standards for all students and
develop assessments aligned to those standards. Title 1 of ESEA built on this requirement
by mandating that states use these standards for disadvantaged students, thus ending the
practice of setting lower expectations for low-income students.
•
Providing schools, school districts, and states with the flexibility to determine how best to
educate students to meet high standards. Goals 2000 provided states and districts with
tremendous flexibility in how funds could be used, and for the first time allowed the
Secretary of Education to waive,federal requirements if they impeded state or local
reform efforts. ESEA reduced regulations, paperwork, and reporting requirements;
launched your initiative to establish 3,000 charter schools; and permitted high-poverty
schools (with 50% or more students eligible for Title 1) to combine funds from separate
streams and use them to improve the whole school.
•
Holding schools accountable for the results they achieve, rather than for compliance with
�rules and regulations. Title 1 now requires states to set annual goals for each school and
district relating to the number of students who must reach academic standards; to report
progress annually for each school (disaggregating data by demographic subgroups); and
to intervene in schools that fail to make adequate progress.
These reforms have sparked considerable state and local education reform activity. There
is, however, still much more to be done to achieve significant improvement in elementary and
secondary education, especially in high-poverty schools. The key lessons from the
implementation of Goals 2000, ESEA, and related state and local reforms include:
•
Standards-based education reform works. A recent Rand study of education reform in
North Carolina and Texas ~ the two states with the best track record of improving
achievement generally and closing achievement gaps between minority and white
students - shows that a sustained, statewide approach of raising academic standards,
providing schools with the flexibility and tools they need, targeting resources for extra
help to low-performing students and schools, and holding schools accountable for results
produces results, particularly for disadvantaged students. Other studies also have shown
that states and school districts — including urban school districts like Philadelphia,
Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago ~ that have adopted similar approaches have shown
significant gains in reading and math. This data indicate that our overall strategy is
sound. If we maintain the recent direction of federal education policy while intensifying
our efforts, we can improve elementary and secondary education across the nation.
•
States have adopted policies effecting standards-based education reform, but these
policies do not go far enough. Forty-eight states have set new, more challenging
academic standards, and most states are working to develop or adopt new assessments
aligned with these standards. Fewer states, however, have adopted accountability
systems along with the standards. Only 25 states provide for intervention in lowperforming schools, as required by Title 1. In addition, only 17 states provide extra help,
such as summer school or tutoring, for students who do not meet the standards, and only
five states require students to demonstrate they have met the standards as a condition for
promotion.
•
Implementation of state policies providing for standards, assessments, and accountability
leaves room for improvement. Title 1 includes a series of deadlines for implementing
state policies on standards, assessments, and accountability. Although not all of the
implementation deadlines have been reached, it is already clear that many states are not
on track to meet them. In addition, some states are failing to implement these policies as
envisioned. For example, some states have evaded the full extent of their responsibility
to set goals for "adequate yearly progress" for students and schools. And although half
the states have policies that provide for some kind of intervention in low-performing
schools, many have shown themselves unable or unwilling to take the actions necessary
to turn around these schools so they provide an acceptable education.
�•
Improvements in the quality of teachers and teaching are urgently needed. Governor
Hunt's National Commission on Teaching and America's Future has underscored the
difficulty of recruiting and retaining talented and well-prepared teachers, especially in
schools with the most disadvantaged students. About 50,000 teachers each year enter the
profession with emergency or substandard licenses. Nearly one quarter of secondary
school teachers lack even a minor in their main teaching field, and in schools with the
highest minority enrollment, students have less than a 50% chance of having a math or
science teacher with a license and degree in the field. On average, 22% of new teachers
leave the field within three years, and in urban areas 30-50%) leave within five years.
Paraprofessionals are widely and increasingly used to provide instruction to lowachieving students in Title 1 schools, with as many as 20% of Title 1 instructional aides
providing instruction without a teacher's supervision. By one estimate, instructional aides
account for roughly half (67,000) of the entire Title 1 instructional workforce, and Title 1
aides are being hired at twice the rate of Title 1 certified teachers.
The Eisenhower professional development program, the main federal program to improve
teacher quality (Goals 2000 and Title 1 also provide some funds for this purpose), has
failed to improve the situation in any significant way. Recent evaluation data suggest that
in many districts, the Eisenhower program funds activities of limited effectiveness. And
even where the activities are effective, the program often fails to fund them at an
adequate level. The Higher Education Act you signed last year includes a new program
to provide scholarships to highly qualified individuals who commit to teaching in highpoverty schools, but the current appropriation is sufficient for only about 1,400 of these
scholarships.
I I . Major Changes to ESEA
Our budget contains a number of initiatives to expand educational opportunity in the
elementary and secondary grades: school modernization, class size reduction, after-school
funding connected to social promotions policy, and an increase in Title 1 funding for the specific
purpose of intervening in low-performing schools. Our ESEA reauthorization can build on these
initiatives by insisting on what the studies suggest we most need: accountability - for students,
teachers, and low-performing schools. With this Congress, we may not be able to enact every
ESEA reform we want, but we can put forward a bold vision of the future of school reform.
We recommend a new set of accountability requirements as a condition for any state or
district to receive any ESEA funds (not just Title 1). States and school districts would be
required to produce annual school report cards, end social promotions, intervene in the lowest
performing schools, and end the use of unqualified teachers. Taken together, these new
requirements represent a fundamental change in federal aid to elementary and seco
ndary education. For the first time, the federal government would link investment in state and
local education systems with their commitment to take the steps necessary to enable all students,
�teachers, and schools to meet high standards. In effect, we are saying that, from now on, the best
way for the federal government to help students is to insist that states and local school districts
live up to their responsibilities, rather than simply attempting to compensate for their failure to
do so.
