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

21–283 2016

NEXT STEPS FOR WELFARE REFORM: IDEAS TO 

IMPROVE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 

FAMILIES TO HELP MORE FAMILIES FIND WORK 

AND ESCAPE POVERTY 

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 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Serial No. 114–HR03 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
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 $$_JOB
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 30, 2015 announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Eloise Anderson, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, 

and Co-Chair, Secretaries’ Innovation Group .................................................... 23 

Peter Cove, Founder, America Works of New York, Incorporated ...................... 6 

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

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities .............................................................. 47 

Heather Reynolds, President and CEO, Catholic Charities Fort Worth ............. 30 

Sherrie Smoot, Former America Works Client ..................................................... 18 

Tracy Wareing, Executive Director, American Public Human Services Association ........................................................................................................................ 38

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) .................. 81 

County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) .............................. 91 

Peter Germanis ........................................................................................................ 99 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ..................................................... 109 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
(1) 

NEXT STEPS FOR WELFARE REFORM: IDEAS 

TO IMPROVE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR 

NEEDY FAMILIES TO HELP MORE FAMILIES 

FIND WORK AND ESCAPE POVERTY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:17 p.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 $$_JOB
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Thursday, April 23, 2015 

No. HR–03 

Chairman Boustany Announces Hearing on 

Next Steps for Welfare Reform: Ideas to Improve 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to Help 

More Families Find Work and Escape Poverty 

Today, Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R–LA) announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, ‘‘Next 

Steps for Welfare Reform: Ideas to Improve Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

to Help More Families Find Work and Escape Poverty.’’ The hearing will take 

place at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 30, in room 1100 of the Longworth 

House Office Building. 

In view of the limited time available, oral testimony at this hearing will be from 

invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include experts who administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or who provide support to 

States operating the program. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by 

the Committee for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Boustany stated, ‘‘Welfare reforms in the 

1990s helped millions of low-income parents leave welfare for work. Not 

only did welfare caseloads drop by more than half as a result, but the share 

of families with children who were living in poverty fell significantly as 

well. Despite this progress, recent evidence suggests States may not be 

helping as many welfare recipients find work or prepare for work as they 

have in the past. In addition, Congress hasn’t undertaken a full assessment 

of the program since 2006. It’s time for Congress to review this program 

and develop ways to help more low-income families find work and escape 

poverty.’’ 

The TANF program is designed to end the dependence of needy families on government benefits by promoting work, marriage, and personal responsibility. Unlike 

its predecessor, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, which was 

primarily a cash welfare program for low-income families with children, the 1996 

welfare reform law created TANF to fund a variety of services to help low-income 

parents get jobs and become self-sufficient. States are required to engage 50 percent 

of adults in TANF families in work activities such as employment, on-the-job training, job search, and vocational education. 

As a result of these and other reforms, in the years following the 1996 law’s passage, welfare caseloads declined significantly, employment among low-income families increased, and poverty declined. However, recent evidence suggests States are 

not engaging many adults receiving TANF in services designed to help them get jobs 

and move up the economic ladder. In recent years, States have reported zero hours 

of work—or participation in activities leading to work—for over half of the adults 

receiving TANF assistance each month. Recent reports have highlighted ways States 

have used loopholes in current law to sharply reduce the share of adults they must 

engage in work or work activities. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

This hearing will focus on how States assist welfare recipients today, ways to increase State efforts to engage more recipients in work and activities leading to work, 

and how these efforts can help these individuals become self-sufficient, escape poverty, and move up the economic ladder. 

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, ‘‘Please click here to submit a 

statement or letter 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 May 14, 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 material 

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. 

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 

want to thank our witnesses for being here today and thank everyone for coming to today’s hearing on how we can improve welfare 

and help more families and individuals find work and escape poverty. 

Before we get into the meat and potatoes of the hearing, I want 

to welcome—I see he is not here yet, he is probably on his way 

over—I want to welcome the newest Member of our Subcommittee 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
4 

and the full Committee, Congressman Bob Dold. We had a vacancy 

that arose and Bob was just placed on the full Ways and Means 

Committee, and yesterday it was decided that he will be a Member 

of this Subcommittee. I look forward to working with Bob in the 

114th Congress on these important issues. I think he is going to 

bring a lot of talent as an individual to this Subcommittee. 

I would also like to take this time to thank Congressman Tom 

Reed, a Member of the full Committee. He is leaving this Subcommittee and his talents will be missed. He has made many substantive contributions during his time here. Tom, I know, will still 

be very active on these issues even though he is not directly a part 

of the Subcommittee. 

