WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–HR06 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–285 2016

WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–HR06 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOYCE MYER, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of July 15, 2015 announcing the hearing ............................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Boyd A. Brown, Jr., J.D., Area Director, Employment and Training, GoodwillEaster Seals Minnesota ....................................................................................... 23 

Grant E. Collins II, Senior Vice President, Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, 

Incorporated, Workforce Development; and Executive Director, WeCARE 

Region II, Fedcap ................................................................................................. 44 

Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Governor’s Office of Management and 

Budget, State of Utah .......................................................................................... 6 

Lieutenant Colonel David Kelly, Program Secretary, The Salvation Army 

National Headquarters ........................................................................................ 16 

LaDonna Pavetti, Ph.D., Vice President for Family Income Support Policy, 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities .............................................................. 36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

AEI ............................................................................................................................ 64 

America Forward ..................................................................................................... 71 

America Works ......................................................................................................... 75 

APHSA ...................................................................................................................... 77 

Bishop Tribal Council .............................................................................................. 84 

CCWRO .................................................................................................................... 86 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ................................................................. 114 

CLASP ...................................................................................................................... 124

CWLA ....................................................................................................................... 134

Equifax ..................................................................................................................... 139 

First Focus ............................................................................................................... 140 

Healthy Relationships California ........................................................................... 144 

Institute for Child Success ...................................................................................... 148 

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute .................................................................... 156 

McDermott Center dba Haymarket Center ........................................................... 163 

National Fatherhood Leaders Group ..................................................................... 166 

National Skills Coalition ......................................................................................... 172 

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ....................................................... 177 

ReadyNation ............................................................................................................. 185 

Social Finance .......................................................................................................... 188 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ................................................. 190 

Western Center on Law and Poverty ..................................................................... 372 

Zeva Longley ............................................................................................................ 382 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
(1) 

WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles Boustany [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Wednesday, July 8, 2015 

No. HR–06 

Chairman Boustany Announces Hearing on 

Welfare Reform Proposals 

Congressman Charles Boustany (R–LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the 

Subcommittee will hold a hearing on welfare reform proposals, specifically involving 

the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 15, 2015, in 1100 

Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:30 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Thursday, July 29, 2015. Finally, please note that due to the change in House 

mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House 

Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call 

(202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit materials 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
3 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at http:// 

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The Subcommittee will come to order. I 

would like to welcome our Members, witnesses, and guests to this 

morning’s hearing on welfare reform re-authorization proposals. 

On April 30th, this Subcommittee held a hearing on ideas to improve TANF to help more families find work and escape poverty. 

We had an excellent panel of witnesses who shared their ideas, and 

since that time Members and staff have been discussing ways that 

we might work together to improve our Nation’s welfare system. 

Today our hearing will focus on specific proposals to improve the 

lives of families on welfare by better promoting work and helping 

families in need move up the economic ladder. Work is the only 

way for people to really escape from poverty and achieve the American Dream, and we are eager to help more families succeed at 

doing just that. 

The Ways and Means Committee discussion draft released last 

Friday is designed to focus on outcomes, helping people get jobs 

and stay employed, and to help more people move from welfare to 

self-sufficiency. In short, this discussion draft revitalizes the work 

requirement for people collecting welfare benefits; provides States 

more options to help people prepare to leave welfare for employment; holds States accountable for getting adults off welfare and 

into jobs; prevents the work requirements from being waived; ends 

the TANF marriage penalty, among other key reforms; and maintains funding for the TANF program going forward. 

I would like to thank Ranking Member Doggett and his staff for 

working with us on this draft. We are doing this the right way, 

holding constructive hearings, working in a bipartisan way on draft 

legislation, and soliciting expert and public comment as the work 

continues. So we will welcome our witnesses’ comments, and we 

will be working together to incorporate that feedback as this legislation progresses. 

I would also like to thank the many Members who have joined 

me in introducing specific bills to improve how the TANF program 

works. Whether it is ensuring more adults on welfare are engaged 

in work and activities, providing additional flexibility so these activities meet people’s specific needs, or just setting a goal of reducing poverty through more employment, those bills are important 

markers of our path to helping families find work, escape poverty, 

and achieve the American Dream. 

We are joined by several additional Members today, including 

Congressman Paulsen and Congressman Renacci, who are former 

Members of this Subcommittee, and we certainly welcome them 

back. And I appreciate everyone’s contributions to this effort. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
4 

So, with that, I would like to now yield to the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, Mr. Doggett, for the purposes of an opening 

statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are 

pleased today to get additional input on the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program, and how it may be reformed. This 

program has limped along over short periods of time for a number 

of years. On Friday afternoon there was a discussion draft issued, 

as the Chairman has indicated, and I think that is what it is, a 

discussion draft that justifies considerably more discussion to see 

how it might achieve the objectives, many of which we share and 

some of which we still have divergent opinions on. 

I think there is a recognition that TANF is more hole than safety 

net at present, and its flaws need to be mended. There should be 

a recognition that, since the Welfare Reform Act of the nineties 

that I voted in favor of, much of the objective of that Act has not 

been fulfilled, and that a significant amount of dollars have essentially been used by the States during the ups and downs of the 

budget, and the economy, to simply use the Federal dollars to supplant what the States were or should have been doing, rather than 

to expand innovative programs and do more to get people into the 

workforce. 

I think that an objective of this bill is not just about work, but 

about opportunity, especially an opportunity to work into the middle class, and that the concept of just finding any dead-end job for 

someone who is currently receiving temporary assistance, rather 

than finding opportunity to work and advance within our society, 

is not where we need to be going. 

Of the provisions that I have reviewed in the discussion draft, I 

think some of the most hopeful are those concerning vocational 

education, secondary education, and job readiness activities, which 

would all be permitted under the TANF work requirements in the 

discussion draft. Those programs are essential to be included, because they do help prepare people for an opportunity up, rather 

than just a subsistence level of participation. 

On the average, the States are only spending about half of the 

funds that they receive today in TANF on core purposes of TANF, 

such as financial assistance, child care, and work assistance. In 

many States, like Texas, that percentage is much lower. While the 

inherently flawed nature of any block grant program is what allows 

this situation to occur, I think we can move TANF forward with 

stronger requirements to achieve more targeted spending. States 

should be spending at least half of their funds on these core purposes. 

I do think that there are some reforms in the discussion draft 

concerning State matching, and the State approach to these funds 

that are constructive, that I support, and I would only like to see 

them enhanced. 

The maximum monthly benefit under the program for a family 

of three now is only 28 percent of the poverty level. In Texas, the 

benefits are less than 20 percent of the poverty level. As children 

across the country face homelessness, not one State in 2014 provided a benefit amount equal to the fair market value of rent in 

that State. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
5 

This is truly a temporary subsistence program. And with these 

deficiencies in mind, I look forward to working with our experts to 

further evaluate if a specific percentage of State spending toward 

financial assistance alone should be required, as well. 

There are some ideas that we have explored in hearings over the 

last year for innovation. One of those is social impact partnership 

projects. I am pleased that we will be hearing about—more about 

the experience of Utah, which has been a leader on social impact 

partnerships. Any way that we can constructively get the involvement of the private sector and of foundations, and can focus on outcomes, I think is constructive. 

I certainly agree with Ms. Cox, in her testimony, that these social impact partnerships, as they relate to the limited amount of 

TANF funds, should only serve actual participants—actual recipients of TANF funds. And I think we need to be cautious in moving 

in this area to be sure that dollars that are essential for providing 

services are not consumed in consultant and lawyer fees to set up 

these new arrangements. 

There is, in short, Mr. Chairman, much that we agree with in 

the discussion draft, but much that remains to be discussed and 

improved if we are to achieve genuine reform in the way this system works. And I look forward to working with you on it. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman, and I would 

agree. I think there is much fertile ground that we can cover to get 

to good reforms, with the objective being moving people up the opportunity ladder into the middle class. So I think—I appreciate the 

spirit of cooperation. 

We have a very distinguished panel here today. I would like to 

introduce our panel, and I want to thank our panel for being here 

today to provide expert testimony. 

First, we have Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Governor’s Office 

of Management and Budget for the State of Utah. Second, Lieutenant Colonel David Kelly, Program Secretary of The Salvation Army 

National Headquarters. Third, at this time I would now yield to the 

gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, to introduce the next witness, Mr. Boyd Brown. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

you also for holding this important hearing, and letting me introduce our next witness. 

Boyd Brown has over 18 years of experience overseeing a wide 

range of programs serving low-income families, individuals with 

disabilities, and ex-offenders. Boyd has extensive program management experience, including oversight of several large-scale TANF 

employment programs in Minnesota’s two largest counties. 

He is currently the Area Director of Employment and Training 

at Goodwill-Easter Seals Minnesota, whose main programs provide 

employment services specifically designed for people with disabilities, disadvantages, and other barriers to work. Last year, Goodwill-Easter Seals provided more than 63,000 services to more than 

35,000 people, helping them find employment and achieve independence. 