Along with the investments in your budget, this approach is intended to help close the
opportunity gap by lifting achievement in low-performing schools and making sure that
disadvantaged students are not left behind. We hope the approach would be compelling enough
to unite Congressional Democrats, the education community and the public, as well as to counter
an expected Republican push for vouchers and block grants.
A. Annual School Report Cards. Our proposal would require annual report cards,
easily understood by and widely distributed to parents and the public, for each school, school
district, and state. The report cards would include information on student achievement, teacher
quality, school safety, and class size. Where appropriate, the data collected and published especially on student achievement ~ would be broken down by demographic subgroups, to allow
a greater focus on the gaps between minority and majority, low-income and more advantaged
students.
B. Ending Social Promotions. Our proposal would require states and districts
participating in ESEA to adopt policies that (1) require students to meet academic performance
standards at key transition points in elementary and middle school and for high school
graduation; (2) use objective measures ~ IJL, tests valid for these purposes ~ to make an initial
determination if a student has met the standards; and (3) permit (or conceivably, require) other,
non-objective factors, including teacher judgment, to enter into a final determination as to
whether the student has met the standards. States and school districts would have to show how
they will help students meet promotion standards by (1) strengthening learning opportunities in
the classroom with steps such as clear grade-by-grade standards, small classes with well prepared
teachers, high quality professional development, and the use of proven instructional practices; (2)
identifying students who need help at the earliest possible moment; (3) providing extended
learning time, including after-school and summer school, for students who need extra help; and
(4) providing an effective remedial plan for students who do not meet the standards on time, so
that they do not repeat the same unsuccessful experiences. The proposal would phase in this
requirement over five years; design the requirement to fit state governance systems (allowing
"local control" states to delegate responsibilities to the local school district); and base the
requirement on state or local rather than national standards. The Secretary would review and
approve each state's plan, with continued funding conditional on adequate annual progress ii
implementing the plan.
To reinforce this requirement and encourage local school systems to address it even
before the enactment of ESEA, your FY2000 budget contains a $400 million increase in funding
for the 21 Century Learning Center program, half of which will be reserved for after-school and
summer school programs in school districts implementing policies to end social promotions.
51
�C. Accountability for Teachers. Our proposal would require states and local school
districts participating in ESEA to phase out the use of unqualified teachers over five years. In
particular, states and school districts would have to end the use of (1) teachers with emergency
rather than full certification; (2) secondary school teachers teaching "out of field" - Le^, teaching
subjects for which they lack an academic major or minor; and (3) instructional aides serving as
lead instructors. Ending these practices is particularly important for high-poverty schools, where
the practices are most prevalent. States also would have to adopt teacher competency tests for
new teachers, including tests of subject-matter expertise for secondary school teachers. States
and school districts would be able to use funds from a number of ESEA programs, including
Title 1, bilingual education, and a new grant program focused in part on teacher quality, to help
meet these requirements.
In addition, we are working with the Education Department to fashion a requirement for
states and school districts to deal with low-performing teachers. We are exploring a number of
approaches, including (1) requiring periodic recertification of teachers, and (2) requiring school
districts to adopt procedures to identify low-performing teachers, provide them with needed help,
and remove them fairly and quickly if they do not improve. We will work closely with the NEA
and AFT over the coming weeks to try and fashion a provision that will meet our objectives
while addressing their concerns.
D. Accountability Fund for Title 1 Schools. We recommend significantly
strengthening accountability requirements in Title 1 so as to require and adequately fund
immediate and significant state and local intervention in the lowest performing schools.
Because the schools of greatest concern are invariably Title 1 schools and because Title 1 already
contains certain accountability provisions, we believe we should incorporate these provisions
into Title 1, rather than imposing a broader ESEA requirement.
Our proposal would retain current provisions for states to adopt performance standards
and assessments by 2001. In addition, it would strengthen the current provisions in Title 1
relating to low-performing schools by: (1) requiring the immediate public identification of and
intervention in the lowest performing schools in each state — Le., schools with very low levels of
achievement that have made little or no improvement over the previous three years; (2) setting
aside 2.5% of Title 1 funds to support aggressive intervention in these schools, including an
external assessment of each school's needs and the implementation of needed improvements
(such as addressing school safety and security needs, providing better teacher training, acquiring
up-to-date textbooks, technology, and curriculum materials, and extending learning time to help
students catch up academically); and (3) requiring states to provide recognition or rewards to
Title 1 schools showing the greatest improvements.
To increase the appeal of this approach, your FY2000 budget contains a significant
increase in Title 1 funding, of which $200 million is specifically dedicated to this initiative.
�III.
Other Changes in ESEA
A. Charter Schools and Public School Choice. Earlier this fall you signed the Charter
Schools Expansion Act of 1998, which strengthened incentives for states to (1) increase the
number of high-quality charter schools, (2) strengthen accountability for charter schools, (3)
maximize flexibility for charter schools, and (4) provide charter schools with their proper share
of federal program funds. We believe, along with most in Congress, that no further changes
relating to charter schools are needed in the ESEA reauthorization process.
We do recommend, however, proposing new authority in ESEA to enable the Education
Department to support other, new approaches to expanding public school choice. At present, the
Department has authority only to support specific approaches to choice, such as intra-district
magnet schools in the context of desegregation efforts, and (as of last year) high schools on
community college campuses. We will propose a new competitive grants program that will give
the Education Department the ability to support a much wider range of choice approaches,
including district-wide public school choice systems, interdistrict magnet schools and other
interdistrict approaches, work-site schools, schools-within-schools, and post-secondary
enrollment options.
As a first step in this direction, your FY2000 budget proposal will contain funds and
necessary authorizing language for three specific choice initiatives: $10 million in grants to
school districts to establish work-site schools; $10 million to support interdistrict magnet
schools; and (as already authorized) $10 million to establish high schools on community college
campuses.