So with all that, let’s move on to the business at hand. We know 

that welfare reforms of the 1990s helped millions of low-income 

parents go to work, move up the economic ladder. The key was increasing work and work opportunities. 

After work-based welfare reform, employment by single mothers 

who head households, the most likely to go on welfare, rose sharply. That increased work and earnings caused poverty and dependence on welfare checks to fall substantially for key groups. Poverty 

among African American households with children reached record 

lows; poverty among female head of households with children remains lower today than before 1996, despite two recessions. 

Now, while that story is positive, it is not enough. Recent years 

have seen troubling trends, especially on whether State welfare 

programs are doing enough to engage adults in work. For instance, 

according to HHS, States recorded that in 2011 a full 55 percent 

of adults on welfare did zero hours of work or other activity while 

collecting benefit checks. Despite welfare’s apparent work requirements, States did so through a grab bag of accounting gimmicks, 

loopholes and exceptions. 

Then in mid 2012, the Obama Administration released their unprecedented guidance, suggesting States could waive work requirements altogether. While no States sought waivers, that move sent 

a clear signal that work requirements don’t matter to the Administration. Add in the fact that the last comprehensive reauthorization 

of welfare was in 2006, it is clearly past time for a full review and 

reauthorization of the critical program. 

That is what we are here today to do, to review how we can improve welfare to help more parents find work so their families can 

escape the trap of poverty, which starts with rejecting the Obama 

Administration’s guidance waiving work requirements. It certainly 

doesn’t end there. Other more important bipartisan policies can 

strengthen the work requirements and improve the program. 

For example, the President’s budget would prohibit the use of 

nongovernmental third-party expenditures to meet State maintenance of effort requirements, and includes a provision to ensure 

that States use these welfare funds for benefits and services to 

needy families. We should be able to find agreement on that that 

would strengthen welfare and focus its resources on families who 

most need the help. We should also reduce marriage penalties, simplify the program administration and pave the way for broader reforms, improving opportunity and upward mobility. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
5 

This is about more than abstract policies here in Washington, 

D.C. And so that is why today, I think, the Committee’s going to 

be really benefited greatly by being joined by Sherrie Smoot, who 

spent years on welfare without getting the kind of help she really 

needed, how to find, get and keep a job. For example, her example 

shows what can happen when we actually really do have programs 

that help people solve problems instead of just dispensing checks 

year after year. That is the real goal of the hearing today, for more 

people to succeed like Sherrie. 

I look forward to all the testimony and working with Members 

on both sides of the aisle to do just that. With that, I will be 

pleased now to turn to the esteemed Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Doggett, for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each 

of our witnesses for coming. I look forward to hearing the diverse 

testimony that each of you have to offer. I think that we saw in 

1996 an opportunity to change welfare, move welfare to work. I 

joined in that effort by supporting the reform that occurred then. 

We had significant early promise from the program, but I think 

that promise has slowed, and that we have allowed spending to be 

directed away from help to people to go to work. The TANF funds 

have not kept pace with inflation, they have prevented the small 

amount of financial assistance that we give to families from providing any real support. We called on the States to do more to 

incentivize work, but, in some cases, Federal TANF monies have 

been little more than a slush fund for States to use for whatever 

social service purpose they wanted where they were spending 

money and simply replacing it with Federal dollars and shifting 

that to something else. 

We see the share of TANF funds that are spent on promoting 

work accordingly from the States has declined over time. As Dr. 

Donna Pavetti says in her written testimony, the States are now 

using only about 8 percent of their TANF funds for work activity. 

Perhaps even more troubling, TANF’s current provisions designed 

to encourage work are short-sighted. The participation requirements measure the amount of time that an individual spends in 

Federally defined work activities rather than on how many welfare 

recipients are able to find and maintain a job. 

There, I think, we do have a bipartisan part, that finding and retaining a job at a livable wage is the best path out of poverty and 

the objective for which we should be striving. This troubling focus 

is reflected in the fact that the amount of people on TANF who 

may participate in vocational education is capped, and the amount 

of time a person can spend learning an in-demand job skill is limited. 

How can we expect struggling parents to find long-term work to 

help them avoid needing assistance in the future when we so severely restrict training opportunities? A recent report from the 

Government Accountability Office described how the current system ‘‘discourages States,’’ and ‘‘lacks incentives to foster broader 

adoption of promising approaches to help those on TANF find longterm work.’’ 

As Utah’s Republican Governor Gary Herbert explained in 2012 

to our Committee, TANF participation requirements do not lead to 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
6 

meaningful employment outcomes. Officials in Kentucky have even 

explained that some of the current limitations are adding to the 

overall program cost. 

