correctly arrange entire day. really being open and honest with myself to measure how one officer per lines as relates to de-escalation. how does an officer perform as it relates to decision-making, judgment and capturing those outcomes as much as you do that score that would allow you to understand where you have challenges, where the officer may still have challenges, but more importantly where you have greater opportunities to show all of your officers the important than the value of those types of training. so just stop saying we are going to train people in de-escalation. really divisive magic and masher determining whether or not they are comprehending, understanding and performing the way the

curricula has been designed. >> i think i will build i'm not a big. i think self-awareness and spend the officer perspective is probably one of the most telling aspects and that is their willingness to be calm more transparent with calls for service and how they handled them in the escalating or in some cases we call it slowing down instead of retreat we want to slow the action down. we want to take control of it. and so, as the officer is now becoming more comfortable in floating the situation down and resolving peacefully, we at the department had taken a more at april and celebrating does. we can say okay, we have documented that it could maybe and at the end of the year somebody signed off on a piece of paper. but it comes down to a

celebrating day in and day out that great bit of police work for people went home safely are were taken into custody safely. and i think those, when the cops start to buy into the idea that on a daily basis that rollcall or throughout the department, their actions are going to be acknowledged for a job well done, better performance than the cons even at a higher level. cops are competitive. they want to get the latest and greatest and they want to be the person that does the best job. i think as we as leaders come to encourage that at every level of the department, it is going to improve our performance and are self-awareness and self satisfaction of a job and i

think it also allows the community because these people know what they are doing and getting people home safely every day. the public, the folks that we are out there keeping the peace forward. >> metrics of violent crime. we have to. we have to masher and effective officer by how many cars he stopped or how many felony arrest is made. the metric has to change, what are we trying to do in that neighborhood. should the officer turned left or right when he leaves the station? to make arrests that matter an impact the community in ways that make our strategies known and trusted by the community. the most important metric is what those efforts show us can never be masher because it can't be counted. i think that is something we would also account for it.

>> i'm going to talk about this from the standpoint of national standards. i don't think that there is a leader that should ever say that they don't know how to police the 21st century. there's a 21st century vote. their commissions have been taken since the 1960s current commission. there's cdma, police executive research, police foundation, cops that releases publications over and over again. take that information, lining up at a national best this is and then localize it to your community. but i mean is the community involved could control officers involved. but the last thing i will say with this and i will say this because i've heard the panelists talk and i know many of them appeared. the third thing is you can get all the standard we want.

what they've done takes courage. it takes a willingness to step up and to say this is where we need to be and do everything we need to do to get there. that takes courage. we know what are the standards. we know what the best practices are. it's time for us to have more courage. [inaudible] >> one of the things who bought talked about is the importance of transparency, transformation and the difference that makes in the department and outside. most of the information you talk about improvement art and total information. does any of your your departments or had departments or have you done any third-party surveys of your police department internally or your community is externally to kind

of get a series of feelings regularly. >> has probably helped to cna -- i guess many people are aware that there is currently an assessment of police departments around the country as it relates to the implementation of a 21st century policing recommendation. that goes right of which are speaking about being able to masher the implementation of those recommendations, the effects of those recommendations that will help serve as guide posts for other organizations to say here are the pillars. here are the recommendations. here is how you go about implementing those recommendations because it involves everyone. it involves not only the command staff, but every officer within

organizations and many members of the community. i believe that is the ss and that would allow other organizations to see how can i help move my organization towards 21st century policing. it has been there, but it's never been packaged in a way in which others can pick it up and really no how to go about truly implementing 21st century policing strategies. >> so formerly, when you talk about surveys, and this is how cities and police departments to it. we send out a postcard or we do a telephone survey. the only people that respond to that are usually folks that look like us. they have time on their hands. that only inaction may ever have to spend the police officer came and checked out their ally when it went off in the middle of the

night and they were afraid. we are not surveyed the folks we interact. daily. and so we have to find a way to do that. the soccer moms and soccer dad sitting at the bleachers at night are going to have time to take a postcard survey and send it back in. they are not going to have time to sit on the phone and talk to someone who calls and asks about their satisfaction with the police department. we have technology now that we need to as a profession figure out how to survey folks who do have that interaction with us. as an example, a traffic stop with the traffic stop at the rate texting works now, why not be able to have a number that you hand the person that just got the ticket also a business card with a text to survey and you had the immediate feedback. some cops are going to say you

know they are going to stick it to us because they just got a ticket. we will find out how that person was treated. do they feel they were treated with respect? or did they feel good about the interaction at the officer, not necessarily the interaction because they got the ticket. as a profession we have to find a way to be with our feedback so we can develop new ways for new training, new opportunities to reach people that were serving every day, that were interact with every day. >> the city does have incredible job they surveys of police satisfaction. to be of to be of police services in the things we should concentrate on provide reports to the police department and gives us a good look at where we need to improve services. some of the areas that's not a shock where we need to improve in the most robust relationships are. they do an excellent job to

provide all of that to us. [inaudible] >> straight from the city. the city management officer. >> we contract some of the work to an independent agency. all the data and information is collated by both places, but pushed out by our innovation offices and assistant city manager office. >> we used the university of north carolina charlotte for our surveys. >> in the interest of keeping on schedule, thank you of the gentlemen for excellent presentations. i feel like we've heard from the best the country has to offer. please get another round of applause. [applause] we are going to go into a 15 minute rate and that will come back and hear what they think on the other side of the street.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> 20 years ago president bill clinton signed the welfare line created the temporary assistance for needy families program. next, one of the architects of the may 296 law on the impact of changes that had appeared the institute hosted the event. >> welcome to the cato institute on this the 20th anniversary of welfare reform. my name is vanessa brown called her and on the welfare analyst here at cato. delighted to have our audience here in person as well as those that are joining us through

television or internet. as my colleague mentioned for those who are like tweaking the event it is hashed at welfare 20th. if you want to bear. also happy to be joined by our panelists here who i'm going to introduce to you in a moment. first let's introduce the topic. as we know from michael tanner's opening remarks commended 96 welfare reform law is a comprehensive bipartisan overhaul of welfare law. it dramatically reshape the federal cash and food welfare program in the united states. specifically, it replaced 82 families with dependent children with temporary assistance to needy families or tanf and it had a few features which made it particularly notable. and impose tight limits on work requirements requirements on some welfare beneficiaries. it also granted states greater latitude in deciding latitude in designing their own welfare

program and it provided incentives to states to limit out of wedlock birth as well as create also-ran teen pregnancy and limiting teen pregnancy among other things. critics of the welfare reform predict that the welfare reform by drive low income families into deeper poverty and keep them there. we see resurgence of that particular line of thought and the recent scholarship on the topic. advocates on the other hand and listed the welfare reform would move welfare into permanent jobs and thereby it would increase economic self-sufficiency as well as economic mobility and it would strengthen families among other things. so at the 20th anniversary of welfare reform, we are obliged to ask whether any of these things actually happened. how does welfare reform live up to its promises? did it affect family structure, health, child achievement and

individual economic dependence? did it provide an adequate safety net during the last decade of economic turmoil. without further ado, i'm going to introduce the individuals who are going to answer those very questions today. let me just hold your applause until the end if you would. i will start with heather hahn on my right. heather is a senior fellow labour human services and population at the urban and to two. she's also a national tanf expert with two decades of x. conducting nonpartisan research on a wide range of programs and policies related to the well-being of children and families, including tanf, food stamps and other supports for low-income families could we also have ron haston on my right to the senior fellow in the economic studies program and codirector of the center on children and families at the brookings institution and he's a senior consultant at the annie

e. casey foundation. he's the author of work over welfare, the inside story of the 1996 welfare reform law. robert verbruggen is to matter much. managing editor at the american conservative where he moved after a decade of journalists and that included stints at national interest to "washington times," national review and real clear policies. he's also a contributor of family studies raise written about welfare reform. finally, scott winship. walter b. richter and fellow at the manhattan institute. previously a fellow at the brookings institution and earlier a research manager at the economic mobility project and senior policy at eyes or third way. he's testified before congress on poverty and equality joblessness among others. let's give each of our panelists a warm welcome in turn the time