Prior to joining Goodwill-Easter Seals in Minnesota, Boyd 

worked for Dakota County and for the State of Minnesota’s ombudsman office for mental health and developmental disabilities, 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
6 

coordinating several different initiatives that led to public policy 

changes in the area of health care and disabilities. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, Boyd’s experience and knowledge will be 

a valuable perspective for this hearing, for the Committee, as it 

looks at ways to reform and improve TANF. I thank Boyd for being 

here, and sharing his perspective, his ideas, and his experience 

with Members of the Committee, and I thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. Next, we have 

LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President for Family Income Support Policy, 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And I am also pleased to— 

I just found out there is a family connection to Lake Arthur, Louisiana, a small town in my district. So glad you are here. 

And last, and certainly not least, Grant Collins, Senior Vice 

President, Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Incorporated, Workforce 

Development, and Executive Director, WeCARE Region II, Fedcap. 

Thank you all for being here. We have your written testimony. 

I would ask you to try to keep your oral remarks to 5 minutes, so 

we can move forward with the question period. 

And with that, Ms. Cox, thank you. You may start with your testimony. 

Ms. COX. And will you give me the warning, because I am blind? 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I sure will. 

Ms. COX. Okay, great. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I will give you a warning at 4 minutes, 

and then you will have a minute to wrap up there. 

Ms. COX. Perfect, thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, STATE OF 

UTAH 

Ms. COX. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and 

Ranking Member Doggett, thanks for having me. 

Utah has a big—a deep, rich history around TANF. And before 

this job, I ran the Department of Workforce Services, which administers TANF, as well as almost 100 other Federal and State programs, safety net programs and workforce development programs. 

So I think we have a very unique perspective on integrating safety 

net programs, those challenges that are inherent across safety net 

programs, as well as the importance of work through the way our 

department is established. 

Through that lens I want to talk about four issues that are relevant to the discussion draft. One I will touch on lightly, and, for 

me, it is the goal of aligning safety net programs toward a common 

goal and objective. Ninety-nine percent of our TANF recipients receiving Federal funds—I mean financial assistance—are on other 

public assistance programs, primarily Medicaid and SNAP, with 

different eligibility requirements, different work requirements. 

Some can do transitional services, some cannot. It is not very costefficient. 

It is cumbersome for us, as a State. And it is, more importantly, 

very cumbersome for our clients, who are trying to navigate multiple safety net programs that don’t seem to have a cohesive strategy or goal. So, while I recognize the focus of today is on TANF, 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
7 

which is fantastic, I hope it is part of a broader discussion on overall reform. 

My second point is on accountability. In Utah we are very excited 

to see this going toward more of an outcome-driven system. When 

I ran the Department of Workforce Services, there was a time that 

I refused to even look at the participation rate, because it was driving our systems more than employment was, and put the whole 

focus on employment outcomes, instead. We think it is a great direction to go. 

But in the written testimony I have outlined a few areas that I 

think still merit discussion and refinement, moving forward in this 

direction. For example, we think cost per service delivery should 

absolutely be fundamental to this discussion. How do you include 

positive exits? For example, if somebody exits for increased income 

due to marriage, as you are trying to eliminate the marriage penalty, should that count as a positive closure or not? Same thing 

with SSI or SSDI. Those are topics that need discussion. 

Some of the lag indicators that we are seeing in the performance 

measures could take 14 to 17 months. It is difficult to budget in 

that scenario. Do I budget a portion of my funds ongoing at one 

time, not knowing if I am going to get dinged on the performance 

measure? 

A few other challenges: Should States be held accountable if 

somebody exits for non-compliance and they are sanctioned? How 

do we deal with the national new-hire directory, so that States can 

get credit for people who get work out of State? 

So, I have listed a number of areas that I think still merit some 

consideration, but we think the direction is absolutely going in the 

right direction. 

The third point has to do with State flexibility. With the increased accountability, which we think is fantastic, we think States 

should have maximum flexibility. So we definitely support eliminating the distinction between non-core and core activities, and 

think that is the right thing to do for States. 

I would suggest, though, that there are two areas that you may 

want to tighten up, and that is if we are going to open up more 

freedom for education and vocational training after 24 months, we 

think it should be training in jobs in demand, and then should be 

a rigorous review for what kind of training people enter into, and 

what taxpayers pay for, as well as when we look at subsidized employment and some of those grants, that we make sure that those 

are going into the private sector and government entities are not 

benefitting from the subsidized employment initiatives. 

My final point, really, is around this evidence-based evaluation. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. We are at the 4-minute mark now. 

Ms. COX. Okay, thank you. We totally support that. We are a 

little concerned with a lot of language around the random control 

trials. While that is the gold standard, they are not always appropriate, and sometimes not even ethical in government situations. 

So, having flexibility around the full continuum of evidence-based 

interventions—exponential research, propensity scoring, other options that are more nimble and more operational—we want to 

make sure States have that flexibility. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
8 

And going to the social impact bonds, as well, we have listed 

comments on the pros and cons of social impact bonds. They, from 

my perspective, are a great catalyst, but not necessarily a panacea. 

They cost money and time and they are hard to scale, but they can 

help reinforce the need for good data decisions, and understanding 

the cost-to-value ratio in our services. 

I would add with this last point I am excited to see this increased 

focus on the work. It is the way out for people. And, personally, 

not—I am going to put my personal hat on for a second. Being 

blind, for years I was on Social Security disability in a time in life 

when I thought work would never be a possibility for me. Work is 

the thing that brings dignity to somebody’s life. It brings responsibility, a sense of contribution, and it is not a punishment when we 

ask people to work and require that they work, it is a way to transform lives. And I will be open for questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
9 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.001
10 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.002
11 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.003
12 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.004
13 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.005
14 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.006
15 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.007
16 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Ms. Cox. 

Mr. Kelly, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAVID KELLY, PROGRAM SECRETARY, THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you 

today. 

This year the Salvation Army is celebrating its 150th year of 

ministry to the world, now serving in 126 countries. Our mission 

remains to tell people of the love of God expressed through Jesus, 

and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. 

While many probably only know us for Christmas kettles, thrift 

stores, and rehab centers, each year we also serve 30 million individuals and provide 50 million meals and 10 million nights of shelter. 

I admit, though, that, despite this quantity of assistance, in the 

past several years we have done some soul searching about whether or not, in the midst of all of our efforts, we are sufficiently focused on finding long-term solutions for those who are coming to 

us for assistance. 

The outcome of this self-evaluation is a renewed determination 

to support life-transforming opportunities for those who come for 

material assistance. That doesn’t mean we are going to abandon 

our efforts to feed and shelter, to provide character-building programs for youth, daycare, summer camps, or disaster assistance, 

but it does mean that we are going to intentionally carve out resources, both personnel and financial, to help families move out of 

poverty, to make the transition from serving to solving. 

This new initiative, piloted in some locations over the past 3 

years, and now being rolled out nationally, is called Pathway of 

Hope. It is an approach that provides enhanced services to families 

who desire a path out of inter-generational poverty. Food pantries, 

soup kitchens, daycares, they are all going to continue, but we are 

going to make a focused effort to actually help families move further than they have moved before. 

Once engaged in the program, teams will walk alongside families 

as part of a partnership effort to facilitate changes and provide 

support. Pathway of Hope families meet regularly with Salvation 

Army caseworkers to develop goals and implement an individual 

plan that will increase their self-sufficiency and hope for the future. Trained staff will complete assessments with the families to 

tailor service delivery to their specific needs. 

Our pilot programs are filled with measurable outcomes, and 

there is reason for optimism about the potential impact this will 

have. I share that with you because the legislation we are looking 

at today seems to blend well with the success we are finding these 

past several years. 

We believe that any new legislation should make provision for 

the following key elements. 

We affirm the elimination of what is commonly referred to as the 

‘‘marriage penalty’’ in every State. It is difficult to fathom any positive societal impact coming from indirectly encouraging the breakdown of a two-parent family. Extensive research shows the longVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:08 Sep 20, 2016 Jkt 021285 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21285\21285.XXX 21285

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
17 

term negative impact the family breakdown has upon a child’s future educationally, economically, and in future opportunities. The 

marriage penalty produces only a small, short-term savings, but 

the long-term cost, both to the family and to the budget, is enormous. 

Number two, I am very encouraged to note the reference to improving and customizing individual opportunity plans. Educators 

long ago understood the value of individualized plans for children 

struggling to keep up in school. These individual plans have helped 

countless children overcome challenges, catch up and thrive in academic settings. And educators understand that early intervention 

is not only good for the children, but saves significant cost later. 

An equivalent approach in addressing families in poverty will 

have a similar positive impact. While it may be less expensive in 

the short term to just treat everyone exactly the same, that approach has not proven to be successful. And the addition of customized individual opportunity plans is a great step, from our perspective. 

Number three, allow more education to count toward activity 

hours. We find that most individuals in poverty have an excellent 

employment record, and simply don’t have the education needed to 

progress to a higher, more sustainable economic level. Education is 

a critical step to finding a stable job at a livable wage. 