In just my own State of Texas, we have seen outside of welfareto-work dollars how programs like Project QUEST in San Antonio 

and Capital IDEA in Austin partner with community colleges and 

local businesses to successfully train low-income individuals for living wage jobs that are in high demand in our communities. Allowing the States the use of such programs will put more people into 

careers they can use to climb the economic ladder. I was particularly interested in State Secretary Eloise Anderson’s written testimony concerning the importance of strengthening the ability of 

States to use these types of education programs and double the 

amount of time those on TANF can participate in them. I look forward to hearing other proposals from our witnesses. 

We, as you know, have September 30 approaching, an opportunity to focus on work, not on peripheral issues, not on shaming 

the poor, but on work and ways to encourage that work in these 

livable wage jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our work together toward that 

deadline in finding meaningful changes in TANF and renewing it 

at an acceptable level. I yield back, and thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. I think there is 

going to be a lot of common ground to actually spread this program. I appreciate the gentleman’s statement. 

Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record. I 

want to remind our witnesses as we go forward with your oral 

statements, we are going to go 5 minutes. We have your written 

testimony. We have been able to review it. Try to keep your comments to 5 minutes as is customary here so we can get through the 

hearing in a timely way and leave plenty of time for questions. 

We have a very distinguished panel today. This is going to be a 

very good hearing, a very informative hearing. First, we will hear 

from Peter Cove, founder of America Works. Next, we are going to 

hear very compelling testimony from Sherrie Smoot, former America Works client, who is going to give us some real-life experience 

in working through these programs. 

Next, Eloise Anderson, no stranger to the Subcommittee, and Cochair of the Secretaries’ Innovation Group and Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. Then we will hear 

from Heather Reynolds, President and CEO of Catholic Charities 

Fort Worth. Tracy Wareing, Executive Director, American Public 

Human Services Association, and then last and certainly not least, 

LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President for Family Income Support Policy, 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

I want to thank you all for being here. You bring tremendous expertise to this hearing and we will start with Mr. Cove. So thank 

you for being here and please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER COVE, FOUNDER, 

AMERICA WORKS OF NEW YORK, INCORPORATED 

Mr. COVE. Chairman Boustany, good afternoon. My name is 

Peter Cove and I am the founder of America Works of New York. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
7 

Before I begin, I would like to thank House Ways and Means 

Chairman Paul Ryan, Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman 

Charles Boustany, and the rest of the Committee Members for allowing me to speak today. 

America Works was founded in 1984 to help welfare recipients 

to get jobs. It was the first for-profit company dedicated to this effort. There are four principles which we are passionate about. 

First, people on welfare can and want to go to work. Prior to welfare reform, the assumption was that people needed to stay home 

or they couldn’t go to work. 

Second, work combined with on-the-job training curriculum designed by employers, not training in isolation, is central to that effort. For far too many years, welfare recipients were sent to training programs that never led to employment. 

Third, companies should be paid for performance. Only when a 

person gets and keeps a job should a vendor be paid. 

Fourth, getting a job is easy, but keeping the job is hard. So we 

developed retention services for the first 6 months to provide counseling, on-the-job coaching, interventions to navigate workplace 

issues, and attach workers to a host of financial incentives. In the 

1980s, we ran modest-sized programs around the country with our 

program design, and they attracted the media and the interest of 

politicians. Newt Gingrich was an early supporter, as was the 

Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC, which was headed by Bill 

Clinton, among many others. 

America Works was involved in providing information to both the 

House and White House during the implementation of the 1996 

TANF law. Once the law passed in 1996, America Works expanded 

its services in a number of States around the country. During the 

first 10 years, there was a great deal of experimentation with different service models, but always with a primary focus on employment and not abstract training unrelated to jobs. 

In 2006, when the bill was reauthorized, the focus of each of the 

contracts was directed toward participation rates. This will be part 

of the presentation as I go on. Since the start of America Works 

31 years ago, we have placed over 500,000 people in jobs. We have 

expanded the services we provide to other populations, including 

ex-offenders, veterans, the homeless, and people with disabilities. 

I would like to address seven areas in which I believe TANF 

needs to be strengthened. First, although the law directs the local 

governments to have 50 percent of their caseload looking for work, 

most do not. States have elaborate ways of reporting the data so 

that far fewer able-bodied people are actually participating. This is 

accomplished by moving recipients in and out of the denominator 

that determines the 50 percent rate, in some cases into separate 

State programs not subject to Federal requirements. In addition, 

there are reductions in participation requirements based upon 

caseload reductions and State spending on the population beyond 

the expected maintenance of work level. 

Second, despite the law, which directs localities to limit welfare 

to 5 years, many places do not do that. 