B. Bilingual Education. We recommend changes to the Title VII Bilingual Education
program and to Title 1 (which serves more than 1.1 million LEP students) consistent with
statements you and Secretary Riley made in opposing California's Unz Initiative. These
statements called for (1) expanding the flexibility given to local communities to select the
programs they believe will best educate LEP students; (2) making sure teachers are well trained
to teach LEP students; and (3) strengthening accountability for programs serving LEP students
by including a goal that all LEP students reach English proficiency within three years.
To expand local flexibility and parental choice, we would remove the Title VII provision
in current law that limits expenditures on English-language (rather than bilingual) programs to
25% of the fimds available. We also would require parental approval for participation in any
program funded under Title VII. To improve teacher quality, we would phase in a requirement
that schools receiving Title 1 funds provide LEP students with appropriately trained teachers.
We also would strengthen the teacher training provisions in Title VII by giving funding priority
to school districts and institutions of higher education that have implemented proven programs to
hire, train, and support new ESL and bilingual teachers.
In Title 1, we would require that LEP students be included in the assessment and
6
�accountability requirements for each school. Assessments would be in their language of
instruction and, after three years of schooling in the United States, in English. We would require
schools to disaggregate data, so that they would report - and be accountable for - both the
academic achievement and the English language proficiency of LEP students. We also would
require schools receiving Title 1 funds to provide alternative instructional strategies for LEP
students who do not make adequate progress in English proficiency after three years. Finally,
we would cut off Title VII funding to a program after three years if it could not show that
students made significant.gains in both English and academic subjects.
C. Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. As you announced at the White House
Conference on School Safety, we would significantly overhaul the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program to improve its effectiveness at promoting drug-free, safe, and disciplined learning
environments. Our proposal would accomplish this by (1) requiring states to allocate funds to
local school districts on a competitive basis, with funds going to the districts with the greatest
need and highest quality proposals; (2) requiring local school districts receiving program funds to
develop and implement a rigorous, comprehensive approach to drug and violence prevention
based on proven practices; (3) requiring every school district receiving funds to have a full-time
program coordinator; and (4) requiring all schools to issue report cards that include data on
crime, disorder, and substance abuse.
D. Class Size Reduction. We would include authorization for our Class Size Reduction
initiative in our ESEA package, since the provisions in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act
provide funding and authority for only one year. Although we do not expect Congress to enact
the ESEA reauthorization this year, we believe that transmitting authorization legislation will
strengthen our ability to fight for additional funds for class size reduction in the FY2000
appropriations bill. Unlike the provision enacted last year, our original proposal required local
school districts to provide matching funds (an average of 20%, with a sliding scale based on
poverty levels). We intend to include the matching requirement in our ESEA authorizing
proposal, so that we can reach our goal of providing 100,000 teachers within 7 years. In all other
respects, our proposal would reflect the agreement reached with Republicans last year, which
itself was fully consistent with our original proposal.
E. School Modernization. We also intend to include our school modernization
proposal, with only minor changes from the one introduced last year, in our ESEA package.
F. Ed-Flex. Our proposal to expand Ed-Flex (which gives states the authority to waive
many statutory and regulatory requirements in ESEA) to all 50 states died last year, caught
between Democrats who opposed granting greater flexibility and conservative Republicans who
insisted on a more sweeping block grant proposal. Governors ofboth parties aggressively
promoted Ed-Flex until the very end of the session, and Governor Carper has indicated that the
NGA will take up the cause again next year. Although we believe we should continue to support
some version of Ed-Flex, we will need to think carefully about the scope of the proposal. We
think it would be a mistake to allow states to waive the social promotion, teacher quality, and
�accountability provisions described above or the requirement for using class size funds to reduce
class size to 18 in the early grades.
G. Preschool Education. Our ESEA proposal would retain provisions in current law
allowing the use of Title 1 funds for pre-school, and would expand the Even Start Family
Literacy program to reach greater numbers of children and adults. We also would strengthen the
quality of pre-school programs and enhance school readiness by providing funds to local school
districts, on a competitive basis, to (1) work with Head Start and other pre-school programs to
identify the basic language and literacy skills that children need when they enter school and to
design a curriculum to help students acquire these skills; and (2) provide professional
development for child care providers and other providers of early childhood services to help
children build these basic language and literacy skills.
IV. The future of Goals 2000 and continuing support for standards-based reform.
Goals 2000 has been the flagship Administration initiative promoting standards-based
reform, and recent studies show that it has been successful. We do not believe we should let the
program expire simply because of the political opposition it faces in Congress. At the same time,
we do not believe it is wise - either for substantive or for political reasons - to submit a
proposal that simply extends the current program. We are instead looking for a way to advance
standards-based reform in a somewhat different form ~ a kind of second-generation proposal that
will reflect the current state of the standards movement.
Most educators agree that while states have made significant gains in developing
standards, they still face great challenges in actually putting those standards into place in the
classroom. To meet these challenges, schools must have talented and well-prepared teachers,
who themselves have the tools — curriculum materials, instructional approaches, technology,
and the like — to engage all students in learning to higher standards.
Several currently existing formula grant programs — Goals 2000, the Eisenhower
Professional Development program, and the Title VI Block Grant ~ could contribute to this
objective. We are considering a number of approaches involving these programs, including
proposals to consolidate some or all of them into a larger program, which would be designed to
help move standards into the classroom and would have a strong focus on improving teacher
quality. Such a proposal effectively would create a "responsible block grant," with clear
purposes and accountability. Some Congressional Democrats ~ including Senator Kennedy are also looking at this approach, in part because it would respond to the Republican push for
block grants and in part because it would create a large funding stream to address issues of
teacher quality. We still have much work to do on this issue, and we will outline more concrete
options in a subsequent memo.