over to heather to start us off. [applause] >> good morning. so we are here to talk about welfare reform turning 20 of his success and failure and complete and what is turning 20 as the assistance for needy families program. we are talking about welfare brat arch that is much older and pieces are newer, but it's tanf that is turning 20 so that is what i'm going to focus my comments on. we note that with tanf it ended the entitlement to assistance. they shifted major responsibility is to states, gave them a block grant consent of entitlement spending. we know that after tanf, caseloads plummeted. they have been calling shortly

before reformed and they fall much further afterward. we also know employment among single mothers increased in a short time after welfare reform. but then we need to get to the questions he raised. to welfare reform how people move from welfare to work? did it improve mobility? did he provide adequate safety net especially during the recession? is it still relevant today? that's what i'm going to talk about. i want to start with something welfare reform and by that i need tanf did. it helped to shift the focus to work. the reason is the 1996 welfare reform itself came about in part because of a mismatch between the former rules that limited recipients ability to work in a mismatch with the changing societal norms in which more and more mothers are working outside the home. some of the changes leading up

to welfare reform started to address that issue, but both tanf and the changing societal norms solidified that focus. when i talk with welfare recipients now, i hear people say a quote from someone i've talked to recently that i would give anything and trade of the tanf i could could ever get for a stable job. the other people said absolutely, amen. the desire to work is clear. people recognize the social and psychological benefits of work. a combination of the rule and the strong economy, eit c. expansion and other factors contributed to an increase in employment among single mothers in the early years following the implementation because those games were lost. the childless single women. once they got in tandem, they

have fallen together so i just want to pause here. most of what i wanted looking back. i want to take this moment to look forward from this class and peered looking ahead, the safety net of the future needs to change again to fit the changing nature of work. in the last 20 years, work has become more unstable and i'm predictable for low-wage earners for both men and women in those fundamental issues need to be matched up again with our welfare reform. welfare reform, or tanf did not improve economic self-sufficiency. for three reasons. it reaches to needy families. it doesn't affect who we help people to get key jobs that did not provide a safety net during

the recession. let's look first at this issue about tanf reaching a few needy families. we know that 1.6 million families in the average number 2015 received tanf cash assistance down from 4.4 million in 1996. what is 1.6 million, is that too many? a more useful number is how many people who are poor are receiving tanf. this is done on budget policy priority research. what we see is in the t. 96, 68% of poor families receive cash assistance. that has fallen to 23% of poor families receiving cash assistance in 2014. the gao report shows that in the early years following tanf, from 1995 to 2005, 87% of the caseload decline was due to

nonparticipation of eligible adults. it wasn't that people had too much earnings and therefore there is no longer eligible in some cases. it is that people were eligible but not receiving tanf. almost 40% of cases today are child only cases. so when we look at the 23% of poor families receiving assistance and receive 40% of those are child only cases, it is a pretty small piece -- our families being served, this national picture masks a variation state. there are 12 states that serve fewer than one in 10 poor families and there are more and more states every year in that category. then for those who do receive assistance, the cash assistance can be essential for making a difference in their life, but the benefit amounts are so low that they do not bring family set in deep poverty much like that of poverty. it is not going to affect the

poverty level because the cash assistance is too low. so tanf also does not effectively help people get and keep jobs. even though there was a great focus on work and a rhetoric around work and a desire to work, the federal tanf rules, especially since 2005, create incentives that permit access. states have strong financial incentive to do severe activities that help the state meet its requirement rather than focusing activities that are tailored to the individual needs to achieve self-sufficiency. they're a very complicated requirements for states around who they can tell them how many hours and what counts, but the drive state incentives for state programs. they emphasize immediate job

search, even if jobs aren't available or if the client has significant challenges as many do. job search is a core activity limited to six weeks per year. vocational training is a very important activity for helping people reach long-term self-sufficiency limited to 12 months to lifetime. basic skills training are not allowed to count towards this day of work required that. so states have incentives to not allow it to good use for their client. this doesn't mean people are languishing on tanf. people do their jobs. but they are typically unstable, low-wage jobs. when they lose those jobs, they return to tanf. research shows a large number of people applying are doing so because they recently lost a job. when they get jobs again, they are the same kinds of jobs they lost to get to montana from the first place it ends up working

as a non-employment insurance were very low-wage workers rather than a ladder up to self-sufficiency. other programs, such of the eit c. to support working families, but also with earnings and neither tanf dort eit c. is helping get those earnings in the first place. tenet did not provide the recession. during the recession unemployment rates doubled the number of tanf cases rose by 20%. because tanf reaches only the deeply poor families and serves less than a quarter of poverty, many of those struggling during the recession and may have thought they could use some cash assistance didn't qualify. they were poor enough to fight their struggles or they may have seen the work requirement could be counterproductive to obtain full-time employment. what tanf did do during the recession within targeted fund aid would suffer short-term subsidized employment which was

enormously popular with businesses and clients alike and has been shown to be successful. that's the next in the should look to attend. other programs, especially staff did respond to an increased need during the recession but not tanf. so what has tanf been doing these last 20 years? kenneth has evolved from the cash assistance to a broad stream. these numbers from hhs to show how spending has shifted away from cash assistance. if we look at 1997, the blue bar at the bottom of the sick cash assistance is 71% of spend aid. in 2015, only 25% of the block grant and state maintenance effort spending, 25% went to the assistance. 7% went to work activities.

17% into childcare and more than half, 52% went to other things like state eit c., college scholarships, child protective services, all valuable and worthy causes, but not what we think of as tanf and what we think of as cash assistance. if we look at the seventh teen% that goes to childcare, only 6% of the 17% goes to families who are receiving cash assistance. most of the rest of it, either half of that goes to direct tanf spending on families who are not receiving cash assistance for his transfer to the child care and development block grants. looking forward, it is very important that we address the shortcomings and the broader safety net because growing up as

long-term negative consequences for children. my colleagues, caroline rack and many others have written about the lasting consequences of child poverty. this is whether you measure if it's relative or absolute, just even looking at growing up in poverty and the united stated has poor consequences. children in poor families have adolescent and adult outcomes in children born into nonpoor families. the chronic stress of poverty actually alters early brain development in ways that impede future success. harry halter estimates the economic cost of child poverty of more than $500 billion. we cannot be ok with with a temporary assistance for needy families program that doesn't reach seven out of 10 poor families and doesn't effectively assist them in getting on their feet. i just want to talk recently

with some ideas about what we should be doing. i started to review this earlier. the next changes to our safety net and to recognize the changing nature of work, the unstable, unpredictable major low-wage work where people get a call to say come into work now. we don't need you. it is difficult and not unstable environment to have multiple jobs, to have stable childcare or to be going to school are seeking additional training opportunities for pants that. these are real is is real is is as outrageous as is is outrageous is that progressive men contribute to poverty among single and two parent household. people want to work. go back to the quote at the beginning. they give anything to have a stable job that could support their family. we need the policies and job structures to support that. i echo the comments made in the

introduction about the much broader set of issues around criminal justice and education and soap were to support people's desire to work. we also still need a safety net for the times in people's lives when they cannot work or cannot find work. going back to the growing of poor has negative consequences for children. we are punishing their children and the rest of us as well. specific changes for tanf that i would like to see our increased funding, especially during recessions that can be responsive. restructure those incentives to have a balance that incentives focused on work, family economic stability and child well-being. all three of those are. to the beyond to support low income families with the full package of support, tax credits, medicaid, snapped and others

that have been shown to reduce the hardship on those families. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to give two speeches. the first i'm going to stand up in the second one i'm going to criticize it and i regret to inform you that my criticisms are very similar to that or hans criticisms. let me first say that michael did a good job summarizing the background on welfare reform. welfare reform is really a strict set of reforms that were a lot of data at the time. they really did remove the entitlement. they really did impose work requirements. they did analyze people and eventually i think they are keeping people off the rolls they shouldn't. as a result of that, the caseload declined by 60% within

three or four years. nothing like that to my knowledge had ever happened to a federal program. i want to begin by talking -- how do i dance this? i want to begin the results by talking about work. where did they go? there were studies that show 60% to 70% actually had work at some point in the first six months after the welfare reform. let's look at the data for the country as a whole. if you look at the left, the top is males. the next one is all females in the next one is never married females. i would suggest that today they are more like to go on welfare than the other group is more likely to be on welfare considered broadly, not just tanf, but also women who have the baby outside marriage are highly late lee to go on welfare.