Third, very few cases are ever sanctioned. A history of granting 

good cause waivers, conciliation and appeal hearings has led to 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
8 

welfare departments retaining a culture of not aggressively using 

the sanction process as it was intended. 

Fourth, every State has a pool of people who are exempted from 

participation for medical reasons. However, since all that is required is a doctor’s note, some of these cases are not legitimate. 

Fifth, in a related issue, there are many TANF recipients whom 

States would like to remove from their rolls, and instead place in 

SSI and SSDI. Again, this is appropriate for those who clearly cannot work, but inappropriate for many others. 

Sixth, there is an increasing number of programs at the Federal, 

State and government levels which are being contracted out only 

to not-for-profits. As we have seen in New York City, the most effective jobs programs are those run by the for-profit industry. We 

see no reason that for-profit companies should be excluded from 

participating, there is no reason. 

Seventh, and the final point, has to do with work verification 

procedures that were made unduly complicated in the 2005 reauthorization. Here I believe there is the law of unintended consequences. The intent was to close the loophole where States were 

allowing people to do these kinds of non-work related activities. 

The effect on the ground is a tremendous amount of administrative 

paperwork on contractors such as America Works, and this really 

takes away from the program activities. 

I want to just add one other comment, and I want to reiterate 

something I said before. People talk about best practices in welfare 

reform. To me there is only one, and that is government should 

only be paying those who are responsible for getting people jobs, if 

they get people jobs. They shouldn’t be paying them for their program, they shouldn’t be paying them for their staff, they should be 

paying them for getting them jobs and keeping them in jobs. We 

pioneered that back about 30 years ago. I have to tell you, it still 

is difficult to get governments to agree to that. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cove follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
9 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.001
10 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.002
11 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.003
12 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.004
13 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.005
14 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.006
15 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.007
16 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.008
17 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.009
18 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Now we will hear from Ms. Smoot. And 

I want to say we are very, very happy that you are able to be with 

us today to share your personal story. It always takes quite a bit 

of courage to do that publicly, so we deeply appreciate it because 

it will be very informative to us in this discussion, and also in how 

we proceed going forward. So with all that, Ms. Smoot, please proceed and we would love to hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRIE SMOOT, 

FORMER AMERICA WORKS CLIENT 

Ms. SMOOT. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Sherrie Smoot, and I am grateful 

to share my story, a story that shows what perseverance and support can do for someone receiving public assistance. 

My mother, brothers and I had moved a bit when I was young. 

I went from Washington, D.C. to New York and returned to Washington, D.C. for good when I was around 12 years old. My mother 

did not have my transcripts upon our return to Washington, D.C., 

so I was sent to Woodland Job Corps Center program. I was in 

Woodland Job Corps Center for 2 years and was doing really well 

in my business and clerical coursework. Soon afterward, I graduated from Woodland Job Corps Center with certificates in the 

trades I had studied. 

When I returned to the District, I had nowhere to go and was 

staying house to house. My brother and his girlfriend took me in. 

I was trying to find work, but no one would hire me. I knew nothing about writing resumes, cover letters or thank-you letters. I did 

not have enough money or enough experience to be seen as qualified. A few months later I became pregnant with my daughter, 

Danniele Lee. I tried to get public assistance but was turned away. 

They said I had to be 6 months pregnant, so my brother’s 

girlfriend, she took care of me. After 6 months, I started receiving 

public assistance. After becoming pregnant with my second child 

Frank Lee, Jr., the children’s father and I separated. 

After I had my son, I had to join a jobs program at a local nonprofit. I gained computer skills and earned certificates. Soon after, 

I earned a temporary position working with Douglas Resources, Incorporated. 

I was not successful in retaining positions due to health and personal concerns. I was mandated to another program where I was 

able to obtain my GED and gain additional work experience with 

some temporary and contract positions. Two years later, I went to 

the University of the District of Columbia after receiving aid from 

the TAPIT program. I have since received my Bachelors of Computer Information Systems science. Around a year and a half later, 

I earned my first IT temporary job working for Corestaff at the Advisory Board Company. 

When that contract ended, I was sent another letter to join a 

workforce program. I picked America Works of Washington, D.C., 

where I learned how to write cover letters, build resumes, and 

build self-confidence, and how to prepare for interviews. I also had 

the opportunity to build my own resume by participating in a work 

experience assignment with the District’s Department of Human 

Resources. While at America Works, I was also warmly referred to 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
19 

the program recruiter for the Veterans Group. Although not a veteran, I was invited to attend the Veterans Group and took up 

CompTIA A+ Security+, Network+, CCNA, CCENT, Microsoft Windows Server and MCTS classes in which I graduated with a security administration and network administration completion certificate, and as a Microsoft certified technology specialist. 