�SOTU BOOKS FOR
John Podesta
Steven Ricchetti
Maria Echaveste
Doug Sosnick
Paul Begala
Ann Lewis
Sidney Blumenthal
Gene Sperling
Bruce Reed
Elena Kagan
Joe Lockhart
Sandy Berger
Jack Lew
Mark Penn
Michael Waldman
Jordan Tamagni
Lowell Weiss
June Shih
Paul Glastris
Jeff Shesol
�W
i
l
'
uWtf'st/ sw
p
^
o.
NEW COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT NUMBERS
According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), the
private sector has pledged more than $1 trillion going forward in loans to distressed
communities - and more than 95 percent of these financial commitments have been
made since 1992.
•
There have been 23 times more financial commitments to distressed
communities from banks in the past 5/2 years than in the previous 15 years
combined.
•
Lending commitments under the CRA have increased 69-fold from the pre1993 era -- from an average of $2.6 billion per year between 1977 and 1992
to about $ 180 billion per year in the past 5/2 years.
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS T O DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES UNDER CRA
1977-1992:
$42.3 billion
1992-1998:
$991.7 billion
Total since 1977:
$1,034 trillion
96%
% Since 1992:
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS T O DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES UNDER CRA
(Average Financial Commitments Per Year)
1977-1992:
$2.6 billion per year
1992-1998:
$180 billion per year
Past 5 Years vs. Previous 15 Years
69-Fold Increase
NOTE: These numbers include financial commitments to distressed communities
by financial institutions with merger approvals still pending.
If Only Approved Mergers Are Included:
•
Under CRA, $411 billion in financial commitments have been made to lowincome communities with 90 percent - $369 billion — coming since 1992.
�period of time. The cost of the program, which would be administered through the Unemployment
Insurance System, varies according to the selected eligibility criteria. If we choose, for example, to
give $200 per week for four weeks tq new parents with median income (about $37,000) or below,
the cost will be about $875 million for FY 2000 (including start-up and administrative expenses).
(DPC)
5. FMLA Expansion to Businesses with 25 Workers (old but unarticulated policy). Under
current law, workers are eligible for FMLA coverage only if they work at a business with 50 or more
employees and if they have worked at least twelve months and 1,250 hours for the employer. In
your last State of the Union, you called for covering more workers under the FMLA, but did not
fully articulate how you would do so. We could now advance a specific proposal to lower the
FMLA threshold to 25 or more workers, which would expand coverage for up to ten million more
American workers. (DPC/NEC)
6. Parent Education and Support Fund. We are considering proposals to create a competitive
grant program administered by HHS to fund parent education and support programs, including home
visitation programs and "second chance maternity homes" to support teen mothers and teach
parenting skills. This fund could cost about $500 million over five years. (DPC)
7. Adoption Registry. We are working on plans to create an Internet-based adoption registry of
foster care children waiting to be adopted, so that prospective adoptive parents can leam about these
waiting children. Funding this registry would require very smally increase in HHS's Adoption
Opportunities Grant Program. (DPC)
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (DPC/NEC for all)
1. CDFI Tax Credit. We are looking at a proposal to extend tax incentives to encourage
investment in CDFIs, which would leverage additional private investment in distressed areas and
stimulate the economic revitalization of those areas. Under the proposal, $ 100 million in nonrefundable tax credits would be made available to the CDFI Fund to allocate among equity investors
in qualified CDFIs using a competitive process.
2. Microcredit Initiative. We are working to identify means to increase support for
microenterprisefinance,both domestically and internationally. We are examining whether to build
on Senators Kennedy's and Domenici's PRIME legislation which would provide technical assistance
to microenterprise. We are also looking at increased funding for CDFI initiatives specifically
targeted to microenterprise, and CRA and other regulatory reform designed to enhance bank lending
to microenterprise funds. On the international side, we are looking at whether we can increase
microenterprise funding through USAID or MDBs, especially to countries hardest hit by the
financial crisis.
3. Clean Water, Parks, and Communities Bonds. We are examining three proposals to
encourage "green" infrastructure projects. The first model uses the same financing mechanism as
�10
your school construction proposal for a menu of projects: protecting and improving water quality;
cleanup of contaminated sediments; waterfront reclamation and revitalization; stormwater runoff
control; purchasing of green spaces to prevent sprawl; park enhancements and revitalization, and
brownfields cleanup. The second model, which provides a smaller incentive than the first model,
would create new tax-exempt bond authority for these state and local areas to invest in clean water,
parks, and communities. The advantage of this model is that it builds on the current system of bond
finance. The final model would allocate tax credits (like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) to
states and local areas to provide to the developers of these green infrastructure projects.
4. Employment Tax Credits. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the Welfare-To-Work Tax
Credit encourage employers to hire and retain members of certain economically disadvantaged
targeted groups. Both credits will expire on June 30, 1999. Under this proposal the two credits
would be made permanent.
5. Re-Develop 10,000 Abandoned Buildings. Abandoned buildings are a symbol of urban blight,
and an action plan to turn this around will be a powerful signal of change. We are examining
different proposals to help re-develop 10,000 abandoned buildings, combining several existing
programs or providing grants or tax incentives to spur private-sector redevelopment of these sites.
6. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Regional Affordable Housing Initiative. Last year,
you proposed a 40-percent expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to spur the private
sector to develop more affordable rental housing for low-income Americans. We recommend that
you again ask Congress to take this action, which would restore the value of the credit to its 1986
level and help develop an additional 150,000-180,000 affordable housing units over the next five
years. This proposal would cost $1.6 billion over five years. At the same time, you could propose
a Regional Affordable Housing Initiative to increase the availability of affordable housing in areas
with high growth in low-skilled jobs and inadequate supplies of housing for low-income workers.