that has always been the case and still is today. you can see by looking at the never married women chart there is a huge increase in employment. these are people that actually have jobs. so these moms, partly a result of the reform went out and got jobs only had about a 40% increase in work over a four-year period again. in part as a result, we are not attributed the fall to welfare reform. i think the other two big effects in this economy you may remember that jobs looking for people rather than the other way around. the earned income tax credit and a whole series of benefit that congress over a period of 20 years definitely changed the incentives on welfare. you did that are outside welfare even if you had one of these jobs others talking about because you have the earned income tax credit. he got the additional child tax credit.

they are soft food stamps or you can build a package of benefits to get you to 18,000 or so. a lot of people did that and that's part of why it wasn't just a welfare reform. it was the safety and the lure of getting additional benefit that had such an impact. this tremendous increase in work. what happened to poverty? the bottom line, redline is for all children for black children in children in single-parent families. if are going to have an impact on poverty, we have to on single-parent families, especially those never married because they have by far the highest rates of poverty. if you look at the charred about halfway across, you see a big declined. this differs somewhat from what michael showed you. remember, this is single mothers. so all children, you can see the change in poverty that's much lower than first single mother

families and for black children in part because they're disproportionately single-parent families. you should find in poverty. ironically these families are now morris subject to the winds of the economy than they have been before a unemployment rises as it did in 2001 and the recession and with a vengeance in 2007. that employment goes down. they're like other americans who suffer from not being able to buy jobs. they are going back up again at a slow rate, but we can expect that we have a good economy with jobs available. a lot of mothers who would not have worked before will work. to me this is the single most important impact of welfare reform and other associated fact there's including reforms in federal law that we have permanently changed the share of never married mothers and all single mothers working and it's not likely to change.

now if we look at how the system really works, the chart for you to see it. this is a congressional research service and what it shows is over a period of years and then it in 87, poverty and the stated nature among single mothers, with no government benefit, based on their own ability and earnings and then we have these benefits i was talking about, trying to and so forth and you can see what happens. for a single parent family, the rate is 48% and as we had were a benefit that comes down step by step, coming down to 24%. that is a huge impact on poverty. i think we are actually playing a actually playing the role of the increase in work rates that i showed you in the previous five. so that part of the system i

would argue is the single most important to reduce poverty. social security reduces poverty more, but we give money away. we are never going to do that with prime age working adults. if states can get low income, even these jobs that paid $10 an hour, unless they have a lot of kids, they can escape poverty and despair where they could advance themselves in the american economy. it could be better. we could improve it, but it's pretty good. i paid a big role in welfare reform and we are raising for the states. after the second detail, the states really paid welfare reform and got it back in place and never happened with the governors were intimately involved that we all thought what brand were great.

i think it has turned out to be mixed. one of the things i think we have to do is first of all republicans have got to say we won this. it is a great reform but it's 20 years later. now we need to change things. one thing they needed changes state flexibility. states are not doing what they thought they should and they are not doing what they were doing earlier. so spread the money all over the place. there's good data from the center and policy priorities. we need to tighten up on the states. i doubt republicans are willing to do that, then i think we need to do that because it's going to be the democracy. they shouldn't play games and trick, in effect, the rules of welfare reform. they should be forced, which now turns out to be necessary to try to help people get off welfare. this brings the second problem. i do think there's a problem at the bottom. there's too many families in deep poverty.

too many mothers were not able to hold a job and raise their kids at the same time. i was a single parent for many years and i can tell you it's a challenging thing to do if you have a lousy education and i've never had financial support from family. we need to help the group at the bottom and we are not doing it. we are just letting them be poured and in some cases deeply poured. we could do a lot more to improve that, but the states are not going to be able to do it. the bottom line here is i think we need to go back to a lot more waivers. as for recount welfare reform in the first place. order through waivers at the time we pass the welfare reform bill and almost all of them have to do with work and limiting family size through birth control and other measures. we need to go back to that. we need to states exploring ways to help these families. we also need a lot more work on how to help them advance in the economy as heather pointed out.

i think in summary of welfare reform has been a waste a half success. maybe a little more than that because i think it's an amazing thing to change the likelihood that a whole demographic will work and that sets up all kinds of possibilities for the future. the way it's being run now, i do not and we can a successful at this point. we need to make changes. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. first of all, i want to thank the cato institute for inviting me to speak today. it is truly not to be on a panel alongside scholars with such respect it high detailed work on this issue and even the design of the law were discussing.

i'm both flattered and intimidated. i am not a think tank scholar. in the journal soon as enough about the statistics to get himself in trouble. i'd like to begin by discussing a simple analysis that illustrates two basic truths about what happened after welfare reform. the first truth is one discussed when welfare benefit contingent on work, a lot of a lot of people thought were confounded. it focuses on the democrat most affected by the law and their poverty rate against the nationwide unemployment rate to see the effect of the economy. it doesn't include things like food stamps or help an offense, both of which have risen over the past two decades. it doesn't include tax credits, the earned income tax credit that took effect and was similarly designed to encourage work. it does include cash welfare which is the reform cut and even

by this measure these kids are better off after the law than before it included in the wake of the great recession. the poster form fell below the previous thread here is almost categorically. before welfare reform passed, critics had horrible kids to be thrown into poverty when the opposite happened, was just the economy. two recessions later that doesn't seem to be the case either. still many poor children in this country. welfare reform made it better, not worse. major changes to the safety net and the boosted earned income tax credit succeeded in moving from welfare to work. having a job comes up with some expenses and challenges of horse but the first step is a middle-class and welfare reform house people take it. the success is something we can't forget us to consider newer and more nuanced allegations that the reform. speaking of those allegations, here's another chart almost identical except the poverty

threshold is divided by 10. these folks would still be at or below the poverty line if they had 10 times as much income as they do. you might call that extreme poverty. after the law there was a sharp increase in kids living in families that reported very little income and became became even worse with recession. in some ways these results are unambiguous and unsurprising. the reforms were designed as a carrot and stick approach with those who work to receive additional aid of those who didn't work were cut off from cash welfare. it's hardly shocking some people got the stick and the number of people above the poverty line. one of the leading researchers in this area but it mustn't think we had 2014 speech. transfers fell than rose for the better. in other ways we are and territory here. people who claim to live on virtually no cash or not i was telling the truth. for another, my simple analysis

using the poverty measure doesn't include cash benefits like food stamps. this means we have to dig deeper into the picture we uncover is a very clear at all. there is one thing everyone agrees on, that the situation that letter when you correct data to uncover non-cash benefits and underreporting. they don't agree how much better. to pick one example from the left of the center on budget and policy priorities recently reported incomes fell to single mother families and did so immediately and dramatically after welfare reform. in 2005 about $2000 in cash benefits in $250 in food stamps but the private income tax credit and other programs replacing only $700 of the loss. increasing food can't benefits health rebound after that but only partially. here's a striking sharp in that report. the drought between 1996 and 1997 with a single mother

families. and another paper, scott winship who will speak on the panel are deceived in the very poorest might be at all. obviously the details to him. for now, suffice it to say a lot depends on how you process data including adjusting for inflation and putting a dollar value on things like health benefits. researchers don't even agree on whether help and if it should be counted at all. the income data altogether, some prefer to look at the consumption higher than the bottom. a new report out today focusing on this approach. extreme poverty on this measures. we can look at indicators of hunger which roaster in the great recession. so that's a lot of puzzle pieces and they don't all fit together. at a minimum i feel comfortable saying two things. welfare reform helps a lot of people and there's no use pretending otherwise. the new analysis, nine tenths of single mother families are

better off a decade, most of them significantly so. the very poorest families have less cash than they used to, even if other benefits make up a different and even if they have more cash than their days. this is an unavoidable consequence and cut enough cash assistance and a problem in itself. i scattered them at schaeffer document in the book, it's hard to get by when you're benefits and things like food or housing. it's tough to look for a job or make or buy clothes. the panel after this will focus on where we go from here but i would like to briefly lay out this experience. the biggest lesson is the safety net can succeed. we've made important progress against poverty and any future reform should be made as deserving the progress. there's also a lesson here for conservatives who would like to charge both in the head and apply the ideas of welfare reform to other programs as well. specifically they must grapple

with the fact those other programs help keep a lid on extreme poverty with cash dried out. changing other programs that increase the incentive to give jobs even further than address the fact the work requirements have been guided in some programs. they could severely punish those who don't find work whatever the reason. the states themselves provide a way for nonworking recipients to provide terrific benefit. early proposals for welfare reform actually the government provided jobs. the state of maine is trying other the food stamp program. they should keep an eye on the experiments. yet another less than nice that it rained inside cash matters even when other benefits are available. this brings up a phony question of how to give more cash to the poor without re-creating the work incentives 20 years ago. there were three ways to do this that warrants our attention. first we can make sure tenet is doing its job.