And fourth, fund pilot projects. This is a key provision, and consistent with the success we have experienced with Pathway of 

Hope programs and other initiatives. It makes good business sense 

to experiment, identify best practices, and remain somewhat fluid 

during initial implementation, as new ideas evolve. I should add, 

though, that in the same way we are implementing Pathway of 

Hope while maintaining our financial commitment to much-needed 

programs, we urge you not to decrease funding for TANF, but rather, consider the pilot programs as an additional step. 

The Congressional Record will show that on December 15, 1982, 

a Salvation Army officer came to Washington to testify about 

homelessness and poverty at a congressional hearing just like this 

one. That officer was my father, then Major Paul Kelly. 

I pray that we will get this right, that we will mold the best possible legislation and together make meaningful improvements to 

how we address poverty in this generation. 

If the next generation is here to testify in 30 years, let it be to 

celebrate that we have dramatically improved how we help those 

in greatest need. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
18 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.008
19 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.009
20 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.010
21 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.011
22 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.012
23 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Brown, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BOYD A. BROWN, JR., J.D., AREA DIRECTOR, 

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOODWILL-EASTER SEALS 

MINNESOTA 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on our experience as a local TANF community-based provider. As Mr. Paulsen mentioned, my name is Boyd Brown, and I am the Area Director of Employment and Training at Goodwill-Easter Seals Minnesota. We are a leading provider of workforce services in our 

State, and our stores serve as the economic engine for our employment programs. This past year we served 35,000 people with various employment, including 1,500 families who came to us through 

TANF. 

Our recommendations for TANF policy changes are, first, hold 

providers accountable for what matters most: results. Second, allow 

providers to document progress toward employment goals, not 

hours of participation. Third, offer flexibility and allowable activities to meet the unique and individual challenges our families face. 

And, fourth, include fathers as part of the solution by funding fatherhood initiatives, making the voluntary services of responsible 

fatherhood a permanent part of TANF. Fathers are part of the solution to stabilizing low-income families. 

Next I talk a little bit about Elizabeth’s story that was in my 

written testimony. When our counselor first met Elizabeth, she 

slept most nights in her car and with her daughter. Elizabeth was 

adamant that she needed to find a job, and that income was the 

quickest way to secure housing. She had dropped out of school in 

the 10th grade. To her, education was a luxury she could not afford. Elizabeth’s initial employment plan included 6 weeks of job 

search, and she gave 100 percent to finding that job, but to no 

avail. 

Usually, the next step in the process is unpaid work or volunteering. But her counselor knew this would not lead Elizabeth to 

long-term stable employment. The counselor convinced Elizabeth to 

include GED preparation in her plan, even though it wasn’t counted in the work participation rate. While attending GED classes, 

Elizabeth was couch-hopping from one friend’s home to the next. 

Thirteen months later, she completed her GED. Elizabeth said, 

other than the birth of her daughter, it was the proudest day of her 

life. 

Three days later, she landed a job at Target, and the following 

week enrolled at a community college, pursuing a two-year human 

services degree. She moved into her own apartment. Her work 

hours increased, and she discontinued assistance in late 2014. She 

will graduate in June of 2016, and plans to pursue a BA to become 

a social worker. 

So, what does Elizabeth’s story tell us? First, education and 

training are important. Research shows that additional education 

can yield substantial earning gains, which means that participants 

with more education will need less government assistance to meet 

their basic needs. Elizabeth’s story also tells us that the one-sizefits-all approach dictated by the work participation rate with its 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
24 

core and non-core activities doesn’t work for many participants, including Elizabeth. 

And after spending, on average, 53 percent of their time on documentation and verification, our TANF career counselors simply do 

not have the time to provide the needed family supports that 

change outcomes. Elizabeth’s story illustrates that, with time, 

meaningful and productive relationships develop that lead to success. 

Elizabeth’s is only one story. We serve many people who are 

homeless, who have serious mental illness, other disabilities, who 

have criminal records, and little work experience. We succeed by 

building strong relationships with employers, and responding flexibly to the very different needs and situations of the people we 

serve. 

In my written testimony I describe multiple innovative Minnesota TANF programs. One I will highlight here is the Father 

Project. The Father Project offers voluntary services for low-income 

dads to help them support their children, both financially and emotionally. More than 90 percent of the 1,500 dads enrolled reported 

that the project helped increase their commitment to financially 

support their family, increased their child support payments, and 

481 obtained jobs. A return on investment study demonstrated a 

return of $3.41 for every dollar invested in the Father Project. 

In conclusion, by focusing on outcomes and not process, adding 

flexibility and activities allowed, and reducing the documentation 

demand, we can increase employment outcomes and move families 

off of assistance and out of poverty. We believe in accountability. 

However, hold us accountable for the outcomes that matter, which 

are getting people into jobs and off of assistance. 

So, thank you for the opportunity to share our experience as a 

TANF provider. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in hearing 

from the field, and are happy to serve as a resource to you as we 

look to increase both effectiveness and efficiency of how TANF is 

implemented across the Nation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
25 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.013
26 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.014
27 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.015
28 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.016
29 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.017
30 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.018
31 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.019
32 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.020
33 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.021
34 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.022
35 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.023
36 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Brown. 

Ms. Pavetti, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LADONNA PAVETTI, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

FAMILY INCOME SUPPORT POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET 

AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Ms. PAVETTI. Thank you for the invitation to testify today. In 

my recent testimony, I presented data showing how few poor families TANF serves and how little TANF does to help poor families 

find work and escape poverty. In my testimony today I will focus 

on ways in which the draft bill could help improve TANF’s performance in these areas, and I also will suggest additional changes 

to address some of TANF’s fundamental flaws. 

States have long identified the complexity and rigidity of TANF’s 

countable work activities as hindering their ability to operate an effective work program. The draft bill makes many improvements 

that address those issues. We fully support the changes in the bill 

that will expand recipients’ access to education and training, encourage States to address the needs of TANF recipients with significant employment barriers, and remove the disincentives for 

serving two-parent families. 

I encourage the Committee to go further by eliminating the 30 

percent cap on vocational education, which, in this economy, 

doesn’t seem to make any sense. 

The draft bill’s elimination of the caseload reduction credit is a 

positive change, as it lessens the incentive for States to continually 

reduce their TANF caseloads and not serve people in need. But it 

effectively raises the target work participation rate that States 

must meet, and it will increase the burden on States to place a 

greater share of families in work activities. 

While the proposed work activity changes will enable States to 

count more people toward meeting the rate, a sizeable gap will 

likely remain, which could encourage States to further restrict access to the program. So I think we need to be paying attention to 

this access issue. 

The draft bill’s requirements that States failing to meet the work 

rate must increase their State spending is a significant improvement over the current penalty structure. One change we would 

suggest is requiring States to reinvest those additional resources to 

the core purposes of TANF. We believe that States should be held 

accountable for employment outcomes, but we are concerned that 

the details, as outlined in the draft, may be unworkable, and we 

are hoping that this is an area where we can actually have some 

conversation. 

I believe it is realistic and appropriate to hold States accountable 

for employment and retention, but I worry that the short-term 

measurement limit and the limited assistance that TANF programs 

usually provide—that it may not be realistic to hold them accountable for advancement. As an alternative, I suggest measuring median earnings at one point in time to encourage States to place recipients in higher-paying jobs to really go toward meeting the goal 

of reducing poverty. 

We are concerned that the proposed penalty structure for these 

new outcome measures are too onerous and too complex. The long 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
37 

lag time required to gather and report the data poses substantial 

challenges. And the penalty is harsher than any initial penalty currently, and it appears that States may have no opportunity to remedy the problem before block grant funds are withheld. I also worry 

that, because the penalties are too onerous, what States would do 

is negotiate very low rates, and we wouldn’t see sort of the employment outcomes and the push toward high outcomes that you may 

want to see. 

So, I would propose an alternative approach that emphasizes improvement and focuses directly on States that fail to meet their negotiated goals. First, require States to develop a program improvement plan, and provide technical assistance to help them do so. 

And second, require States to increase their State funds and target 

them to work activities, just as required for the work participation 

rate. 

Implementing an outcome measure will not be easy for States, 

nor will it be costless. Most States currently have no data on employment outcomes which they can use to set meaningful outcome 

targets. And to fill that gap, what I recommend is starting with a 

benchmark year in which States would be required to report on 

outcomes, but wouldn’t face any penalties. That would allow them 

to have some benchmarks that they could use to negotiate targets 

for the future, and to really build on and make improvements. 

A key flaw of the TANF block grant is that permissible use of 

the funds is so broad that States spread them across many areas 

of the budget. TANF reauthorization provides a key opportunity to 

reclaim some of those funds, and it is one that shouldn’t be missed. 

We believe requiring States to spend a substantial—a specific 

share of their TANF resources on core purposes is essential for 

improving TANF work programs. There are several possible approaches here. 

First, all States could be required to spend a specified share of 

TANF funds on core activities, as Representative Doggett suggested. Alternatively, States that fail to meet the rate could actually—benchmarked could be required to move those additional 

funds to those purposes. 