This proposal could be funded through HUD's HOME program and would cost $125 million over
five years.
7. Homeownership Tax Credit. We are examining two kinds of tax credits to promote
homeownership among lower-income families, who generally do not benefit from the mortgage
interest deduction. The first proposal would use the model of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
to create a Low-Income Homeownership Tax Credit. Under this proposal, low-income families
would receive a low- or zero-interest second mortgage, which would reduce their upfront costs (e.g..
downpayment and closing costs) and investors would receive tax credits in return. The second
proposal is a $5,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers in Empowerment Zones or Enterprise
Communities.
8. Housing for the Elderly Initiative. This proposal is designed to improve housing for elderly
people and thereby provide an alternative to nursing home care. In addition to providing capital to
improve and modify such housing to meet the needs of elderly residents, the initiative would provide
housing vouchers for low income elderly who live in housing developed through the Low-Income
�Housing Tax Credit. Because the tax credit helps subsidize rent, this proposal would allow us to
leverage our resources and provide more vouchers to the poor elderly.
9. Incremental Tenant-based Section 8 Vouchers. To build on our success in this past year's
budget, we recommend seeking an additional 50,000 welfare-to-work housing vouchers and another
25,000 vouchers to meet the needs of the homeless, including elderly homeless and homeless
veterans.
10. Homelessness. We are working on a three-part proposal that would: (1) assist the
approximately 250,000 homeless veterans by increasing residential alternatives, community-based
contracted care, job preparation activities, stand down activities (community-sponsored events that
conduct one-stop service delivery programs for homeless veterans), the distribution of clothing, and
long-term housing; (2) allow VA to sell surplus property with 10 percent of proceeds going to
homeless veterans; and (3) start a demonstration project targeted to the chronically homeless to test
the most promising models for moving the chronically homeless to self-sufficiency using a
combination of permanent housing and links to mainstream services. Cost: $105 million — $60
million for VA and $45 million for HUD demonstration project.
RURAL/AGRICULTURE (NEC/DPC as specified)
1. Strengthening the Safety Net. To help farmers sufferingfromthe depressed export markets and
natural disasters, we are considering various reforms of the crop insurance program and closing gaps
in the emergency loan program. We are paying special attention to programs that will help small
family farms. (NEC)
2. Bringing the knowledge of land grant colleges to every rural American: The USDA spends
$1.6 billion on agricultural research, much of it at America's land grant colleges and universities.
The government could provide grants to ensure that this information is available on the Internet and
is well-organized -so that all rural Americans can easily access information on topics such as crops,
livestock, rural development, natural resource conservation, and food safety. (NEC)
3. Emergency Medical Services in Rural Areas. The presence of viable emergency systems is
critical for residents in rural areas, because of the high rates of injury associated with jobs in these
areas and the long distances to health providers. This proposal, costing about $50 million, would
provide funds to States and local communities to improve access to 911 services or alternative
emergency systems. It also would fund programs to help rural communities train local citizens in
CPR and first responder techniques and to recruit and retain emergency personnel. (DPC)
TECHNOLOGY (NEC)
1. Curbcuts on the Information Highway. We are looking at several options that would make
information technology usable by people with disabilities in a manner that improves their lives: (1)
investing in R&D (e.g., text-to-speech, automatic captioning, speech recognition); (2) giving
��U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
WASHINGTON, D C
DEVELOPMENT
20410-0001
November 24, 1998
THE
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM FOR: John Podesta
CC:
Paul Begala
Maria Echaveste
Ron Klain
Jack Lew
Ann Lewis
Joe Lockhart
Thurgood Marshall, Jr
Bruce Reed
Steve Ricchetti
Doug Sosnik
Gene Sperling
Michael Waldman
FROM: Andrew Cuomo
SUBJECT: FY2000 Budget and State ofthe Union Ideas/Themes
Over the past six years. President Clinton has consistently argued that we need to
strengthen our economy and prepare our citizens for the 21st century. As our economy
has expanded, he has also argued that the economic opportunity must reach all our
citizens - and pointed out that big challenges still remain in meeting that goal. As his two
successive "State of the Cities" reports made clear, many people and places still face
significant opportunity gaps in education, housing and jobs - gaps that must be closed if
we arc to fulfill the President's vision for the Nation.
The President scored a tremendous victory in expanding opportunity for all with the most
recent HUD bill: historic public housing reforms, the first new housing vouchers since
the GOP took control of Congress, and a $2 billion increase in HUD's budget when just a
few years back the agency was on the "hit list" for elimination. The President is at last
getting credit for, in the words of NY Times columnist Bob Herbert, managing "a
significant advance in the most unlikely of areas: low-income housing." Because of this,
the Administration has real momentum on these issues. HUD's success - and the agency's
agenda in the year ahead - can be a major contributor to the President's legacy.
P< e 1
a>
�As you begin preparing for the State of the Union, I would strongly urge you to include either as a distinct segment or as a theme developed and woven throughout the speech - a
handful of proposals that directly address the opportunity gaps that remain, including: the
housing needs that confront America's senior citizens and families; the homeownership
gaps that persist between minorities and whites; and the job creation gap that plagues
many central cities, older suburbs and rural America.
I am pleased to share with you five of our most innovative and significant proposals:
1. "HOME FIRST": A comprehensive strategy for meeting the housing needs of
our growing senior population;
2. "A HOME FOR ALL": A plan to create affordable housing opportunities for
thousands of Americans in need;
3. "AMERICA WORKS": A proposal to create more jobs in distressed areas;
4. "THE NEW AMERICAN COMMUNITY": An initiative that will encourage
neighboring towns, cities and counties to be partners in ending sprawl,
conserving resources, and building sustainable communities;
5. "OUR HOUSE": A proposal to wipe out housing discrimination.