i will second the point that heather holland made rather than repeating them. second, we can rethink the rest of the safety net. they make a lot of money available to the poor and the condition they spend it the way we want them to. .. right now but with up to $1000 per child but it is not available to the poor spares

because it is a fully fundable. i suggest changing the. other conservatives have made similar proposals in just last week to liberal think tanks, the center for american progress and the center on budget and policy priorities released reports doing the same. a nice thing about the child tax credit is it the middle class already gets it so don't have to do with the difficult issue of phasing it out as people earn more money. to address concerns the credit itself would discourage work or encouraged nonmarital childbearing, other benefits like food stamps could be cut back to compensate. the idea is to keep families out of extreme already. is not to undo what we've accomplished. thank you for coming this way out forward to any questions. [applause] >> good morning. i want to start off by thanking michael tan and the cato

institute for inviting me to this event. is a pleasure to be on the panel with why colleagues. i want to preface my remarks, when welfare reform passed, admittedly no one cared what i thought about policy but i was opposed and was with the daniel patrick moynihan done thought this would be a disaster. in my research and that of others have led me to believe otherwise. i've personally spent a lot more money on poor people than we currently do. it would populate folks at cato blush. the reason i'm telling you, practicing my remarks is i'm going to tell a story hopefully will convention this conventional wisdom that we have that most people were helped by welfare reform but there was a group at the bottom that was hurt. there's much less to that argument that i think people believe these days. before moving on i want to acknowledge because i think welfare reform has been such a

success, it's worth acknowledging, ron haskins is one of the architects of this bill. i think ron has probably done more than, very few people in the world could've done us much to reduce child poverty in the united states as wrong hands, so congratulations to run, i would say. because i'm worried about being able to get to office in my time i'm basically going to blow through a couple slides, and the basic sop that welfare reform reduce dependence on cash welfare, increased work among single mothers, it reduce child poverty by leaving the child poverty at or near historic lows and, therefore, welfare reform lessons should be extended to other safety net programs and be accompanied by other strategies to promote among kids as michael tested. i speak in charge, for better, for worse.

so welfare reform reduced dependence on cash welfare. this is a chart i updated from a paper i did with christopher in 2004. what you cink's between 1960-2014 the number of families getting cash welfare expressed per 100 single mother families. what you see is just this dramatic unprecedented decline that starts in 1995. in the chart you can see where state waivers began in 1993. just an unprecedented kline in the welfare rolls. how much of that was due to welfare reform versus other things? the literature is posted to based on regression models and on some level we will never know but the literature implies the combination of welfare reform and declining real welfare benefits which is part of

welfare reform, they could have the clock rate increases every year. that combination is about as important or more important than the earned income tax credit. in both probably more important than the labor market over time. a few charts on welfare reform and how it affected work among single mothers. some of us will be repetitive. in this chart the top line shows the percentage of single mothers who work at anytime during the year. you can see that it rose starting in 1993. it peaks in 2000, false thereafter but remains above the pre-reform levels. similarly, donna has found employment among single mothers without a high school diploma increased from about 45% in 1991

to 65% in 1999. anthen it fell but it still 55%n 2012. so it rose in that state higher. to be clear that doesn't mean that when welfare reform did is make states to all these clever, creative things to make their families more employable. the main thing that i did was a convinced a lot of people not to apply for welfare in the first place and to try to find work instead totally on their own volition because they could see the writing on the wall. i do think one weakness with the current reform, or the current law, is that it hasn't been that innovative in terms of helping people build their skills. on the other hand, you don't need that to reduce poverty. it turns out a lot of people were employable. this was a big debate when the bill passed. i think what's the scene since is there were jobs out there and a lot of people were able to

take and benefit from that. a couple more charts on work. this is from heather boushey. look at the green line first which is the trend in work for unmarried women with children. you can see clear that increased in the '90s followed by smaller decline, compare that against the blue line and single women without children. the future line is married women without children, and even among married mothers, this one at the bottom, you can see prices before reform and plateaus. pretty good evidence that the policy changes in the nights in commendation really causally caused work to increase. against the literature on this, how much welfare reform, broadly speaking the combination, the earned income tax credit as joe found to be the most important factor in increasing work.

and the combination of welfare reform and declining real benefits about as important as is the strengthening of the labor market during the 1990s. finally this is a chart i think ron updated in his presentation but it shows you there was a bigger boost among never married mothers around the same period. now i'm getting into self-promotion as part of making my case. a paper came out today called poverty after welfare reform basically what i'm looking at poverty trends over time, different parts of the income distribution. starting out with a child poverty, i think this is probably the most controversial, the most uncontroversial part of the story. you have heard from other people, even if you look at the redline by the official measure of cash in, welfare reform, child poverty is lower today

than it was in 1996. what i do in the paper is to make various improvements to this measure. people in july and as non-cash benefits, mostly food stands but also includes housing subsidies, school lunches and breakfasts, energy subsidies. that lowers the levels more. it makes the trend look on the worst. the third line as taxes, and it is adding income for this group for the most part because of refundable tax credit like the earned income tax credit. the blue line combines cohabiting couples if the official measure basically treats married couples as one unit, combines to income, takes into account the family is realizing savings by living together but it doesn't do that with cohabiting couples. co-habitation has risen over time and you can see what happens to poverty there.

the fourth line, that shows the child poverty in 2014 what as a historic low. not just lower the 1996. lower than it has ever been before. i spent a lot of time in the paper devote specific indices to arguing my case, but even if you don't buy my case, line four indicates the child poverty is lower than it's ever been. the next line, but remind uses a better inflation adjustment than what's used in the official measure. that's a very controversial point. everyone will be using the one i use which is called the personal consumption expenditures but later. read appendix if you are inclined to disagree your finally the purple line adds health benefits. is for some reason was also controversial. i would agree that how you

valley health benefits is not entirely clear. but it is entirely clear that health benefits have out due to poor people otherwise we would not have medicaid. we would not have expanded health insurance so much over the last 20 years. what i did was to take basically the amount that employers or the federal government spends on these benefits per family and take a 75% discount from the. that's about 200 bucks a month to families who have those health benefits. you can see what happens. the trend keeps going down to this last line corrects for the fact that income is underreported in household surveys. partially correct. the cracks the that government benefits are unreported. it doesn't correct for the fact that earnings and other private sources of income are underreported. this incident being a huge deal. caffeine who is a scholar i recommend -- cathy eat and -- a

book that basically showed that women on cash flow for assistance could not get by on that money alone. the way they made things, is that other sources they generally would not have reported to household surveys, to government officials. in fact, that extra money that the catholic would not have reported was, would've raised income about 40% more than their income with footsteps and housing benefits included in. so in some ways you can think of this final line ought to be even lower. by that the decline in poverty should be steeper i think is an open question but that might only partly corrects for this problem. quickly on this chart. this is just to show you, i'm not selling you snake oil. the top three lines are from estimates from the congressional research service, in from