I now work with Teksystems at the Environmental Protection 

Agency as a call center central analyst. My daughter is in college 

aiming to be a United States Marshal; my oldest son is graduating 

from high school this year, and going to college aiming to be an 

FBI agent. And my youngest son is in junior high school. My TANF 

case has been successfully closed since 2014. 

Honestly speaking, America Works is a program that has the 

best staff, and they make you achieve when you think you can’t. 

They taught me how to express myself and how to have confidence 

and now the road that I am on has inspired me to shoot for the 

stars. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I look forward 

to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smoot follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
20 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.010
21 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.011
22 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.012
23 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SMOOT. You are welcome. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Anderson, you may proceed now. 

STATEMENT OF ELOISE ANDERSON, SECRETARY, WISCONSIN 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND CO-CHAIR, 

SECRETARIES’ INNOVATION GROUP 

Ms. ANDERSON. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for 

the invitation. As you know by my testimony, I am Secretary of the 

Department of Children and Families for the State of Wisconsin, 

and I am also the Chairperson for the Secretaries’ Innovation 

Group. 

I want to talk about TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families. I believe TANF was intended to engage parents in work 

and job preparation activities to promote family self-sufficiency and 

reduce long-term dependence on welfare. 

The WPR, which is the Workforce Participation Rate, was established as a performance measure to ensure States’ programs reflected full engagement in helping parents enter the workforce. We 

support the accountability message surrounding the WPR, and believe that the focus on work must be maintained to encourage family stability through employment. Participation requirements, as 

currently structured, must be revised to ensure that the standards 

align with the ultimate goal of TANF programs moving recipients 

from welfare to work. 

The issues are that, in its current state, the work participation 

rate is entirely process-driven in that its rate measures the number 

of families in the State TANF caseload participating in assigned 

work and work-related activities for a required number of hours. 

There is currently no outcome-based performance measure. I want 

to go back over that. There is currently no outcome-based performance measure established to evaluate success in increasing the employment of low-income families. 

Rule changes surrounding TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005 greatly restricted the autonomy necessary for operating TANF 

programs to fit individual needs of States. I think it is very difficult 

for a centralized government to understand how all the States need 

to perform. 

Recommendations that we are putting on the table is to revise 

the work participation rate to support employment outcomes. Our 

recommendations are for revising and enhancing the work participation rate where we derive from our experience with pay-for-performance contracts. In Wisconsin, we have all our operators who 

we contract with on a pay-for-performance system. I think that is 

the way the TANF program needs to go overall. 

We believe that we should be funding job attainment, job retention and wages. We believe that the system should reward employment outcomes and allow for our programs to help participants 

achieve long-term financial independence, and also provide information about which services and opportunities are most effective in 

achieving those goals. 

So, if you really support job attainment, job retention, and job 

wages and allow States to be able to freely figure out how to do 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
24 

that, we will learn a lot more than you guys directing all the traffic. 

Three general categories that I want you to think about are, restore the enhanced areas of the State flexibility that were generally 

undermining the DRA; maintain a focus on work and balance, the 

individual activities and that there needs to be that balance for 

able-bodied employment, and to support long-term job retention; 

and three, enhance the Workforce Participation Rate by developing 

additional performance measures, all focused on work, retaining 

work, and keeping work for the long term, with particular emphasis to those related to employment outcomes. 

We believe that if we take our focus from the process focus to 

really look at the outcomes of who is getting a job and how long 

they are staying on a job, for long-term people we will have a better outcome across the Nation. My conclusion is, implementing 

changes to increase the focus on employment, job retention and 

higher wages through continued skill development is consistent 

with the overarching goal of TANF. We believe it is vital that the 

provisions surrounding the Workforce Participation Rate are enhanced to expand performance measures to employment outcomes 

and allow States greater flexibility in creating program approaches 

that best fit the individual States needs as well as the individual 

participants’ need, and provides an opportunity to demonstrate 

what approaches are most effective. Consider using the contingency 

fund the way you use title 4(d) as an incentive for outcomes. We 

believe that what we do in 4(d), which is the child support program, that what we do in there really forces States to want to compete with each other in outcomes, but it also creates—it rewards 

the outcomes. So I would like you to look at the 4(d) model as a 

way to use a contingency fund if we go forward with that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
25 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.013
26 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.014
27 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.015
28 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.016
29 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.017
30 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank you. Ms. Reynolds, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER REYNOLDS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CATHOLIC CHARITIES FORT WORTH 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Chairman Boustany, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name 

is Heather Reynolds, and I am CEO of Catholic Charities Diocese 

of Fort Worth. Over 100,000 people come to our organization every 

year for help. Three hundred eighty-four employees are back at 

Catholic Charities Fort Worth right now working to move clients 

out of poverty. 