A.
"HOME FIRST": A HOUSING SECURITY PLAN FOR SENIORS
As the President has pointed out a number of times, the United States will go through a
demographic shift unlike anything it has seen in its history over the next fifty years. By
2050, as many as one in five Americans could be elderly (65 and over), compared with
one in every 25 at the turn of the last century. By 2050, the elderly population will more
than double to 80 million, with the "oldest old" (85 and over) making up almost one
quarter of that population. Many of this group will be alone, many will be facing
multiple chronic illnesses and will need to rely upon family, friends or community for
support.
We know now, from personal experience, that too many senior citizens are forced out of
their homes because they frequently face catastrophic healthcare costs associated with
aging - costs that drain their finances and make owning a home unaffordable. This
homeownership crisis will likely affect millions of seniors in the new century; already,
the latest studies show that one and a half million elderly pay more than 50% of their
income in rent or live in substandard housing.
Page 2
�always be to keep a senior citizen in their home - or the home of their relatives - first.
Moreover, by coordinating housing and health care, our Senior Security Plan will help seniors
stay at home instead of in more expensive and restrictive health care facilities.
Under HUD's proposed Housing Security Plan for Older Americans, this Administration will
offer a full range of housing options for America's elderly - a Continuum of Care. By combining
new and existing HUD programs, we will create a comprehensive and cost effective senior
housing system that preserves security and independence as a senior's healthcare needs and
financial resources change.
Our strategy addresses six stages in the continuum: First, helping seniors stay in their own
homes when appropriate; second, helping seniors stay with their own families whenever possible
by creating viable options for housing with family members; third, ensuring the availability and
quality of government assisted senior housing when staying at home or with family is no longer
possible; fourth, providing health and other support services in existing housing to avoid the need
to move to assisted living with on-site health care until absolutely necessary; fifth, ensuring that
our nation's elderly remain an integral part of our communities; and sixth, making assisted living
more affordable.
HOUSING SECURITY PLAN FOR OLDER AMERICANS
A Housing Continuum
Most cost-effective
>
>
>
>Most Costly
Stay in Own Homes
• Healthy Homes for Healthy Seniors
• Section 8 Stay-at-Home Vouchers
Move in with Family
• House-your-elder Tax Credit
• Accessible Home Tax Credit
• Housing vouchers for elderly relatives
Government-assisted housing
•
Expand Section 202
•
Expand range of private funds for leveraging
Federally-assisted housing plus services
• Expand Elderly Services Coordinator
• Renovate Section 202
Improve quality of life; Build Community
• Intergenerational Learning Centers
Move to assisted living or healthcare facility
•
Change housing vouchers to work with medicare
Independent
Living
>
>-
>
Assisted Living
Page 3
> Skilled
Nursing
Facilities
�In anticipation of this looming crisis, and to meet the needs of today's hard-pressed
seniors, the President should propose a comprehensive plan ("Home First") to provide
security and peace of mind to coming generations of senior citizens. Our goal should:
(1) HELPING SENIORS STAY IN THEIR OWN HOMES. The first priority ofthe
Housing Security Plan is to help seniors remain in their own homes whenever possible.
1. Healthy Homes for Healthy Seniors. It is not uncommon for elderly
Americans to be housing "rich" but cash "poor." To ease this dilemma, HUD
will expand its successful healthy homes initiative to focus on the needs of older
homeowners. This effort will provide seniors with information on how they can
convert the equity in their own homes into funds for needed health and safety
home improvements, including home rehabilitation loans, through HUD's
reverse mortgage program. We will also mount an extensive public information
campaign to get the word out about this new initiative.
2. Stay At Home Vouchers. We will also expand our ability to assist Section
8-eligible senior homeowners. When a healthcare or other financial crisis hits,
these low-income homeowners are faced with selling their own homes to meet
their basic needs. A senior facing this kind of crisis would be eligible for a "Stay
At Home Voucher" that would be used to subsidize their mortgage payment,
allowing them to use their cash/income for other expenses.
(2) A FAMILY FIRST POLICY. Whether for health reasons or financial
constraints, some seniors will no longer be able to live alone in their own homes.
Because caring for these elders starts with the family, we propose three programs:
1. $1,000 House-Your-Elder Tax Credit for middle-income families that open
their homes to older relatives of limited means.
2. Accessible Home Tax Credit for homeowners needing to make
modifications to their homes to care for an elderly or disabled relative.
Currently, no tax credit is available to cover the cost of modifying privately
owned dwellings for accessibility. We propose a credit of 10% of the total cost
of modification, up to a total credit of $500.
3. Housing Vouchers for Elderly Relatives to encourage apartment owners to
rent to their needy parents and grandparents. Current law forbids families who
own rental units from renting these units to their family members, including
needy elders, under the Section 8 program. By eliminating this restriction, and
providing appropriate safeguards against fraud and abuse, we will provide not
only a decent place to live, but also the supervision and personal support elders
need to remain independent. With over one million elderly renters facing severe
rent burdens, this easing of the Section 8 rules would offer another option for
meeting worst case housing needs.
Page 4
�(3) ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SENIOR
HOUSING. HUD runs a very successful program to build senior housing known as
the 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. We propose continued expansion
of this program. The program works with local non-profits to create housing tailored
to the unique needs of seniors. These complexes fit in with the local community, offer
rental assistance and serve a particularly vulnerable group who cannot easily access
tenant-based voucher programs because of their special needs and limited mobility.
Currently, the average person on the waiting list for this housing is a single woman in
her 70's who needs assistance with one or more daily activities.