economists bruce meyer and jane sullivan. you can see those lines wind up really well even though they measure poverty differently. the green line is also from meyer and sullivan. this is unique because they are looking at consumption rather than income. they argued convincingly that i devote a couple of appendices to this, that income is underreported and surveys. consumption is less of an issue for consumption. they find a steeper drop in poverty with this green line. that orange line is the final line that i show you here, line seven. you can see it lines up very well with their measure the impact there is drops a little more suggesting if you correct it for all underreporting of income, you see even better trend down i shall. and also there's a line in there, i thought there was a

line from -- okay, so moving on. now we are in deep child poverty. deep poverty is being under half of the poverty line. it's a group anymore hardship. and a is more controversy at ths point about whether that has risen or declined. the basic message i want to give his whatever changes they're event have been very spoke to if you look at the purple line which combines all of my improvements, then deep poverty among kids was lower in 2013 than it was in 1996. it matches up a bit in 2014 to still more than 1995 and 1997. basically the real take-home is that very few children, thankfully, are in deep poverty. by number seven clicks are partially corrects for this underreporting. it finds the center on budget and policy priorities was the first i think identify this, the trend looks a little worse a

we're talking about an increase of 1.1% in 1996 where that line is to 1.7% in 2012. income has grown since then. and guessing the line would look better if we had more up-to-date numbers. can't guarantee. the basic story is there hasn't been much change over time. we saw the huge declines in overall child poverty. we've got this great development along with what looks to be like not much harm done. and then finally this is a chart that shows the share of kids living in 2-dollar a day poverty. this was the claim in the book by kathy eden and luke schafer, the number of kids living on $2 a day have increased over time. as you can see first of all, if you look out at the purple line, a little more volatility because there are fewer people in the sample. but again the 2013 line about the same as 1996 your ago 72014.

i'm not sure how serious that is. you can take it seriously but it's not much change. what's more important when you correct for underreporting of benefit you get these lines at the bottom that basically show you that no kid lives on $2 a day in the trinity is there any household survey picked to our homeless children generally do not show up in these surveys. and we don't know what the trent end homelessness is the i devote some time in my paper to that as well. essentially in 2012, one in 1500 children were living in extreme poverty. this doesn't include corrections for underreporting of private income. the other point i want to make, they make a big deal about cash being different than non-cash benefits. which is an important point in some regards but even if you believe that rea red light is oa true, which you should not, that

ride started in the 1970s, right? so to blame welfare reform on this is not quite clear that we had to be doing that. it also increases among groups that were unaffected by welfare reform such as the elderly, childless households, married college graduates saw a rise in $2 a day poverty if you believe the numbers. my basic message is you should not believe those numbers. i'm going to end there. up there. my time is a. i can talk more about changes in the lessons from reform in qa when we get to that. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to each of our guests for the enlightened commentary on welfare reform and the result of welfare reform. we are going to move into a q&a period now. some going to start us off. i was said by some of the

research that scott showed us and went through some of those lives. one of the questions that i may be for scott and also for others on the panel is how much of what we see in the differences, some of the poverty measures such as unemployment or caseload are actually due to welfare reform? when we look at some of these surveys how much of them are due to underlying factors which are moving some of those variables around? i would love for scott to weigh in and then anyone else who's interested. >> so i think we have a better sense of how much during the '90s was due to reform versus due to the economy. i think research that i cited was that essentially in the reform itself combined with the decline in real benefits, as well for became less valuable, fewer people got on it. together was at least as important as the expansion of

the earned income tax credit, both were more important than to the decline of the and unemployment rate during that period. since then i don't think at least i don't know of a lot of research that tried to distance between those different strands. the percent of single moms receiving tanf has declined steadily, even after 2000 when the economy was doing well, when it was not doing well. so that suggests that probably the reforms have played a pretty big role. >> great, thank you. ron and heather, is there anything where missing in this picture as we look at some of the sort of poverty indicators are moving? are the other components or motivators that we're not talking about here today which are influencing those things? >> i think when we look at the charts that show, if you look at cash income, this is the poverty level, adding these benefits

come it's a lower level. i think what this shows is government programs are working. when you add those things you fewer and fewer people who are poor. when you get down to the very bottom and you are looking at the families who are supposedly living on $2 a day, less than $2 a day, and you really can't survive on the and there are these unreported sources of income, i think we have to think about what that really means. if someone is selling plasma, if someone is selling sex, if they're doubling up with families, that doesn't mean they are okay. it doesn't mean that they are not poor. spent thank you. appreciative. we're going to move into an audience q&a now. so if you have a question please erasure and i will call on you and wait for the microphone. please keep your questions nice and concise. and also in them with a question

mark. thank you. start on the left. in the middle. >> thank you. is it on? i just wanted to ask you kind of a reverse of the same question i asked michael tanner before. afdc was ended because, when we on the other it wasn't working. now we have tanf and a bunch of other programs, and kind programs. we also have the eitc of course, providing for the poor, the low income families. if these programs are still aimed at eliminating poverty, d.c. -- do you see a punctuation mark for these programs or you

see them as a perennial part of our economy? and before i leave that question, what i would like you to do, if you see this as a perennial, a permanent institution, are there other ways to provide this? in other words, is there another way to provide income redistribution through these programs? and you. >> -- thank you. >> i think it's pretty clear as a society we have chosen non-cash benefits and tax credits for the working poor as the way that we want to try to reduce and prevent poverty in the united states. that's probably not going away anytime soon.

i think robert's point about why not just give everybody cash is attractive in a lot of ways. the concern and the reason why we don't do that is policymakers are concerned about what people will ask we spend the money on. but, i mean, if you think people know best what they need, then giving them cash instead makes a lot of sense but it also makes poverty statistics a lot easier to interpret. so for that reason alone i might be interested in experimenting with it. >> i think there's a danger though and emphasizing cash too much because it's easy to count. americans can see it, and they will see how big the welfare state is much clearer than in another current system. it's much easier to say we need to give food to babies and health of their babies in housing and so forth. i think over time if we converted more of those the

cash, total spending would probably fall. i bet there are people in this room who think that's a good idea because it has an increased so dramatically over time. but i think it would be a consequence of the. i still think the key is to get as many people in possible to work. i don't think, think of it this way. in 1996 when we passed welfare reform, you take all the people in poverty who were not on the disability program, and even some of those, and to a lot of people in there. this was the essence of the debate. to a lot of people who could support themselves. you needed to change the system to get them to do it. that's what welfare reform did. as scots chart shows, my shows, congressional research service, work is up, poverty is down to that's the headline. the question is how do we get more people out of that group? it's a much smaller group now. you think logically more people with problems, barriers to employment, not necessary

disabilities but depressed, poor transportation, and that is the part that government could will help. that is what i think we need to have more waivers by the states to give them a chance to explore other ways that they can do it. and i think we ought to strong requirements in the other welfare programs. >> right there in the back. in the middle. >> to what extent have people simply moved from tanf to social security disability, which i understand has caught up 10 times in like over the last decade? >> i think the question is, how much our individual substituting other programs for tanf? >> well, no, it's especially

ssi. and it's true. and i know for a fact, talk to a number in the states that they make a bigger effort than they did in the past to get people on ssi. if people whose welfare and are dependent come to try to get them on ssi because the benefit is 100% federal, although many states supplement the benefit. that's the motivation. if you look at the ssi rolls, they have grown over time, not by factor of 10 but they've havn over time. if you look at health surveys, there's almost no evidence that americans are less healthy, the have more disabilities are more days where they can't work and so forth. this is entirely something generated by the way we do the program. a lot of people want to change. however, markets, we had a golden chance last year because the program was running out of money. congress had to do something. what a great opportunity to come at the very least, try experiments with helping these people were, just like welfare reform.