The draft bill adds a new purpose on reducing poverty. And, 

while this is a laudable goal, TANF can’t reduce poverty if it fails 

to reach poor families. So one of the suggestions I would make is 

that we actually add a third outcome measure, and that is access 

to the program. If families aren’t served by the program, we can’t 

reduce poverty, and they can’t have access to the services that the 

program is likely to show. 

So, I think that TANF reform is long overdue, and I am looking 

forward to working with the Committee to see how we can move 

forward to make positive changes. So thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pavetti follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
38 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.024
39 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.025
40 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.026
41 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.027
42 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.028
43 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.029
44 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Ms. Pavetti. 

Mr. Collins, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GRANT E. COLLINS II, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FEDCAP REHABILITATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT; AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WECARE REGION II, FEDCAP 

Mr. COLLINS. Good morning, Chairman Boustany, Ranking 

Member Doggett, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I 

am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the next phase 

of welfare reform. 

I am currently the Senior Vice President of Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Incorporated’s Workforce Development practice area. 

Fedcap is an 80-year-old non-profit human service company that 

specializes in addressing the economic well-being of those with barriers to work. My comments today will center around the provisions 

found in H.R. 2968 and H.R. 2952 on casework, employment, and 

retention, as much of what we do is consistent with these bills. 

Fedcap administers a wide range of employment programs, including placement services for the court-involved individual re-entering the workforce, placing veterans as well as public assistance 

recipients. We also provide employment services for recipients with 

a wide range of health claims, which we deliver through a comprehensive case management model called WeCARE, Wellness 

Comprehensive Assessment Rehabilitation and Employment. 

A group often exempted from participation in most States, each 

year we place thousands into employment, as we consistently exceed our contractual goals for job placement, while also achieving 

a job retention rate at 6 months of just over 73 percent. To achieve 

these outcomes we employ a strength-based assessment model, 

where we focus on what our program participants can do, rather 

than focusing on their weaknesses. Engagement really begins with 

our receptionist. However, relationship-building is established with 

our case managers, whom we refer to as our ambassadors of selfsufficiency. 

Our unique approach to case management begins with a set of 

mental tools. Henry Ford once said, ‘‘Whether you think you can 

or think you can’t, you are right.’’ Mr. Ford was referring to what 

is commonly known as the Pygmalion Effect, or self-fulfilling 

prophecy. In short, what you expect is what you get, so we expect 

success and shift paradigms up front. Since we expect our participants to work, we refer to them as job-seekers from that point forward. 

Core to our success is our belief that, number one, there are jobs; 

number two, that people are better off working; number three, people do want to work. Let me discuss each briefly. 

Number one, there are jobs. We remind our job seekers that, despite the unemployment rate, one job is all they need, and that employers have openings. 

Number two, people are better off working. There are many reasons why we work. Work adds to a person’s self-esteem, it improves 

their lifestyle. Work can provide opportunity and hope for the future. There is a platform when each of us can add to an employer’s 

business or to our communities, or advance a cause, and work is 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
45 

the way we keep our minds and skills sharp. It is one of the primary ways we manifest our potential. There is a certain dignity 

that comes from work that only work can provide. 

And, number three, people want to work. A pathway to the best 

job for a person can be reached from taking a job now. 

Work is the focus of our initial face-to-face meetings. Case managers conduct one of several assessments, starting with an impromptu mock interview on the spot. Within the first few minutes, 

we look to see if the job seeker is employer-ready. With a sense of 

urgency, we get the job seeker placed immediately, or track them 

quickly, often the same day, into a second, more formal assessment 

called the Diagnostic Vocational Evaluation, or DVE. The DVE is 

a battery of assessment tools that is designed to help the job seeker 

understand their work-based strengths. The outcome of the DVE is 

the basis for the development of the job seeker’s individual plan for 

employment, which includes, among other things, the top three jobs 

they are looking to obtain. 

The plan is established, agreed upon, and signed by the job seeker and case manager. We then fortify this with an action plan that 

clearly identifies the job seeker’s short-term and long-term goals. 

The initial work activity, and weekly hours are assigned, similar to 

what is proposed in the TANF reauthorization draft. 

Except for a few work activities, most assignments are no more 

than 12 weeks in length. To extend the activity beyond 12 weeks, 

a comprehensive employment plan review and new plan with new 

goals must be established. The draft TANF reauthorization envisions this same approach, meeting every 3 months to review 

progress and to determine next steps. 

We also provide case management even after employment begins. 

Once the individual is employed, we typically meet with them no 

less than monthly for up to 6 months. This is consistent with the 

focus on the outcomes in the draft, and is one way to get States 

to follow recipients after they leave for work, to make sure they 

don’t come right back. 

Personal responsibility is at the core of the TANF program. Effective case management, regular progress reviews, clear, practical 

action plans for employment and retention can often provide the 

necessary engagement to help more job seekers establish their own 

employment futures. 

I, along with the other members of this panel, stand ready to 

work with you to make economic independence for America’s neediest families a reality. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
46 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.030
47 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.031
48 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.032
49 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Collins, and thank you 

all for your testimony. We will now go to a question and answer 

phase of this hearing. Let me start by asking Ms. Cox a question. 

You have administered the TANF and workforce systems in your 

prior role, and you now administer an office focused on creating 

more value for every tax dollar invested. And, to me, that sounds 

like focusing tax dollars on results, and not just paying for a process, but to try to really get an outcome, and hopefully, a favorable 

outcome. 

The TANF statute requires States to ensure 50 percent of their 

welfare caseload participates in work or activities. And while this 

measures how a State is engaging welfare recipients in activities 

while receiving benefits, we don’t currently measure how well the 

States are doing in helping welfare recipients leave TANF for work, 

and hopefully meaningful work. 

This discussion draft would reserve a portion of the TANF block 

grant to pay States based on their success in achieving three goals: 

moving TANF recipients off of welfare into work; keeping these 

former welfare recipients in work; and helping them increase their 

earnings over time. All, we think, are laudable goals. 

How do you think changing the TANF program from one that focuses solely on process to one that focuses more on these types of 

outcomes might encourage States to move more people into jobs 

and really, actually, help them move up the economic ladder? And 

what are some of the pitfalls we need to look at, going forward in 

this? 

Ms. COX. So, what you just said is music to my ears. Having 

been in government for a while, I struggle sometimes with the lack 

of outcome and accountability that we have on programs that are 

being funded by taxpayers, and should have impacts for people. It 

can be very process-focused, and very bureaucratic. And, at the end 

of the day, we don’t know if we have made a difference or an impact. 

So, when we—when I took over the TANF program, it was completely participation-driven, and there wasn’t—what is her—here, 

down here, what she talked about, you know, they may not even 

have the employment data. So, you know, like I said in my testimony, we—I said I am not looking at participation. I want employment outcomes. And it shifted the culture, that that is what we 

were about. And then can we design participation activities that actually lead to employment outcomes, rather than just sitting people 

in services, so that we can get the participation credit? So we are 

all about that. 

A few cautions that I think would be important to continue to 

vet. One, the idea—I think it is 30 or 40 percent would be on increased earnings in the fourth quarter. I don’t know if that is arbitrary, I don’t know if the general public generally, within the 

fourth quarter, receives increased earnings or not. I think it is a 

good aspirational concept to consider, but I don’t know what the 

trend is in the general population. Is that within a State’s or a provider’s ability? States could potentially game it. You could put 

them in part-time employment, knowing that it will move to fulltime in the fourth quarter, so your earnings increase, but you have 

never really made a big difference in their actual earnings, longVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:08 Sep 20, 2016 Jkt 021285 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21285\21285.XXX 21285

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
50 

term. So there are different ways that that could be gamed, and 

I think that is an area that merits consideration. 

The lag issue is one of the other issues I would want to explore. 

When I budget or do long-term contracts, I look at ongoing versus 

one-time funding. And if I don’t know if I am going to have that 

money in 17 months, I am not sure how to budget for that. Now, 

if I am talking a 3 percent, it is, you know, 3, 3, 4, a total of 10, 

that is not going to make or break my budget. But it would potentially impact how I would set up contracts, et cetera. So working 

through that lag, and giving States a little bit more immediate 

feedback if they are going to hit that or not is going to be something I think that we need to continue to discuss and work 

through. 

So there are other issues there, but I don’t think any of them are 

insurmountable. I would offer this counter-comment. I like the fact 

that money may get lost. A lot of our Federal—maybe nobody else 

will agree with me on this, but a lot of our Federal programs 

threaten lost money. Right? And you go through a lot of corrective 

action plans, and yada, yada. But, generally speaking, there is not 

a real consequence. There just isn’t. And these funds should be considered precious, scarce resources, and I think it is fair to say, if 

people don’t perform, there is a consequence to it. Now, maybe they 

should have some technical assistance and a chance to improve. 

But at some point there needs to be a real consequence if we are 

not performing. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Well, I thank you for bringing the value 

of your experience to bear on this. It is really helpful to us. 

Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Pavetti, as you know, the discussion draft leaves open for discussion this question of how much the States are devoting to the 

core purposes of cash aid, child care, and work activities. How do 

you feel that should be—that blank should be filled in, and why? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I definitely think that there needs to be a requirement that States spend a certain share of their funds on core purposes. And if there isn’t, I don’t think you will see meaningful 

change. There are some States that spend as little as 1 percent of 

their TANF funds on work programs. And to expect that we can 

increase—reduce poverty if they are spending so little, I think, is 

unrealistic. 

So, I really think there are two ways. I think one is to require 

all States to get there, and to give them sort of a time to get there. 

And the other is to—you know, in the draft bill there already are 

expectations that States will have to spend more State money if 

they don’t meet those requirements. And so that would also be— 

rather than that—just being able to go anywhere in the State 

budget, that that really be directed to State core purposes. 

But I think it is one of the huge failures of TANF, that so many 

of the funds have been pulled away from families who really are 

the most needy, and this is an opportunity to reclaim those funds. 

And it would be a shame if we didn’t actually get those back. 

Mr. DOGGETT. When welfare reform was originally approved 

back in the nineties, wasn’t one of the objectives—and I think you 

make reference to this—people would work their way not only just 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
51 

to work, but to work their way out of poverty, and work into the 

middle class? And how well has that objective been satisfied? 

Ms. PAVETTI. So what we know about the work—about work 

and earnings among TANF recipients is that, one, we have very little recent data on employment among TANF recipients. We have 

data from the early years, but most States don’t collect that data 

and don’t report it. So we really don’t even know where the starting point is in setting these benchmarks, because we don’t know 

how many get employed. So that is one thing I think we need to 

think about. 

But for those who do get employed and start out in low-wage 

jobs, there was an expectation that people would move up. But that 

is really—if you look at the experiments, you don’t see sort of increases in earnings over time. What you see is some increases in 

employment. And where the programs really fall short is in stable 

employment. 

So, right now there are lots of people who get jobs, but they don’t 

hold them. And if people are going to increase their earnings and 

increase them over time, there are two things that make a difference. One is holding on to jobs, and the other is having the education and the skills that are demanded in the labor market, so 

that they can move up. 

So I think Boyd talked in his testimony about a very compelling 

example of why education really does make a difference. So I think 

that the education and training—we have evidence that there is a 

lag, there is an initial—there is—that gain isn’t immediate. But 

when you compare people who are in those training programs, usually 2 years out their earnings gains are much greater than people 

who don’t participate in them. 

So I think we need to be really encouraging States to move in 

that direction. 

Mr. DOGGETT. If there are no new dollars, which is the case 

with this proposal, no additional funds added, and if a State can 

continue to devote only 1 percent to work—in the case of one of the 

States you mentioned—how realistic are the provisions in the bill 

that there be an individual opportunity plan and State counseling 

with the recipient every 3 months? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think that is pretty unrealistic, that States will 

be able to do that. I think it is the right thing to do, but I am not 

sure how you do it without resources. So I think that it is really 

something that needs to be paid attention to. 

I think the other thing that is important is sort of thinking 

about—what happens in TANF is that we sort of—we provide a little bit of services to everybody, including people who may not need 

any services, and really thinking about how can you take what resources are there, and really concentrate them on the people who 

need the most help. And I think the work participation rate, and 

the way it is designed, and the focus on hours really does encourage this across the board, serve everybody, even if they don’t need 

it. 

So, I think there is—both we should temper our expectations, if 

the money isn’t there, but also really think about can you use the 

resources that are used better, and not spread them so thin? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
52 

Mr. DOGGETT. You probably covered this already. But, in short, 

what do you think are the most important changes that need to be 

made in the draft? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think the most important changes—there are 

two. I do think that the elimination of the core/non-core distinction 

is pretty—is quite important for States, because it gives them 

much more flexibility, and it helps on the education and training 

aspects. And the other is I think the movement to outcome measures is hugely important. I don’t think the details are quite right 

in the draft, and that we really need to think those through. But 

I do think actually adding outcome measures will change the way 

States think about what they do, and will change their behavior. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all of our 

witnesses here today. 

I will begin with where I am headed with a question. It will be 

addressed to Mr. Kelly of the Salvation Army and Mr. Brown of 

Goodwill, and that is, can better casework reduce poverty and increase employment? Your organizations are on the front line of our 

efforts to reduce poverty. As Chairman Ryan likes to say, ‘‘The Federal Government is the rear guard, but you are the vanguard of 

this effort, clearly.’’ 

I am sure those you work with who are receiving TANF benefits 

often also receive other benefits and services. I have experienced 

this on the ground throughout my State of Indiana. And in many 

cases, the individual must meet with multiple case workers, and 

visit different offices to receive these benefits and meet the different requirements of each program. They may also have to make 

repeat visits to these various case workers, as their circumstances 

change over time. 

Now, as I think of the served population, these are people who 

lack the resources, they lack the time, oftentimes. They are under 

great stress. And moving from caseworker to caseworker, office to 

office, through a constellation of different programs, can not only 

be mind-numbing, but problematic and a deterrent, even, to seeking the assistance that they require. 

It is burdensome, it is confusing, it is unworkable, it is insensitive, it is irresponsible, and unacceptable. So we have to coordinate 

our efforts to solve poverty, and that starts with good casework, to 

my mind. 

And so, this week I introduced the Coordinating Assistance for 

TANF Recipients Act. This would provide funds for States to test 

better ways of helping recipients move through welfare and into 

work and self-sufficiency. This bill, which is now part of the larger 

Ways and Means discussion draft we are focusing on here today, 

would provide funding to test and evaluate various efforts along 

these lines. 

So, back to the original question. Mr. Kelly, we will begin with 

you, sir. How might supporting more coordinated casework bring 

dignity and opportunity to more welfare recipients by helping them 

move into work and out of poverty? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
53 

Mr. KELLY. Well, first, let me say I think that is a great observation. And we would add to that that our experience with those 

who are living day to day in poverty are suffering from a severe 

lack of hope, that they have essentially given up. And part of that 

giving-up process is the despair that comes from going from office 

to office without, really, a coordinated, centralized way to help 

them in the process. So, we would, I think, be advocates of a more 

thoughtful, strategic approach to how we are caring for people. 

I would also say we need to help all parties keep in mind what 

our actual goal is. Our actual goal is not a job that they have, either temporarily or part-time or barely allows them to get through 

a day. We are looking to move people out of poverty. I assume that 

is what everyone’s goal is. And you can’t do that without a large 

amount of coordination, both within the casework field, and in 

terms of the involvement of the client themselves. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Young. Actually, 

I think you are right on point. And, actually, in Minnesota we have 

had several initiatives actually looking at coordinating casework 

disciplines. And one I want to particularly mention is Families 

Achieving Success Today that was actually part of a randomized 

control trial through the U.S. Department of Human Services, 

where we were integrating adult mental health, children’s mental 

health, along with TANF financial worker, the financial assistance 

piece, as well as child care, in a collocated, collaborative effort. 

It was a 1-year study, so it showed promising efforts. We don’t 

have anything beyond that. But we do know that, having those 

services together in one spot absolutely improved their access to— 

our families’ access to services, as well as improved their outcomes. 

One note of caution I would give is that we have been part of 

these types of collaborative casework models in the past. However, 

they did not include employment, and we did not see the results 

that we wanted to see. This particular one, Families Achieving Success Today, all the providers, whether it is mental health, whether 

it is health care, they were all on board, that employment is what 

we are trying to achieve with the families we were serving, and we 

saw great success with that. So thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Perhaps that program will move from the promising phase to proven, or will identify a variant to that, will be a 

better model, and so forth. 

I recognize I am out of time, so I will yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Noem. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Collins, I wanted to visit with you about a loophole that currently exists within the TANF program. And, as you know, the 

TANF program states that it must engage 50 percent of adults on 

welfare in worker activities related to work. South Dakota, my 

home State, does a great job of this, but many other States are failing to engage to the same level. 

Under current rules, the loophole says—it is called the Excess 

Spending Loophole—that States can reduce the share of people 

they have to engage in work by simply looking for spending of nonprofits, charities, food banks, other third parties, and the States, 

and how much they are spending on poor families. They then add 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
54 

up all this third-party spending, and report it as if it was actually 

spending that the State was engaging in. And, by reporting this excess spending to HHS, they reduce the number of welfare recipients that they are required to help. 

In fact, in some cases, States have reduced their 50 percent work 

participation requirement to a 0 percent. And, you know, through 

this bill that we have proposed, the TANF Accountability and Integrity Improvement Act, that I have introduced and which is a 

part of this discussion draft that the Committee has put together 

on TANF reforms, it would put a stop to some of those activities. 

I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on that loophole, if you think that these recommendations to fixing that problem are good in the discussion draft, and if you think that it will 

be effective in making sure that some of the States implement 

changes that would reflect more of what is done in my home State 

of South Dakota? 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that, and for 

your leadership on this particular part of the discussion draft. 