Our team knows that individualized, holistic case management is 

the critical element in moving someone from a place of dependence 

on government or charity to a place of self-sufficiency. Many government programs intended to help people out of poverty only meet 

basic needs, but never give what is truly needed to be self-sufficient. Simply put, it is my belief that pouring more money into 

TANF just doesn’t make sense. Using existing funds in a smarter, 

better way does. As a businesswoman running a $30 million agency, I would 

never simply add more resources to an already well-funded, yet 

failing system or service. More money is not the answer. In the 

case of TANF, overhaul is. I have three suggestions for reforming 

this program. First, allowing funding at both the Federal and State 

levels to be flexible enough to allow us to pair assistance with intensive case management and other services. 

If TANF was structured more like some of our refugee programs, 

would it also mirror their success? The Federal voluntary agency 

matching grant program for refugees, which we participate in, in 

Fort Worth is a successful, federally-funded, anti-poverty program 

in the United States. More than 80 percent of our refugee clients 

are completely self-sufficient after 6 months. It is extremely rare 

for any of our refugee clients to even access TANF because they 

usually don’t qualify since they entered the workforce. 

Second, we need individualization. State TANF laws and policies 

need to be more flexible so this benefit can be used in a way that 

will help individual families the most. For example, TANF clients 

enrolled in our workforce program receive vouchers that they can 

use for child care while they attend employment-related classes or 

apply for jobs, but these vouchers can only be used at certain child 

care centers. The centers often have wait lists, are over an hour 

away, or are not near a bus stop. The inflexibility of this benefit 

makes it extremely difficult for clients to actually access the help 

that these vouchers are supposed to provide. 

The current Texas TANF structure requires them to follow a prescribed program that may not meet their needs or help them make 

any progress along the path of self-sufficiency. By failing to customize benefits to individual needs, something that is intended to 

help can actually become a barrier to getting families out of poverty. 

Third, rather than abruptly ending once a client starts working, 

TANF’s benefits should be gradually reduced to offer continued 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
31 

support until a person can reach a living wage. By actually raising 

the income limit for applicants, TANF can supply supplemental 

support while the client is working, helping them get completely 

out of poverty, and eliminating the need for them to access government benefits again in the future. 

The end goal of TANF and other welfare programs should be 

supporting people to secure living wage work so they can live 

healthy, self-sufficient, fulfilling lives. Simply helping them survive 

is not enough. 

Gallup recently released study findings related to managing 

human capital in the workforce. Gallup found that developing the 

already innate strengths of individual employees leads to an exponentially more employee potential. Gallup found that when employees know and use their strengths, they are far more productive and 

their performance is spectacular. 

If government assistance can be structured in a similar way, 

shifting from a complicated set of criterion processes in order to attempt to fix people, to allow for case management systems that 

would support them using their own strengths, what is right with 

them, what would be the result? I think it would be more people 

successfully employed, leaving behind reliance on government, welfare, or charitable assistance forever. 

We often say in Fort Worth that we hope to put ourselves out 

of business. Making TANF more flexible, individualized, and responsive would be a step in the right direction. 

It is not okay for the greatest Nation on Earth to allow 46 million men, women and children to struggle in poverty day after day 

and year after year. It is an affront to the values that Americans 

everywhere hold dear. As children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, 

we learn of the ideal America, ‘‘One Nation under God, with liberty 

and justice for all.’’ We must do better. To accept the status quo 

would be to turn our backs on millions of Americans seeking selfsufficiency and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Reynolds follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
32 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.018
33 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.019
34 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.020
35 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.021
36 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.022
37 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.023
38 

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

Ms. Wareing, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY WAREING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. WAREING. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Tracy Wareing Evans, Executive Director 

of the American Public Human Services Association. We appreciate 

the opportunity to share insight from governor-appointed service 

leaders, like Eloise, as well as many local agency directors that we 

represent at APHSA, and how we can more effectively connect 

Americans to the workforce and to a sustainable career path. 

Mr. Chairman, your description for today’s hearing expresses 

this Subcommittee’s intention to examine ways to make the Federal welfare program more efficiently and effectively a hand-up 

from poverty, not a handout. We, too, are interested in what evidence tells us actually works and how public investments can return real and lasting value. 

We urge the Subcommittee to look beyond TANF. As laid out in 

our member’s pathway agenda, success in the marketplace is a 

function of not just TANF and other human service programs, but 

a wide segment of the broader community, including education and 

training, employers, nonprofit groups and other government agencies. 