insteainstead of doing to do jue way out of the social security trust fund and put it into ssi trust fund. that's the congressional solution to the problem. a lot of people feel sorry for disabled people and they forget the issue whether they really are disabled. that's the point that many people are making. we have too many people on disability rolls who are not truly disabled. >> i think this does get to be an important point of the incentives and the differences in the incentives and those programs. if there are people who are truly disabled and unable to work then it isn't appropriate for them to be in tanf long-term. that is a short-term program that's supposed up and get work. if you're not going to be able to, then they should be on disability. but at the same time work can be very valuable even for someone who is disabled but is still not completely disabled to the extent of the ability working can be useful for the. i think when we have these

really clear lines between if you're on candid you must work and if you on ssi you can't work. that doesn't fit the reality of the range of disabilities in the range of mobility's. >> right here in the front. >> thank you. nick farmer. could you speak to the issue or the impact of technology on job availability ask the controversy now where people believe that technology will perhaps dramatic reduce number of jobs available, and how well welfare reform or whatever technique you want to use applied in a context where there may not be jobs available for people who truly want to work? >> i think first of all it's important to recognize that the argument that there's weak demand for labor out that is exactly argument that i and

people who are opposed to the welfare reform bill in 1996 made. the idea was, you know, these folks all want to work but the economy is in producing jobs. it's going to be a disaster. i think that was shown not to be true. there's a lot of debate about technological employment and whether technological change is really going to reduce employment in the future. but to the extent that it does, it's going to do so because it's going to make things cheaper. so everything that we buy will become a lot cheaper and, in fact, people will not have to work as much as report today for the same standard of living. a big drop in demand for labor in the future doesn't have to be a lot more unemployment than we have today. it could be a 30 hour work week instead of a 40 hour workweek as the standard. it could be retiring at 55 instead of later. so i think it remains to be seen

but it also doesn't show up in the data in terms of productivity growth. we would like to see more productivity growth than what we have had. >> here on the right. >> nobody has mentioned the underground economy in the discussions that we had writing a book on welfare. we encountered a lot of people who were trading babysitting for car repairs, people over housecleaning in exchange for meals. there's a lot of that going on out there, and wondered if any of the charts, since this income is almost certainly never measured in any of the surveys come if any of the charts take

that into account. because i think there's a lot more of that than plasma selling. people can do quite reasonably well with it under similar circumstances. >> this is one of the reasons that consumption measures, poverty measures based on consumption rather than on earnings or income, are superior in many respects. this is just one of them because if they earned the money, presumably a spin and it is reported in service. and maybe underwear% in survey so you don't get a good measure of it but that's another reason that consumption is a better measure. do you agree? >> absolutely. it's also the case the sort of more severe you get in terms of who you're looking at, severe hardship, a lot of these kind kf ideas breakdown. what is in? i looked into the research showing that, for instance, the number of people who get food stamps and to any other, don't have any cash income, that

that's gone up. again i think the reason to get in the report, there are reasons to question that. if you look at the report from the u.s. department of agriculture, they went and interviewed folks who didn't have any cash income but were getting s.n.a.p. it turns out a lot of them are doing odd jobs. a lot of them are getting non-cash benefits from other programs. it becomes difficult to sort of, if you're asking someone who's at the very bottom to account for all the income they had over the course of a year, the kinds of income that they get our sort of scattered enough that it's difficult to actually account for them. so it's not just that they have steady work and just our lying about it. to some extent the way people at the bottom of the income isn't like the with the rest of us get it.

>> a couple more and then we will wrap up. on the right. >> mr. haskins, when you were talking about the second half of your remarks that tanf was not exactly working out as well as it possibly could have, at the in your blame a lot of that on the states, underperformance. i was just wondering could you be more specific about how states are negatively affecting tanf and what is the motivation for states doing that? iisn't some requirement of the federal government for them to get federal money as opposed to actually solving the question of poverty? >> two points. one, based on actual data which was shown up here, that the states are spending a huge amount of their money on things other than the two most important goals of the welfare reform, which was cash assistance and work. ad hocly reducing cash assistance and increasing work.

and back before welfare reform or in the early days of welfare reform states spent most of their tanf dollars on those two things. now even with a generous economy, d.c. great charts on the center for budget, on the website for the senate and budget policy produce -- >> you can watch the rest of this program on our website at c-span.org we will leave it here and to live better coverage on the legal profession's role in the country security. today you will be watching have on homeland security in the private sector and the will of the military in homeland security. this is just getting underway. >> one of the vice chairs of the program this year. we are going to get right into the program. i know we are sort of suffering from the second day melt of trying to get people here after a lively cocktail hour last night. feel free to get your coffee and get settled. it's my honor to welcome our next two guests, two of my

mentors and friends who helped me. there's not to find a public servants in my mind in the next few people you are about to meet and hear from. jim mcpherson, admiral jim mcpherson is joining us today. he is executive director of the national association of attorneys general. so he has 52 bosses around the country. jim was the judge advocate general of the navy and is the immediate past chair of the standing committee on law and national security, one of our partner friends at the aba. and i just don't think there's a better person in the world than jimmy dickerson. he's been a kind friend, a mentor, exactly the kind of person we need leading our country. he continues to do that. now at the state level but he will talk about the standing committee and our work together.

and then introduce our own homeland security rockstar undersecretary spalding. please welcome admiral jim mcpherson. [applause] >> good morning and thanks, josh, for the very gracious introduction. some of you already know, and everyone will eventually learn that when you have spent over six decades occupy space on this earth you take on a variety of roles. or put another way, you were at the right of hats. i'm going to be very brief this morning and explained the three different hats that i wear. first as past year as josh mentioned and truly special advisor to the american bar association standing committee on law and action national studm the standing committee celebrate its 54th estate or anniversary founded by the aba president and later supreme court justice lewis powell in chicago lawyer

more relief than. than. the committee focuses on aspects of national security issues, committee conducts studies, sponsored programs and conferences and events its working groups highlighting the intersection between law and national security. on behalf of our current chair, jamie baker, former chief judge of the court of appeals for the armed forces it is the committees on a and pleasure to serve as a cosponsor of this institute. shifting hats as josh mentioned my day job is executive at the national association of attorneys general. the professional association of the states territorial and says the writer, addition of columbia, attorneys general. we are working on the acronym is over 100 years old and serves as a forum for the exchange of knowledge come expenses and insights on issues of importance to the state's attorney general. on behalf of our current president, attorney general of connecticut it is also our honor and privilege to also be a

sponsor of this institute. and now why i am really here and the most pleasurable part of my morning is to introduce our first speaker of the day. there are only a handful of real subject matter experts that occupy this space often called national security law. those whose education, knowledge and experience spans the very wide spectrum of what is included in that brought topic category with it the intelligence, counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cyber related issues, natural or man-made disasters or the wide-ranging subjects and issues she addresses daily at the department of homeland security, undersecretary spaulding is one of those few. just certain political position on both sides of the aisle and has a hard earned and well-deserved reputation for cutting through the politics and crafting solutions to complex problems that shape the future of our nation. her professional career is a testament to her personal commitment to a lifestyle of

service. on a very personal, i was very fortunate when i first met undersecretary spaulding several years ago, and she saw something sparked in me and they can both my mentor and my friend. like so many others i'm a better attorney and a better person because of her. please join me in welcoming the undersecretary national protection and programs directorate at the department of homeland security the honorable suzanne spaulding. [applause] >> jim, thank you so much for the really very touching introduction. and thank you for your many years of outstanding service as a public servant and fulfilling summit of the important roles that lawyers fulfill in this area, particularly of intersection of law and national security.

and your outstanding leadership for number of years of the standing committee on law and national security. really great to see you this morning and honored to be introduced by you. joe, congratulations. 11th annual homeland security flaw institute. it's hard to imagine. i remember fondly the very first. it's really terrific achievement. i remember that were not very many homeland security lawyers back in the day, and now there are quite a few. and your institute has helped to train them and to make sure that we have a fellowship in the networking that is so important in developing of really important field of law, so thank you for your leadership on that. and joshua, terrific to see you as always, and thank you for the groundbreaking work that you're doing in oklahoma, in making sure that the expertise and the knowledge and insights don't

just do in washington or come from washington, but, in fact, draw on the entire country. and the work that you're doing at langston university to help train the next generation of national security lawyers and our cyber pipeline or so thank you for that. and one of my greatest honors his having been invited to give the presidential address at langston university. i was made an honorary langston lion, and very proud of that, so thank you, joshua. and thanks to all of you for being here today and for your participation in this institute. again, i think wrote the important conversations that happen and important commitment that you are making to this growing field of law. jim talked about his time on the standing committee on law and national security. when i found out the was going to introduce me it did get me to

thinking about when i took over as chair of the standing committee on law and national security. i was scheduled to have my first meeting with our outstanding staff director, holly mcmahon, who i think many of you know. at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of september 11, 2001. and as i was getting ready to head down to the aba building next to the white house, of course watched what unfolded in the news that morning. and what happened in unfolded over the coming days and weeks was amazing reminder to me of the incredibly important role that lawyers play in this country, particularly in times of crisis. the lawyers all came together within two weeks of 9/11. i remember it was september 28,

what is usually a monthly breakfast with the speaker was that month just a coming together of lawyers who practiced, who are interested in national security law, to talk about the important role that law would play in the coming weeks and months following the attack. but lawyers are deployed that important role as counselors, as advocates, as educators, and as leaders in your community. and at dhs, particularly of the national protection programs directorate which i the great honor to lead, i am extremely grateful for the lawyers that i have. a terrific group led by dan sutherland who again many of you know and have been very involved with this homeland security law institute over the years. tremendous lawyer and has put together a tremendous team.