The need for senior-tailored complexes is increasing at a tremendous pace, as the
number of elders and the "oldest old" rapidly multiplies. As of 10 years ago, the time
of the most recent study, there were 8 seniors on the waiting list for each existing unit.
The lists are longer today, creating a critical need to expand the scale of this successful
program. We could also expand the impact of this program and the overall supply of
affordable rental housing by permitting a wider range of private funds to leverage
HUD financing, through such mechanisms as low-income housing tax credits.
(4) COMMUNITY-BASED CARE. Because Americans are living longer, many
enter a graying period where they are capable of living semi-independently but still
need some social services as well as specially-designed buildings that make getting
around easier for them. We can ease the strain of this graying period - and save the
country billions in higher costs associated with full-time elder services and heath care
- in two ways: modernizing HUD's older senior housing (202) and expanding existing
elder visitation programs. We propose that $150 million be dedicated to improving
existing Section 202 housing so that it can meet the changing needs of our aging
population. This money will provide needed renovations, added services and convert
some apartments to assisted living units. We also propose a $100 million expansion of
HUD's successful Elderly Service Coordinator program, which currently benefits only
residents of HUD-assisted housing. By expanding funding and allowing Service
Coordinators to serve lower income elders in both HUD-funded housing as well as
private homes and apartments, we can assure that seniors do not have to leave their
homes to get the crucial services they need.
(5) INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING CENTERS. More important than
housing and services alone is the spirit and energy of our seniors. They want to be
contributing members of society and we need them. Therefore, throughout this
continuum, we must ensure that our seniors remain connected to our communities sharing their skills, knowledge and energy. To strengthen this connection, we propose
that HUD fund a series of Intergenerational Learning Centers that will link two vital
needs: affordable senior services and affordable child care. These Learning Centers
will be located within and operated, at least in part, by residents of existing HUD 202
Housing for elderly persons. These Centers will harness the skills of our seniors to
meet the country's vast need for affordable child care. And through HUD's existing
Page5
�Neighborhood Networks program, these Centers can also serve as a forum for sharing
Internet technology, allowing seniors and children to leam new skills together.
(6) ASSISTED LIVING. When seniors do have to move into assisted living facilities
to get the help they need, this Administration can play a bigger role in easing that
transition. We propose that HUD partner with HHS to better integrate housing
assistance with Medicaid services. A single change in the current law would allow
vouchers to cover the rent portion of assisted living costs. There is no reason that a
lower income senior should be locked out of an assisted living facility simply because
a housing voucher issued by one part of the government cannot work in conjunction
with Medicaid payments for assisted living services issued by another part of the same
government.
B.
ST
"A HOME FOR ALL": A 21 CENTURY HOUSING INITIATIVE
As the 1998 State of the Cities report noted, despite our success in creating the strongest
economy in generations, a record number of Americans, over five million families, face
an affordable housing crisis - paying more than 50% of their income in rent or living in
substandard, often unsafe and unsanitary housing. Capitalizing on the strength of the
economy, the President should set a national goal of ensuring that we have a "decent, safe
and sanitary home for all Americans" in the new century. We propose addressing this
growing housing crisis in two ways:
(1) 200,000 New Rental Vouchers. As you know, our main vehicle for creating "new"
housing opportunities is through the Section 8 program. In FY 1999, for the first time in
five years. Congress approved funding for 90,000 additional vouchers for families on
long waiting lists, including those who need to make the transition from welfare-to-work.
The recent public housing reform bill authorized 100,000 new vouchers for FY2000. We
should take advantage of this "nod" by making a bolder, stronger request. We are
proposing that the FY2000 budget provide an additional 200,000 incremental vouchers.
Of this number, 50,000 new vouchers would be dedicated to the President's Welfare-toWork initiative and 50,000 would be dedicated to helping homeless individuals and
families move into self-sufficiency.
(2) "Brownyards to Backyards": demolishing 10,000 abandoned buildings. A major
obstacle to urban redevelopment is "dirty" sites with environmental problems. So called
"brownfields" reclaim commercial property, but do nothing to expand residential sites.
HUD is proposing a new federal initiative to attack the primary cause of blight in urban
neighborhoods: abandoned apartment buildings, single family homes, warehouses, office
buildings and commercial centers. Under the proposal, HUD would provide a total of
$300 million in competitive grant funds to local governments to support demolition of
blighted, abandoned buildings and redevelopment of multifamily and single family
housing. The program would provide an average of $30,000 per building to pay for
demolition, debris removal, environmental remediation of soils (if necessary) and site
preparation for new development (per building estimate assumes a mix of single family
homes and larger buildings). To encourage housing development, HUD would offer
Page 6
�discounted pricing and streamlined processing of FHA mortgage insurance for affordable
multifamily and single family housing built on the same sites.
Participating cities would be asked to forgive all existing local tax liens on the property
and contribute additional public funds (possibly including HOME or CDBG funds) to
support redevelopment of affordable housing. By offering a powerful combination of demolition of America's most blighted buildings, preparation of development-ready sites
and federal credit enhancement to help finance redevelopment of affordable housing - this
new initiative would begin to turn around some of America's most distressed
neighborhoods.
C.
ST
"AMERICA WORKS": A 21 CENTURY JOB CREATION INITIATIVE
While cities have made dramatic progress in lowering unemployment and creating jobs as
a result of the President's economic policies, there remains a jobs gap in many
communities. Our 1998 State of the Cities report described how that gap was developing
in central cities, which are generating relatively few of the entry-level jobs their residents
urgently need. To date, the Administrations' response to this need has been highly
successful: boosting business investment and job creation through empowerment zones
and enterprise communities. We propose these further steps:
(1) Round I I I Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities. Round I EZ/ECs were
highly successful in leveraging private dollars in distressed neighborhoods: The original
72 urban EZs and ECs have generated almost $4 billion in private and public
investments, creating jobs and helping thousands of families move from welfare to work.