As you are well aware, the current TANF purposes do allow for 

such excess maintenance of effort to be applied against the work 

participation rate. And, as you rightly mention, there are numerous 

ways in which this can be done, including volunteer hours of Boy 

Scout leaders, as well as coaches and Shriners and—it is, really, 

almost endless, the number of ways in which the rate can be essentially avoided, by providing all of these excess maintenance of effort 

opportunities. 

So, I believe this is probably one of the more far-reaching components of the discussion draft, being able to put a stop to this. It 

eviscerated the work participation rate, as we know it. Whether 

you agree on what work activities we are to do, the idea of having 

to engage with someone is the start of a conversation that will 

allow them to propel forward. 

If you provide such loopholes, the incentive for States to really 

go and reach out to people and engage them productively goes 

away. So I think that what has been envisioned for the discussion 

draft is exactly what is needed right now. 

Mrs. NOEM. While you worked at HHS, did you see some States 

engaging in these activities, or some States that were, potentially, 

the worst offenders? 

Mr. COLLINS. So, to be fair, I would—most States participated 

in it to some degree or another. It is unfortunate, because it really 

did reduce the work requirement. I would like to commend all 

those States, post-DRA, that actually did meet the 50 percent work 

participation rate. 

I agree with my colleague, Ms. Cox, that the activities really 

should be an on-ramp to employment. So it is not really about putting people in activities for activities sake, but that, really, the 

pressure that the rate was supposed to provide, really, was only 50 

percent. And, if you think about it, that is half. I mean we can do 

far better than that. 

Mrs. NOEM. Yes, I saw you nodding your head. Since I have a 

little bit of time left, when they were talking about the Families 

Achieving Success program today, did you have some experience 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
55 

with that program, as well, or some feedback to give on the success 

of that study? 

Mr. COLLINS. I have just some familiarity with the strong case 

management approach that the State of Minnesota takes. They are 

very serious about how they engage with participants. 

I was nodding my head, because I run a program in New York 

City that sees 80,000 people a year that does something very similar. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. And it has been a successful program? 

Mr. COLLINS. It has been a very successful program. This is a 

program where most States would have exempted these participations altogether, because they pose some health challenges to the 

organization. We see that, after 485,000 independent medical assessments we have been able to do over the 10 years—not my company, but the program itself—half of everyone can actually work. 

And a third, while they might be sick today, can heal, and those 

too can work, as well. And very few people end up on Federal disability. 

Mrs. NOEM. What was the name of the program in—— 

Mr. COLLINS. It is called WeCARE, Wellness, Employment, 

Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Employment. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. You are welcome. 

Mrs. NOEM. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentlelady. We will now go 

to Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to thank the witnesses for being here. 

You know, I was just thinking that I believe that work is love 

made visible. Therefore, I am delighted with the focus of this hearing. I have advocated for improvements to TANF and the fatherhood grants to increase the economic well-being of parents, especially non-custodial fathers, since Fathers Day 2007. The draft bill 

before us contains many of the tenets of the Responsible Fatherhood Act, which is supported by numerous national organizations, 

including the National Fatherhood Initiative, Concerned Black Men 

National, the Center for Family Policy and Practice, One Hundred 

Fathers, Incorporated, the Children’s Defense Fund, and others. 

I applaud the bill for increasing access to education and training, 

and focusing on actual employment, including subsidized employment. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and the 

Ranking Member, to consider additional provisions to support noncustodial fathers and families, such as lifting the 30 percent cap on 

education, limiting the marriage penalty for Fiscal Year 2007 until 

enactment, ensuring that participation in healthy marriage or fatherhood programs is voluntary, and making clear to States that 

they can provide non-custodial parents the same work supports as 

custodial parents. 

Further, I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman and the 

Ranking Member, to include provisions that would better support 

kinship caregivers. I know that many Members of this Subcommittee come from States with high percentages of grandparents 

raising grandchildren. And I believe Louisiana has the second-highest percentage of grandchildren in the care of grandparents in the 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
56 

Nation, with North Carolina, Texas, South Dakota, Georgia, and Illinois having high rates, as well. I am preparing to introduce a bill 

to improve supports for kinship caregivers, mainly through increased notice, improved data, and State reporting to improve services and supports within TANF. 

Mr. Brown, I know that your organization has been advocating 

for fathers’ engagement in children and family well-being. And I 

hear that your organization works with low-income fathers, often 

those with criminal backgrounds, to help them support their children, both financially and emotionally, and to provide them skills 

to become economically self-sufficient and socially empowered parents and citizens. Could you elaborate a little bit on that program, 

and what do you think Federal funds really do for it, and how 

might we improve? 

Mr. BROWN. Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Davis. Yes. 

So we have been part of the fatherhood initiative—our Father 

Project has been in existence for well over a decade. We have been 

funded by the Fatherhood—responsible fatherhood funding through 

the Federal Government for the past 5 years, and been part of the 

study, as well. 

We find that fathers are an important part of the solution to— 

for low-income families and moving people out of poverty. Our 

work, working with fathers, it is a wide array of services, including 

parenting—parenting classes, co-parenting, relationship-building. 

Because, even if you don’t get along with your partner, you need 

to be there for your children. And so, really working with families 

on how can they co-parent, even if they don’t get along, or they are 

not together any longer, that is a big part of our initiative. 

Employment. Of course, we are a workforce development agency. 

Employment is a key. We want to increase child support for the 

families from the non-custodial, to the custodial parent, making 

sure that those children’s needs are met. So I think it is an extremely important part of TANF and moving people out of poverty. 

So I commend you on making sure to include fathers and fatherhood initiatives in the TANF reform. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased that 

each one of the witnesses puts an emphasis on the engagement of 

fathers, and I appreciate that very much. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. We will go to Mr. 

Holding next. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the course of 

this year, and the hearings that we have had, and where I have 

learned about TANF and some other programs, it is striking how 

bureaucracy can somehow get in the way of results. And, under 

TANF, States are required to have 50 percent of their caseload engaged in work or activities to prepare for work. That is, an adult 

must be in specified activities, work, job search, training for a number of hours a week. I have learned that. 

But I have also learned, however, there is a marriage penalty in 

TANF, and one that encourages States to not serve two-parent 

families, and that can penalize individuals on TANF if they marry. 

And I am kind of stunned at that. So, under current TANF law, 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
57 

it establishes a separate, higher participation standard that applies 

to two-parent families. So these families must meet additional 

work requirements beyond that of a single-parent family. Of 

course, we all want two-parent families. 

So, I have introduced the TANF Marriage Penalty Elimination 

Act last week to address this issue by ending the separate and 

higher requirement for two-parent families. And I am grateful that 

this has been included as a provision in our Ways and Means discussion draft which we released on Friday. 

So, first to you, Mr. Kelly, do you think this is a step in the right 

direction, to treat single parents and married parents equally in 

the TANF program? And can you flesh out why that is—if you feel 

so inclined? 

Mr. KELLY. I would say, based on our experience, that the key 

is to start from wherever that family happens to find themselves. 

So we can’t start from the premise that, you know, if it is a singleparent family, well, it would be great if both parents were there, 

because that is just not always possible. And you can’t start the 

other way, either. You always have to start with where they are. 

So, as our caseworkers have met with families that are in need, 

you don’t go in with a pre-conceived notion of something that is 

ideal. You start with where they are, and go from there. Having 

said that, I don’t think there is any question that it has been proven to be healthier for children to grow up in an environment where 

both parents are involved. You know, we all have our idea of what 

the ideal family construct is, but I think statistics are pretty clear 

that we are better served when both are involved. 

In our own study, it has become clear that a child that grows up 

in poverty is 32 times more likely to be in poverty as an adult. So, 

the sooner we begin to engage, the better off we are going to be. 

But we would be very supportive of a philosophy moving forward 

where we are encouraging involvement of a two-parent family, but 

from the perspective of understanding where people find themselves at that moment when they come to us, that effective case 

management is going to be case management where we identify the 

needs of the family at that time, and build an individualized plan 

that helps them to move forward. 

Mr. HOLDING. Ms. Cox, in the minute that I have remaining, 

if and why do you think it is important that we take measures to 

eliminate the marriage penalty, and ensure that TANF is supporting or encouraging two-parent families? 

Ms. COX. Absolutely, we think it is going in the right direction. 

The one question I have around this, though, is if you want—you 

know, tell me how you measure me, and I will tell you how I behave. Right? So, if in the outcome measures that you are going to 

be looking at, how do you count leaving TANF for increased income 

because of marriage? And I think that is a point to think through, 

as we look at performance measures, and making sure that, if people leave because of that—and we want to encourage that—that 

States aren’t penalized because of that in the actual denominatornumerator formula in the performance measures. 

Mr. HOLDING. Good, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
58 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Dold, 

you are recognized. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly want to 

thank you for holding this important hearing. I want to thank our 

witnesses for your testimony and for your insights. We certainly 

appreciate that. 

I believe—and, Ms. Cox, you stated in your testimony that work 

is—well, it is transforming lives. And I believe that the best way 

out of poverty is a job. And while moving welfare recipients into 

employment is the central goal of TANF, some welfare recipients 

have a difficult time transitioning from welfare into work. 