also jamie was the head of my privacy office and critically important member of our team. between the two of them and their team, they are a critical part of maintaining that trust with all of our stakeholders that is absolutelabsolutel y essential to our account pushing our mission. and there will has never been more important because that mission has never been more important than it is now. we look at the terror threat. we've made a lot of progress since that morning of september 11. much harder today for terrorists to perpetrate a large-scale attack of the kind we saw that morning. but we are now, of course, seen the rise and the growth of smaller attacks. we used to talk about terrorist directed attacks.

they would talk about terrorist inspired. increase in i think we are seeing something that you might call it terrorist justified attacks. but these are much smaller attacks that can come out of nowhere. so they are much harder to detect and present a significant challenge. we also recognize that nppd that these threats are increasingly globalized. and it requires that we make sure we have a robust regional effort. and so at him ppd we are moving resources from headquarters into our regions. we are strengthening our presence and our support on the ground close to the communities all across the country are facing this threat. so that's a big part of what's happening at the national protection and programs directorate right now to address

the nature of this threat. at the departmental level, the secretaries established the office of community partnership which is focused on counting violent extremism. congress has given us authority to establish a grant program, starting small with a $10 million fund, to help fund efforts across the country by communities, in ways that we can help give them a megaphone to amplify their messages. the voices, the authentic messages for counting violent extremism are going to come from communities all across this country. and the role that we can probably best way is to simply help give them a megaphone for the message to be heard. and nppd our goal is to help communities focus on the ways in which they can be more secure and resilient.

and so we work for our protected security advisers who are deployed across the country, who work directly with particularly our critical infrastructure owners and operators. and that critical infrastructure includes commercial facilities. so all those venues where the public county gathered, shopping malls, movie theaters, sports stadiums, et cetera. our psas are out there everyday working with those folks to help them understand their vulnerabilities and the ways in which they can mitigate those vulnerabilities to provide situational awareness of the threat environment in which they face. and so we have developed ways to be able to share classified information. we work every day to get information be classified so that it can be shared as widely as possible with all those who can make good use of it to help protect this nation. but if we're classified information, we have cleared

private sector experts who come in under able to look at the classified intelligence. we tell them look, here's what we've got, his will we see any. what do you see? what are we missing? bring your expertise in particular insights in this. and most importantly, help us craft unclassified alerts and mitigation measures that can go out again broadly across critical infrastructure. they can help us identify what's really actionable in the classified information. what do we need to go back to the intelligence community and say we need to be classified so that we can make it available to those who need it to help keep us safe and secure. one of the most important things that we do both at the regional level and at the national level working through the sector coordinating council for each of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors is to help them understand consequences. of events. that is to help them understand

their interdependency and the possibility of cascading consequences. and that is a unique analytic capability that we bring to bear that we are able to do in collaboration with the private sector so that they can help prioritize their efforts. we provide situational awareness through those intelligence calls and the alerts and advisories. any time of heightened threat environment or a post-incident we will rapidly pull together the sectors, are private sector colleagues, or calls to share with each other what they are seeing, what their doing, the best practices, ways in which they are responding to and understanding the heightened threat environment of the incident that just occurred, and to find out what we can do what they need from us. and that now happens as a matter of course. we traditionally have put out information to state and local law enforcement.

it is now increasingly routine that when those alerts got to stay of local law enforcement, information is also going out to the private sector. a growing recognition that they are true partners in that national security effort. we do campaigns off across the country about significant issues. so in following the attack on an electricity substation a couple years ago in california, the metcalfe attack which combined cyber and physical, or communications and physical, we did a campaign all across the country to make sure that the utility, electric utility companies across the country understood what had happened, to shoshare the best practices that were derived from that event, and to help make sure that we strengthen the security and resilience of those key part of our electric grid. following the nairobi shooting and the shopping mall we did a campaign across the country to enhance the security and resilience of shopping malls all

across this country. that has continued with training exercises and regular interaction. following the, particularly the attacks in paris, we recognized that the great work that we were doing all across the country with critical infrastructure owners and operators and commercial facilities, we could perhaps taylor more effectively for smaller venues. the cafés, the smaller venues like the 930 club across the country. and so we went back to our mitigation measures in the work we are doing and we said how do we taylor this for small entities in this is that don't have those big robust security operations, right? and so we develop the homeland security, hometown security initiative, and we develop

handouts. connect, plan, train and report, to encourage those entities, to make sure that they connect not only with the federal resources that we can bring to their disposal, which is at our national infrastructure coordinating center, but connect with those public safety folks in their own community. and so this hand that was developed in large part to get to state and local law enforcement to put their contact information on the back and walk the beat and handed out to those small venues. so the first contact is not when an incident happens, right, but to connect with those resources, to build plans for both preventing, detecting and responding to security incidents, to then train their folks, whether it's the bouncer, the ushers, who ever it might be who you are counting on, make

sure that they understand your plan and that they are trained and that they know where to report. so those are examples of the kind of work primarily our office of infrastructure protection undertakes everyday to respond to that security environment. and the office of emergency communications makes sure working with those public safety folks all across this country, that they have resilient and interoperable communications to be the most effective response, to bring the most effective response to bear that they can't the that includes training such as the trend they did prior to the boston marathon, around the boston marathon back in 2010, the training that was used in with a we seize assistance to get grants to improve their team editions which made a major difference in favor lives. on the day of the boston marathon bombing. our federal protective service is responsible for want of those key critical infrastructure

sectors which is federal facilities. they are responsible for collecting over 9000 their facilities all across the country every single day. they assess the security, stand guard and protect those facilities. increasingly, they, too, have found that that security can't be just focus on physical security increasingly they have to bring cyber into the assessment and into the protection activities at these facilities. a lot of the access controls, the surveillance cameras that they rely upon for security our increasingly networked which presents a form ability, right? the adversary can get into the systems and use them for their purposes. in addition if they're not making sure there's good physical security access controls to that server room, and the potential for disruption in the cyber or i.t., information technology and communications network, is also

heightened. the same is true across all of our 16 critical infrastructure sectors. the cyberthreat to the sectors and to their functionality grows every single day. you only need to read the newspaper. in fact, you only need to open your mailbox, particularly for many of the people in this room. you have gotten of those letters. whether it's because of the opium breach or where you shop, a most of the american now has three credit reporting as a result right, as a result of some cyberintrusion into their information. and so that's a critical mission for the national protection and programs directorate at the lead the efforts to protect civilian.gov and we do that by promulgating best practices, particularly promoting the cybersecurity framework, providing baseline tools, intrusion prevention and detection which we call einstein.