Round II applications revealed that a high level of skill and innovation had evolved in
just one year. The success and lessons of the first two rounds promise to make Round III
of even greater impact. We propose an additional $195 million in grants for Round III to
support a total of 15 additional Zones and 15 additional Communities. HUD funds would
emphasize highly leveraged, break-the-mold economic development, as well as housingbased welfare-to-work programs that complement HHS and DOL efforts to ensure the
success of the President's welfare reform.
(2) The Community Empowerment Fund. Access to capital is a significant
impediment to growth in the central cities where higher risk and historically higher
default rates make conventional money lenders cautious to tread. In recognition of this
market gap, HUD has become the investment banker of choice for economic development
in many communities, providing over $2 billion in guaranteed loans, in addition to
billions of dollars in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money over the past
five years.
The next stage in expanding and stabilizing this capital resource is to develop a secondary
market for these loans, similar to the existing secondary market for residential mortgages.
The Community Empowerment Fund would create this market within the framework of
existing HUD programs.
Page?
�The Fund will enable a secondary market to emerge through two essential mechanisms:
• Standardizing underwriting and loan pooling. All Section 108 guaranteed loans
will be underwritten to standardized guidelines.
• Creating a loan pool that will allow loans to be seasoned and eventually sold into
the private secondary markets. Communities will have the option of using
CEF/EDI funds in this shared loan loss reserve fund.
The Fund will help older cities and suburbs as well as under-developed rural areas get the
capital they need to maintain and expand their economic base in the new high tech, global
economy. The CEF will also support welfare-to-work efforts in cities and also link debt
and venture capital for new and existing inner city businesses.
(3) Neighborhood Renewal Tax Exemption. We also propose a new Neighborhood
Renewal Tax Exemption, which would encourage moderate and middle-income
households to move into revitalizing EZ/EC neighborhoods. The new policy would allow
taxpayers moving into those neighborhoods to claim up to two additional personal
exemptions for the first year of residence in a designated neighborhood. This will help
advance the goals of the Administration's revitalization strategy for distressed
communities, creating the needed mix of incomes to bring back retail demand, job
networks, and role models. Using exemptions would allow us to "reward" households
that do not itemize deductions and to scale the reward to income. Moving into a home
with extensive rehabilitation needs can be costly. The availability of additional personal
exemptions will attract middle-income households to the EZs/ECs. Based on patterns of
migration into and out of poor neighborhoods, HUD estimates that about 45,000
households (that would move into EZ/EC neighborhoods each year) could qualify for this
benefit (provided they have sufficient income to file).
D.
"THE NEW AMERICAN COMMUNITY":
A PROPOSAL TO ENCOURAGE "SMART GROWTH"
The November elections showed that there is growing support for controlling sprawl and
managing suburban growth. Sprawl is hurting both cities and suburbs: Cities are losing
the middle class and related tax revenues and in the suburbs, there's growing
dissatisfaction with congestion, gridlock, overcrowded schools, higher taxes and loss of
open space. From Maryland to New Jersey, from Vermont to California, there is a
growing consensus that communities need to do more to promote more compact, costeffective forms of development. In short, citizens are concerned that economic gains not
come at the expense of their quality of life - and are beginning to think about building a
new kind of American community, one that, in truth, barkens back to an earlier time in
the Nation's history - a time of neighborhoods and neighbors.
We are proposing a "New American Community" initiative that recognizes the growing
inter-connectedness of cites and suburbs and the need to contain sprawl and ensure that
communities plan their growth. The initiative will encourage neighboring towns, cities
and counties to undertake "Smart Growth" plans, and preserve and protect open space and
Page 8
�greenfields in our metropolitan areas. By providing $100 million in competitive funding
to States and to partnerships of local governments, we will spur the development and
implementation of new, locally-driven strategies that address economic and community
development needs at the regional level. We also propose making these "New American
Community" criteria a factor to consider in awarding CDBG, 108, EDI, BEDI and Home
awards.
E.
"OUR HOUSE": A PLAN TO WIPE OUT HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
th
Even at the end of the 20 century, housing discrimination, in both blatant and subtle
forms, continues to plague this home we call America. It is time to get our house in order
- eradicating once and for all the scourge of racial discrimination in housing and
homeownership. The President should declare that in this great Nation, we should all be
judged to qualify for a home not by the color of our skin but by our ability to meet our
commitments - in rent or mortgage payments.
Last year. President Clinton announced his commitment to doubling the number of fair
housing enforcement actions by the year 2000. To help complete this effort, we propose
increasing the fair housing enforcement budget by $15 million over the 1999 requested
levels of $52 million. This increase in funds will support base activities and two major
new anti-discrimination efforts:
(1) An expansion of our 1999 Fair Housing Audit. Last week we announced that
HUD would conduct the first national audit of housing discrimination. This landmark
$7.5 million study will provide the only detailed breakdown of where and how housing
discrimination exists, both by industry sector (lending, sales, rentals), by location (cities,
suburbs, rural areas), and by minority group (African Americans, Hispanics, Native
Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders). Preliminary results will be available within a
year, and will lay the foundation for Fair Housing enforcement well into the next century.
We propose that another 20 cities be added to this audit for FY2000.
(2) More Help for Private Groups Fighting Housing Discrimination. Although we
have made good progress, the Federal government cannot do all the work alone. We have
good partners at the State and local level upon whom we should also rely. Therefore, we
will contract with State and local Fair Housing Organizations to further enforce Federal
fair housing laws at the state and local level.
I strongly urge you to consider theses ideas in preparing for the State of the Union
address and can provide move information as needed.
Page 9
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[State of the Union 1999] Crime: Community Empowerment
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 49
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-049-014-2015