My remarks about TANF today are provided within this broader 

context. While our members do recommend some changes in 

TANF’s details, and we have noted those in my written statement, 

and I think you have heard them from the panelists today, our 

overarching concerns are with the full workforce engagement system, and how its components must work better together to make 

real progress. We must support changes in that human services 

system that more effectively deliver what we call engagement that 

matters, ultimately getting parents into sustainable jobs with wage 

progression and advances in opportunities. 

At its core, TANF was designed to help low-income parents build 

a pathway out of poverty and toward economic security for their 

family, while assuring the safety and well-being of their children. 

Our members believe that TANF participants who can move directly into jobs should have the opportunity to do so. But our members also know that most TANF participants are families in crisis 

and face various obstacles that require targeted and appropriate 

support to become work-ready, get a job with a family-supporting 

wage, and stay in the workforce over time. 

Indeed, their very presence on the TANF caseload typically 

means that faster and more direct routes to sustain employment 

haven’t worked for them. States such as Utah are using a variety 

of strategies to better engage families through intergenerational 

approaches, as well as alliances with a business and education 

community that trains students in high demand skills. A compelling example of what we mean by engagement that matters is occurring in Washington State. There they began with a focus on stabilizing families in crisis by identifying what is causing the instability. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
39 

Employment counselors look at what is happening with the family, and they ask questions about their strengths and their challenges. They ask how are your kids doing in school? Are you caring 

for an elderly parent? Do you have a child with special needs? Is 

there a substance abuse or mental health condition in the home? 

Once stabilized and the family dynamic is understood, the assessment evaluates work-readiness through educational levels and 

work history. 

This extended look at what is happening with a family allows for 

engagement that matters, leading to better-informed interventions 

and early attention to barriers that might otherwise result in parents failing to secure a job or to achieve the economic security that 

we desire for them. 

Let me be clear, engagement is not about ignoring sanctions or 

extending time limits, these remain important motivators, it is 

about getting to the core issues sooner and eliminating the barriers, helping to assure long-term success and preventing families 

from recycling on and off the rolls. 

I think it is fair to say that our members are disappointed that 

TANF has now, for a decade, been subjected to an accountability 

scheme that tracks participation metrics, that doesn’t use actual 

paid employment or independence from government support as its 

outcome measures. 

The work participation rate is extremely complicated. As a result, the system directs energy to process and paperwork, but tells 

us little about whether participants are truly moving toward greater self sufficiency. States are hamstrung by arbitrary limits to prevent many in the caseload who come with a wide variety of existing 

skill levels from receiving the tailored service that you just heard 

about from Heather that are aimed at getting them into long-term 

employment. 

So exactly how should we move forward? States are encouraged 

by the opportunities that the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act is offering them and urge a more aggressive approach. 

We should give States the ability to opt into performance measurements based on actual employment, retention, and advancements, 

as well as the measures of the child’s well-being, rather than the 

current process-focused activities of the WPR. 

We should examine additional ways to blend and brave funding 

from multiple sources in the workforce system, and you might want 

to look at the disconnect youth partnership pilots that were recently enacted that work across existing resources, not new resources, across HHS, education, and labor. 

In conclusion, we really believe that we have to spend more time 

talking about what is actually going to work as a career pathway 

to serve individuals with those more complex needs and we look 

forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wareing follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
40 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.024
41 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.025
42 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.026
43 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.027
44 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.028
45 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.029
46 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.030
47 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Ms. Wareing. 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 opportunity to testify today. I 

am LaDonna Pavetti. I am Vice President for Family Income Support at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. I have spent 

most of my career studying TANF programs and working in States 

to help improve them. In my testimony today, I am going to first 

provide five key facts that demonstrate how little TANF does to 

help families find work and escape poverty, then I will suggest policy changes to improve the program. 

First the facts. Number one, TANF provides cash assistance to 

very few needy families. When TANF was enacted, 68 families received assistance for every 100 families in poverty. That number 

has since fallen to just 26 families for every 100 families. And in 

10 States, fewer than 10 families receive cash assistance for every 

100 families in poverty. 

Fact number two: TANF lifts many fewer children out of deep 

poverty than AFDC did. The share of children living in deep poverty has increased since welfare reform was implemented and research suggests that the loss of TANF benefits has contributed to 

that growth. 

Fact number three: States spend little of their TANF funds to 

help improve recipient’s employability. One of the key ideas behind 

block granting TANF was that if States had more flexibility, they 

could use the funds previously used for cash grants to help recipients find jobs, and to cover the cost of work supports like child 

care. However, this is not what States did. In 2013 States spent 

only 8 percent of their TANF funds on work activities, and only 16 

percent on child care. 