and tools that go into your network and assess the health and well being and security of your network configuration. that continues agnostic and medication. those are private sector tools we make available. and an automated information sharing. automated indicators showing. congress made the nccic on our national cybersecurity and immigration center the central hub for sharing of cyberthreat indicators across the government and back and forth with the private sector. this is an incredibly important initiative that we have launched to make it harder for the adversary to reuse the same stuff over and over again with a different victims. because we are now going to be sharing in real time, machine to machine. so the adversary might be able to get away with something wants but as soon as -- the system of systems that we will establish

an are establishing under this automated information sharing system, as soon as they detect something, it will go out in milliseconds to all of the nodes who will then have the technology in place to alert and prevent the harm them happening to them. this means the adversary is going to have to keep changing. and as we get more and more sophisticated and develop not just to get your base attributes base way someone malicious activity, reputation scoring, et cetera, we will be able to stop things we've never seen before. and that's a key objective and a foreseeable goal that we can reach there and then finally on cyber, we are also first responders. so we come in with these that i government or private sector entity has detected malicious activity and we help them figure out what's going on on their

system, kick the bad guys out and rebuild more securely. the white house just issued presidential policy directive 41, pbd 41, which describes how the government is going to be organized and disorganized to respond to cyber, significant some incident that it describes this role for dhs which we lead, which is asset response of which i just described. and we bring other departments and agencies into that effort as appropriate and decimated here and in the threat response which is now let's figure out who did this and bring them to justice. which the fbi leads. and in the intelligence piece which gives the broader context for that. so ppd 41 long-awaited describes the role of the federal government. key to this really what i couldn't talk to the private sector is to not view these efforts in stovepipes, physical secured over, cybersecurity over

here. as i described the challenge our federal protective service faces and noted that it is faced by infrastructure across the 16 sectors, the electricity sector, for example, they've got to be looking at physical and cyber threats, physical and cyber vulnerabilities, physical and cyber consequences and physical and cyber waste of mitigation. sometimes those are going, you will bounce back and forth on those. you cannot solve the cybersecurity challenge with just your i.t. specialist. ..

>> what mechanical, what operationallal activities do we have that are cyber-dependent, and how would that affect how i do business. so understanding consequences and physical consequences, interdependencies, cascading consequences is a critical part of cybersecurity. it also means as you look at how do i address the risk of a significant cyber incident, that you might be looking not at an ip solution, but at a physical solution, right? you might be looking at putting in a hand crank. you might be looking at having paper backups, right?

you've got to bring, you've got to bring this holistic, physical cyber approach. we are incredibly fortunate that we have both our physical and cyber experts in one organization. and what i am trying to do, some of you may have heard about nppd transition. itit is really just about breakg down that stovepipe e making sure we have true unity of effort and as we approach local governments, private sector, our federal partners, we are bringing that holistic approach to bear in solving their security challenges and understanding their risks and developing effective mitigation. that is at the heart of it. we are an operational component, we are engaged in operational activities. we haven't been recognized as such, that's a second goal. and we have a name that is horrible that no one can remember that tells you nothing. national protection and programs directorate.

so i am on a crusade to change our name to something that tells you what we do. i would like us to be known as the cyber and infrastructure protection agency. for the lawyers in the room, not cipa, cip. we'll be cip. and so, you know, congress is looking at this. the house homeland security committee has passed legislation to authorize the stand-up of a new operational element at dhs. i understand that many of you heard from mary beth schultz yesterday on carper's staff that they, you know, are working closely with us to try to make this happen. and i am optimistic that we are going to get there. it's about bringing a stronger sense of identity, a stronger sense of mission. very important for the department, very important for nppd. i'm going to close by talking about the secretary's effort to

do that for the whole department. in lots of ways, a unity of effort initiative. but one of them, the one i want to leave with you today was the secretary's effort to craft a mission vision statement for the department that was simple, straightforward and that spoke to the identity that has developed across the department, sense of identity over the years of its existence. he started by soliciting ideas from the work force, from all 250,000 employees at the department of homeland security. and he received thousands and thousands of e-mails with suggestions. and he read through a lot of them. and he looked at and paid attention to the words that kept coming up, right? so this was, again, a sense of the work force's own sense of their identity and their sense of the mission. and so the mission statement

that he put out just a couple of months ago reflects that sense of mission and identity with honor and integrity. we safeguard the american people, the homeland and our values. i want to thank all of you for the role that you play every day, as i said, in all of the ways in which you interact with these issues, in helping us accomplish every aspect of that mission. and thank you for inviting me to be here with you today to tell you a little bit about what nppd is doing and the threat environment that we face. thank you. [applause] >> good morning.

we're going to move right to our next panel, and this will be our general counsel's panel, so thank you very very much, suzane spaulding, for your kind remarks, and thank you for your service to our country. we greatly appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this is one of the more dangerous panels of the day, and i am going to be moderating a panel of general counsels, so --

all of whom are very fine lawyers. the materials really outline exactly what we want to touch on in this panel which is the role of the general counsel in the private sector as a interface with dhs. what are their responsibilities in terms of homeland security-related issues in their companies, how they deal with their boards of directors in their companies. three of the companies we'll be talking about are publicly traded. how do they balance corporate security and profitability. you could have the most secure corporation in the world but not be profitable because of overreaching security apparatuses that could affect your company's profitability. i'm going to introduce panelists in the order that they appear on my left here. angie chen is the chief cleans officer at siemens government

technologies. angie before that was chief compliance offerer is at mare net marine, and she did serve as deputy associate general counsel at nsa, so we're delighted to have you with us, angie, thank you for being here today. and to angie's left is sheila cheston who is the general counsel of northrup grumman, and prior to that she was general counsel at ba systems. she earlier in her career served as a partner with willmer cutler. he should be -- at least he's closer to my right, but the next person is ira mapleton who is the former general come of a few days ago -- general counsel of a few days ago nevada -- the before that general counsel of, he has a long and distinguished career of service in the department of justice where i

used to take his instructions when i worked for him. occasionally las vegas sands, ira continued to direct me, so today is a great opportunity, ira, for me to get back at you. and at the end of our panel is chris graham who is a colleague and friend from atlanta. and chris leads the compliance safety and investigations group at georgia pacific. he previously was general counsel for invista, also with koch industries in wichita. he was a partner earlier in his career with hunt and williams. this panel has spent some time thinking over how we might address the hour or so we have with you this morning, and we'll leave some time for questions and answers. i did learn that sheila has to leave us to go catch an airplane at 10:00, so if she gets up,

it's not a protest, it's just that she has to get away to take care of her duties. so i want to thank them for taking time out of their schedules to be here. but just a word or two about when i was general counsel at homeland security, one of my main missions, i felt, was reaching out to those general counsels who were in the private sector to talk with them and work with them. the organic statute that creates the department of homeland security talks about the private sector. and this was going to be some sort of new enterprise, some sort of new type of cabinet agency that would not seek to overregulate the private sector, but would work with the private sector in a way that would capture the best of government and the best of the private sector in our capitalistic system in the united states. certainly, there are other countries around the world where the two are so incredibly blended, you can't tell where one begins and the other starts -- ends.

and so it's a situation not very different from what you might see in china, for example. so what i thought i'd do this morning is certainly welcome war stories from the panel. sheila, one of the things that i think about, you know, in your role as general counsel at northrup is just sort of your interface that you've had with dhs and some of the thoughts and comments you might have about that for the group. >> is this on? can everyone here me? so thanks, joe. and my apologies for having to step out a little early here. and back when joe was at dhs, he and i used to have lunch together every now and then because of this notion of the importance of the collaboration between the government and the private sector. and in a much earlier life, i was general counsel at the air force and did the same thing with industry.

i really profoundly believe in this notion of a shared mission, and i was pleased to hear the undersecretary just a few minutes ago talk about the true partnership, because i think it is the only way it works. nobody has enough resources to do it on their own, so it is only together that we do it. and i was thinking as i was driving in here this morning, because i had a little bit of a heads up that joe was going to ask me this question, about some of the concrete ways in which perhaps the dhs and industry could collaborate better to progress this shared mission. and if you look around the government, there are all sorts of government/industry working groups that get together to address common issues and to figure outside the context of any particular dispute or procurement, just sort of more generally how we work better together.

and i think there are some opportunities for industry and dhs to do just that that have not yet been realized. and a couple areas, one is in the area of research. if you look at dod, for example, which i know a little better, there are examples where darpa funds, you have got government-funded research and technology development that is of particular interest to the department. and then you've got industry-funded research. and while the industry-funded research is sort of almost necessarily independent, there are conversations and there are dialogues, and there are things like the defense science board, and there are fore rah in which -- fora in which there is conversation to help increase the probability that what research the government is funding and what research the private industry is funding dovetail and complement each