When everyone has the opportunity to contribute to society in meaningful ways, all of us benefit. Since no one can build well-being alone, human services provide the elements that are essential for social, emotional, physical, and financial well-being. These services include early-childhood development programs, grief counseling, leadership programs for young people, and job training, as well as programs that ensure equal access to life’s opportunities and the ability to age with dignity.
Essential as this work is, research shows that most people outside the nonprofit world don’t understand it. At times, even lawmakers and government administrators don’t fully comprehend the far-reaching value that human services provide. The proposal for a federal reorganization, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century, released in late June by the Office of Management and Budget, is evidence of that.
The administration’s proposal to change the name of federal departments and consolidate agencies would undermine Americans’ shared goals to build vibrant communities and provide meaningful opportunities for everyone to contribute to our communities’ well-being. The effect of many of the proposed changes would weaken public support for the vital work of human-service organizations, harming all of us.
Fewer Services
Specifically, the White House proposal to merge the Department of Education with the Department of Labor and move food programs into the Department of Health and Human Services, or rather the renamed “Department of Health and Public Welfare,” as is proposed in the plan, are damaging propositions. Consolidating these programs under one umbrella and using language like “public welfare” can evoke an intensely negative and partisan reaction from the public — which is likely to prompt calls to cut back crucial spending that fuels human-service work.
We have seen this play out in other contexts. Combining federal programs into single, large block grants, for example, has led to significant funding declines over time. Since 2000, funding for the 13 major housing, health, and social-service block grants has fallen by 37 percent, after adjusting for population growth and inflation. We could expect to see a similar decline in human-service funding if Congress approves the administration’s proposal to combine agencies.
The administration’s proposal to reorganize government is intended to shrink the federal government, but the resulting disruption in human-service organizations’ ability to support well-being throughout life would undercut our nation’s current and future priorities. The issues addressed by our federal agencies are complex. The people they serve, all of us, are varied and numerous. Cutting services would be to our collective detriment.
Fair and Accurate Data Collection
The plan also proposes consolidation of the three largest federal statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau in the Department of Commerce. The proposal acknowledges that this consolidation creates risks for the “accuracy, objectivity, reliability, and integrity” of the data collected. Fair and accurate data collection, particularly in the census, determines the foundation of our governance — representation. Additionally, it affects the availability of services and funding for federal, state, and local programs that help all of us thrive.
If the statistical agencies are combined, the resulting agency will receive less money, which would lead to reduced reliability and inaccuracies, particularly undercounting. This would result in a reduction of federal funds to states. Thus, either vital services would be reduced or the states would have to increase their share of the cost.
Language Matters
These changes in how federal agencies work are important. Cultivating a deeper understanding of human services requires careful consideration of the language used. That is why changing the name of the Department of Health and Human Services to the “Department of Health and Public Welfare” is misguided. Replacing “human services” with the word “welfare” reduces human services to its most narrow stereotype — that of emergency-only food or monetary donations — rather than showing the diverse and vast scope of human services available to all Americans at every stage of life.
The proposed name change would perpetuate deep-seated and inaccurate perceptions about “welfare” instead of increasing public understanding of the rich offerings of human services. By focusing on the narrow perception of human services as a short-term financial-assistance program, the administration’s proposal omits what is just as crucial, including advocacy and prevention services. Additionally, using “welfare” and its cousin the “safety net” is a return to outdated language that drives the perceived divide between “givers” and “takers,” which can erode support for essential human services and increase the likelihood of harmful policies and budget cuts.
Further, the proposed creation of a permanent Council on Public Assistance to develop uniform work requirements for all who receive public benefits relies on false stereotypes and would not increase the financial stability of low-income families. Work requirements are not an effective way to move people out of poverty and often do more harm than good. Instead, research has shown that education and training have a more positive and sustained impact on financial stability.
Moving Forward
There are better ways to achieve the goals of both Republicans and Democrats to improve the well-being of all Americans. Instead of focusing on mergers and rebranding, Congress and the White House should increase funding and support for the federal programs we know work well, like the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Senior Community Service Employment Program, among many others.
Federal funding provided directly to community-based programs is most likely to produce strong results because they understand the needs of their communities. The Family First Prevention Services Act, enacted earlier this year, is an excellent illustration of how bipartisan policy solutions that build community well-being are achievable. The act, which will fund community-based prevention services to keep children with their families instead of putting them in foster care, received widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats. We need more of the same.
Human services affect all of us collectively, both directly and indirectly, over the span of our lives. When we support well-being, we ensure that all people can reach their potential and contribute to our communities, making them vibrant, thriving places to live, work, and play.
The administration’s plan to reorganize the federal government would undermine this work and undermine support for work that improves the lives of people in every community across America. Congress should not approve the administration’s proposals to reorganize the executive branch.
Instead, lawmakers should consult with human-service experts — the government and nonprofit professionals who do the work every day — about how best to deliver federally supported services in our communities.
Together, we all can do better.
Lee Sherman is chief executive of the National Human Services Assembly, which represents many of the nation’s largest human-service groups.