In some cases, employers may be reluctant to hire welfare recipients if they have limited work experience or other barriers to work. 

That is why I recently introduced the Accelerating Individuals Into 

the Workforce Act. This bill, which now has been incorporated into 

the larger TANF discussion draft which we are reviewing today, 

would provide funds for States to test methods of subsidizing employment for TANF recipients to better help these individuals find 

jobs and become self-sufficient. 

In addition to providing funds for subsidized jobs, the bill requires a high-quality evaluation of each project to determine 

whether the project was effective in helping welfare recipients 

move into and stay in work. 

Mr. Collins, do you think that providing short-term partial wage 

subsidies to employers might be a way to encourage them to hire 

welfare recipients and keep them as employees over the long term? 

Ms. Cox, if you have something to say, you can jump in there, 

too, and then we will go right back to Mr. Collins. 

Ms. COX. Oh, okay, sorry. We actually did a study to look at 

what participation activities correlated to employment outcomes. 

And this was on the top four, ‘‘Subsidized Employment.’’ Again, my 

caution is not to do it for government entities. And, you know, it 

should go to the private sector, for sure. 

But the other piece to be aware of is WOTC, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit that employers could already benefit from, from 

getting certain populations that are vulnerable into employment. 

So how to subsidize employment, correlate or work with WOTC, so 

that some employers aren’t double-dipping. Just something to be 

mindful of, as well. 

Mr. DOLD. Okay. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Congressman, the details on that will matter. I 

will tell you one of my biggest concerns is presenting someone to 

an employer as if, for example, they are a discounted individual. 

So we would have to be careful about how that subsidy is represented for that individual. Most employers have told me over the 

years that they are just looking for somebody who wants to work, 

and they are less concerned about the credits and such that go 

along with the individual if they, in fact, can do the work. 

So, I think it is a great opportunity, as I do many other work activities. There is more than one way to get there. 

Mr. DOLD. Sure. 

Mr. COLLINS. So I think having subsidized employment be a 

part of the arsenal, if you will, is a great opportunity. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
59 

Mr. DOLD. Well, so, can you talk to me a little bit more about 

some of those other barriers? I mean, obviously, I am a small business person, and obviously, what we find is once people get in, and 

you have an opportunity to take a look at how they are working, 

they do a great job. What are some of the barriers in trying to get 

some of these people that are down on their luck into the workforce, so that they have that opportunity? 

Mr. COLLINS. It is a great question. Most of it is their self-view, 

whether or not they believe that an employer will be willing to accept their background, or whether or not they have enough education. A lot of it is the perception of how they see themselves. 

If we are able to get them to overcome that, whether it is 

through on-the-job training and/or subsidized employment, or 

whatever form of engagement, really, all we are trying to do is to 

get them, really, to see themselves in a different light, and one in 

which they understand what employers are looking for, and then 

be able to sort of show those skills and abilities at that point. Onthe-job practices, which I would refer to subsidized employment as 

being, is a great way to do that. 

Mr. DOLD. Well, and part of that—really, what we are trying to 

do is we are trying to make sure that there is an easy on-ramp into 

employment. And giving employers an opportunity to say there are 

training costs that are going to go into there, and that on-the-job 

training is potentially some of the best, that is really what, hopefully, this program is trying to do. What would you anticipate some 

of the complaints or some of the issues from some small businesses 

to be? 

Mr. COLLINS. I would be concerned about the cliff effect of what 

would happen after the subsidy ran out, and whether or not they 

are willing to continue the employment of that individual, or if— 

whether or not they would be interested in, essentially, going and 

finding another individual who came with a subsidy. Because it 

does keep their costs down. 

So, again, it is all in the details of how this gets rolled out, so 

that we avoid that. But that would be my biggest concern. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman’s time has expired. We 

will go to Mr. Crowley next. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

you with the full sincerity—I think I can speak for the entire side 

of my aisle—for holding this hearing today, and for working in a 

bipartisan way on the discussion draft that was released last week. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are a lot of improvements we can make to the TANF program. But for too long now, we have just been simply renewing it 

with short-term extensions. So I appreciate the chance to take a serious look at what we can do and do better. 

There is some good progress in the discussion draft, as I said. It 

moves the focus of the program more significantly toward actual 

poverty reduction. And I am glad that the bill includes some of the 

program improvements that my Democratic colleagues and I have 

been advocating for years now. But I have to say that I am disappointed at what is not in the bill, and namely no new funding 

for child care. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
60 

Child care can make the difference that enables a parent to 

work, put food on the table, and lift themselves and their families 

out of poverty, knowing that their child is being adequately cared 

for. We have had a lot of focus on work participation in TANF. But, 

as I have said before, work participation has to go hand in hand 

with ensuring there is adequate access to child care. Working parents need to know that their children are being safely cared for 

while they are looking for work or are working. 

Dr. Pavetti, do you agree that a greater investment in child care 

would be a significant help to move people out of poverty through 

the TANF program? 

Ms. PAVETTI. Absolutely. I think that, for many families—and 

it really varies by State, how much States have devoted their resources to child care, but in some places there is a long waiting list 

for child care, and families can’t get child care to be able to go to 

work. And I think, without it, we are putting kids at risk, and we 

are making it so much harder for families to do what they want 

to do, which is either to go to school or to go to work to be able 

to provide for their families. 

So, I think child care is absolutely essential, and I agree with 

you, that there is a desperate need for more resources to actually 

fund child care. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And would you agree that child care should be 

considered as part of a TANF reauthorization? 

Ms. PAVETTI. Yes, because I think that it is hard to sort of 

imagine that you are going to put more people to work, and you 

don’t have more funds for child care, because it just doesn’t add up 

that you can—you know, child care is much more costly than 

grants, so you can’t just say instead of being on TANF they will 

get child care. It just doesn’t work. 

So, it will create a bottleneck, and it will make—again, it will 

put kids at risk. Because if families feel that they have to go to 

work, and they don’t have the adequate child care, they will piece 

it together, and it is the kids in the families who will be harmed 

by that. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. The child care assistance provided 

by TANF and other Federal programs is critical. In the majority of 

States, including my home State of New York, child care costs an 

average of more than the cost of a year at college. The Federal assistance provided through TANF is a tremendous help to working 

families, who still pay almost 60 percent of the cost of child care. 

But the Federal investment of child care assistance has failed to 

keep pace with the need and, in fact, is serving fewer children 

today than it did in the last decade. I have authored the Child 

First Act to increase the Federal investment in child care, and to 

close this gap. I will soon be reintroducing this legislation, which 

will provide the funding needed to serve more than 2.6 million children over 10 years, as recommended in the President’s budget. This 

funding is an investment in successful child care programs, yes. 

But also in the parents and families that are trying their hardest 

to lift themselves out of poverty. 

Now, I know some might claim we can’t add new funding. But 

those objections didn’t stand in the way when my colleagues on the 

other side added $610 billion to the deficit through permanent tax 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
61 

cuts for businesses without being paid for. If we want to seriously 

help families find work and escape poverty, then we should seriously consider increasing child care funding as a part of this reauthorization. 

I hope my colleagues on the Subcommittee and the full Committee will look at this issue very closely. I look forward to working 

with all of you on this, and on other areas in need of improvement, 

such as further improving access to vocational education and lifting 

barriers that block hard-working legal immigrant families from 

participating in these programs. 

Let’s take this opportunity and really improve, strengthen, and 

move the TANF program forward for today’s families. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. His time has expired, and we will go to Mr. Smith next. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The TANF program currently has four purposes, which are generally to provide help to 

needy families; independence from welfare through job preparation, 

work, and marriage; to prevent unmarried births; and, four, to encourage the formation and support of two-parent families. While 

each of these purposes touches on poverty, none explicitly sets a 

goal for the program to reduce poverty by promoting work, instead 

of simply treating the symptoms of poverty day to day. 

That is why, last week, I introduced the Reducing Poverty 

Through Employment Act, to explicitly highlight the connection between poverty reduction and work. My bill would add a new purpose to TANF, which is to reduce poverty by increasing employment entry, retention, and advancement. The same provision is 

also in the larger TANF discussion draft that is the focus of the 

hearing today. 

Mr. Brown, you talk about the importance of employment goals, 

and how setting these goals helps people escape poverty over the 

long term. Do you think adding this purpose to TANF will help others put a greater focus on employment, as well? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Smith. Yes, I do 

agree with you. Both professionally and personally I have dedicated 

my career to helping people move out of poverty, and I think TANF 

is definitely an important part of that. However, what I would say 

is that TANF is really a small part of the solution, because most 

people coming off of TANF are not out of poverty. 

What I would like to really look at in your language is around 

entry, retention, and advancement. I think those are key, you are 

correct, entry into employment, retention, and advancement. With 

TANF, people, when they make a certain amount of income, they 

go off. And a lot of times the retention and advancement is missing. And we need to dedicate more time, more resources to really 

working with them to help them advance, continue to move on that 

career pathway. 

The other thing I would suggest in regard to this is education 

and training is key to moving people out of poverty. So, in addition 

to employment, retention, and advancement, I would say that education and training is also a key component to getting people to 

really—to family-sustaining wages. So thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
62 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman yields back. We will next 

go to Mr. Renacci. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to be part of this hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses, also, for being here and for your testimony. 

Mr. Brown, your story about Elizabeth kind of touched home, because I was—I had met with Stark—or actually, Summit County 

Department of Jobs and Family Services, which is a large county 

in my district. I met with their Executive Director because he had 

indicated to me that it was very difficult to meet some of the requirements of TANF, but it is also very difficult when many of 

these individuals don’t have their GED, and there is the education 

requirement. 

So we know the current TANF law really requires States to engage 50 percent of adults on welfare in certain work activities, and 

some activities only count for certain people, or for a brief period 

of time. In addition, if someone works 1 hour less than a number 

required, the State gets no credit for that person’s participation at 

all. And these were kind of the issues that he brought up to me, 

and that his staff brought up to me. 

Last week I introduced a Preparing More Welfare Recipients for 

Work Act, which is folded into the larger Committee discussion 

draft that would address this by making a number of changes, such 

as giving States partial credit for individuals who participate for 

less than the full hours required under current law; eliminating 

some of the restrictions on how long participation in certain activities can count toward the State requirement; and allowing participation in some educational activities to count for more individuals 

and for longer periods than under current law, which I think is 

really important, and touches somewhat on your Elizabeth’s story, 

Mr. Brown. 

Do you think this added flexibility would help you better serve 

those families you are serving now? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I would absolutely agree with you, that this 

is definitely a step in the right direction. However, what I would 

say also is, beyond just more flexibility, we really want to focus 

more on outcomes. 

So, for example, if someone is in education, they are in a community college or they are working on a GED, we are really focusing 

on those education hours. So we are counting those hours, getting 

logs in on those hours. How important, really, is that? Really, what 

is important is what kind of progress are they making in that education. Are they finishing those classes? Are they getting credits? 

Are they getting those degrees, or completing those degrees? We 

really want to focus what we are doing on progress and outcomes 

versus process. 

The other thing I would mention is that, even with that flexibility and the activities that you are asking us to do, one of the 

other things that that leads to is just more documentation and 

verification of those activities. It doesn’t alleviate that concern. 

When 53 percent of our counselors’ time is really chasing after documentation and verification of those activities, that leaves a lot less 

time to really be looking at what does this person need to gain selfsufficiency, to meet those employment goals. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
63 

So, really, what I would like to see is that, if you are going to 

ask us to report back on activities, it is more on what really matters. How are they approaching and progressing and meeting those 

goals? 

Employment is another example. So they are out job searching. 

What does that really tell us, unless we know what are those leads, 

what employers have they actually connected with and interviewed 

with? What employers have our counselors engaged with that can 

lead to employment with those folks? Just verifying hours is not 

helpful in meeting those families’ goals. 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Kelly, your thoughts on some of the flexibility? 

Mr. KELLY. I think, as referenced earlier, that we have seen significant improvements in the education field, based predominantly 

on some flexibility and the ability to create individual progress 

plans for people. I don’t know how we can get away from that as 

being one of the significant steps as we move forward. So some of 

that flexibility, I think, is absolutely required. 

I think everybody sitting at the panel has used the word ‘‘outcomes’’ and ‘‘accountability’’ in some form. So even those of us who 

feel as though some additional assistance is necessary or can be 

tinkered with in one way or the other, we are all in agreement that 

we should run this in a highly professional, businesslike way, and 

you can’t do that without having significant accountability steps in 

place. 

So, we need outcome measures, clearly-defined outcome measures, but not without enough flexibility to help the individual needs 

of the people involved. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

At this time I would like to take a moment to congratulate our 

current Legislative Assistant on the Subcommittee, Levi Stoep. 

Levi is leaving us today to begin law school. And, Levi, I just want 

to say well done, and best of luck for the future. Thank you for the 

great work. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today to provide testimony before the Subcommittee. It has been very, very valuable in 

our efforts to move forward in this TANF reauthorization. I want 

to thank the Members for their participation and the great work 

in putting this legislative draft together. 

Members may have additional questions that come up, and we 

will submit those in writing. And we would ask that you try to respond within 2 weeks so we can make this part of the completed 

record. 

And, with that, the Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
64 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.033
65 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.034
66 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.035
67 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.036
68 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.037
69 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.038
70 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.039
71 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.040
72 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.041
73 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.042
74 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.043
75 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.044
76 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.045
77 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.046
78 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.047
79 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.048
80 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.049
81 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.050
82 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.051
83 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.052
84 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.053
85 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.054
86 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.055
87 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.056
88 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.057
89 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.058
90 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.059
91 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.060
92 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.061
93 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.062
94 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.063
95 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.064
96 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.065
97 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.066
98 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.067
99 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.068
100 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.069
101 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.070
102 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.071
103 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.072
104 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.073
105 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.074
106 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.075
107 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.076
108 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.077
109 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.078
110 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.079
111 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.080
112 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.081
113 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.082
114 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.083
115 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.084
116 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.085
117 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.086
118 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.087
119 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.088
120 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.089
121 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.090
122 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.091
123 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.092
124 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.093
125 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.094
126 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.095
127 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.096
128 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.097
129 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.098
130 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.099
131 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.100
132 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.101
133 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.102
134 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.103
135 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.104
136 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.105
137 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.106
138 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.107
139 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.108
140 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.109
141 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.110
142 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.111
143 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.112
144 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.113
145 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.114
146 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.115
147 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.116
148 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.117
149 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.118
150 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.119
151 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.120
152 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.121
153 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.122
154 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.123
155 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.124
156 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.125
157 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.126
158 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.127
159 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.128
160 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.129
161 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.130
162 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.131
163 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.132
164 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.133
165 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.134
166 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.135
167 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.136
168 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.137
169 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.138
170 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.139
171 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.140
172 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.141
173 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.142
174 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.143
175 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.144
176 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.145
177 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.146
178 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.147
179 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.148
180 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.149
181 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.150
182 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.151
183 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.152
184 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.153
185 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.154
186 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.155
187 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.156
188 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.157
189 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.158
190 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.159
191 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.160
192 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.161
193 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.162
194 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.163
195 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.164
196 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.165
197 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.166
198 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.167
199 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.168
200 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.169
201 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.170
202 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.171
203 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.172
204 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.173
205 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.174
206 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.175
207 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.176
208 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.177
209 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.178
210 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.179
211 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.180
212 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.181
213 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.182
214 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.183
215 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.184
216 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.185
217 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.186
218 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.187
219 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.188
220 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.189
221 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.190
222 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.191
223 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.192
224 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.193
225 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.194
226 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.195
227 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.196
228 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.197
229 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.198
230 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.199
231 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.200
232 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.201
233 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.202
234 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.203
235 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.204
236 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.205
237 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.206
238 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.207
239 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.208
240 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.209
241 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.210
242 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.211
243 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.212
244 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.213
245 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.214
246 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.215
247 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.216
248 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.217
249 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.218
250 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.219
251 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.220
252 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.221
253 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.222
254 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.223
255 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.224
256 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.225
257 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.226
258 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.227
259 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.228
260 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.229
261 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.230
262 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.231
263 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.232
264 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.233
265 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.234
266 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.235
267 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.236
268 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.237
269 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.238
270 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.239
271 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.240
272 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.241
273 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.242
274 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.243
275 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.244
276 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.245
277 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.246
278 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.247
279 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.248
280 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.249
281 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.250
282 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.251
283 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.252
284 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.253
285 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.254
286 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.255
287 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.256
288 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.257
289 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.258
290 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.259
291 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.260
292 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.261
293 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.262
294 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.263
295 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.264
296 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.265
297 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.266
298 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.267
299 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.268
300 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.269
301 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.270
302 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.271
303 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.272
304 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.273
305 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.274
306 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.275
307 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.276
308 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.277
309 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.278
310 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.279
311 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.280
312 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.281
313 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.282
314 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.283
315 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.284
316 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.285
317 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.286
318 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.287
319 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.288
320 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.289
321 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.290
322 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.291
323 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.292
324 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.293
325 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.294
326 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.295
327 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.296
328 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.297
329 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.298
330 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.299
331 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.300
332 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.301
333 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.302
334 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.303
335 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.304
336 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.305
337 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.306
338 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.307
339 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.308
340 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.309
341 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.310
342 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.311
343 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.312
344 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.313
345 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.314
346 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.315
347 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.316
348 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.317
349 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.318
350 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.319
351 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.320
352 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.321
353 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.322
354 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.323
355 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.324
356 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.325
357 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.326
358 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.327
359 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.328
360 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.329
361 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.330
362 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.331
363 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.332
364 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.333
365 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.334
366 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.335
367 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.336
368 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.337
369 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.338
370 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.339
371 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.340
372 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.341
373 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.342
374 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.343
375 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.344
376 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.345
377 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.346
378 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.347
379 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.348
380 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.349
381 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.350
382 

Æ 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21285A.351