Number four: Most of TANF’s early employment gains have since 

been lost. Employment among never-married mothers with limited 

education peaked in 2000, 14 years ago and has fallen considerably 

since then. Since 2000, never-married mothers have been just as 

likely to work as comparable single women without kids. 

Fact number five: The successive work program is vastly overstated. Studies completed in welfare reform’s early years are often 

used to tout the success of programs that encourage recipients to 

get a job quickly rather than taking the time to increase their 

skills so they can get a better job. The problem is that the studies 

are decades old and they did not lead to steady employment for 

most participants. In one of the programs deemed most successful, 

only 38 percent of the participants were employed steadily. More 

recent rigorous studies demonstrate the training is effective. Evaluations of at least three different training programs show that 

earnings increased by 27 to 32 percent in the second year after participants commenced. 

Now I would like to turn to a discussion of how to make TANF 

a better program. In developing my recommendations, I considered 

two questions: First, what do we want States to do that they are 

not doing now? And second, what changes would encourage them 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
48 

to move in that direction? My answer to the first question is that 

we want States to provide assistance to families in need and we 

want them to support multiple pathways to work that take into account individual strengths and limitations, and not just focus on 

meeting work rate. 

So what changes could Congress make that would help move 

States in this direction? I will focus on four recommendations here 

and have additional recommendations that echo many of the recommendations of my colleagues on the panel in my written testimony. 

First, require greater investments in work activities. If States 

don’t spend more on work activities, it is hard to see how we will 

improve TANF work programs. All States could be required to 

spend a specified portion of their TANF dollars on work activities. 

And rather than paying penalties, States that do not meet performance measures could be required to invest additional funds from 

work activities. 

Second, establish a demonstration project that encourages State 

experimentation. This demonstration could build on the bipartisan 

demonstration project that Congress created to encourage States to 

do the same thing with SNAP recipients. 

Third, redesign the TANF contingency fund to focus on subsidized employment and training. The recent recession exposed serious flaws in the design of the contingency fund, which is unnecessarily complicated and poorly targeted to achieve its purpose. It is 

one of the funds we could use to actually do something better. 

And fourth, identify ways to integrate TANF work programs into 

the broader workforce system. Last year Congress passed bipartisan workforce legislation that emphasized coordination, training 

participants for today’s labor market, and serving those in need. 

Those same principles should be applied to TANF so that the two 

systems are in sync with one another. 

Finally, I think it is important to keep in mind that TANF is 

part of a larger safety net that plays a critical role in supporting 

families when they go to work. Success in TANF will require that 

those supports are in place. We have learned a lot over the last 18 

years about what does and doesn’t work in TANF. We should use 

that knowledge to create a more effective system that will build 

parents’ capabilities and will provide a brighter future for our children with a future of kids that are served by TANF and hopefully 

for those who are not served by TANF now, but should be. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pavetti follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
49 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.031
50 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.032
51 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.033
52 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.034
53 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.035
54 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.036
55 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.037
56 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.038
57 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.039
58 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.040
59 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.041
60 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Ms. Pavetti. We 

will now move to questions. I will begin here. 

Ms. Smoot, first I want to start with an apology to you. You 

should not have had to wait all those years to get the kind of help 

that you really needed. We have to do a better job of aligning these 

programs, holding them responsible for actually helping people like 

yourself and others who are caught in this trap. And you deserve 

that, your kids deserve it, the taxpayers deserve to get value for 

what they are providing to help needy individuals. This is about individual lives trapped in a cycle of poverty. And we are just moving 

along at the same pace. 

I think all of you in your testimony have put this out there about 

very important things that we could consider to reform the program. My background, I was a physician, so I dealt with individuals. And I like the idea of casework and individual approaches, 

the flexibility, take advantage of the potential, what each individual brings to the table, help them find their path, but put them 

on a path to growth. I think this is critical. 

So Ms. Smoot, you spent 2 years in Job Corps, got a GED, and 

finally obtained a college degree all without being able to successfully land a stable job. During much of that time you were able to 

collect the benefits. Is that correct? 

Ms. SMOOT. Yes. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. So what do you think about the TANF 

program, as well as the other programs that you dealt with? What 

could we do to get more help, substantive help quickly to you and 

others who are in similar situations to get you back to working and 

supporting your family and achieving your dreams? 

Ms. SMOOT. Well, going to America Works, that really helped 

me. Going to the Veterans’ Group, that really helped me. It is all 

about getting either certifications for something you want to do or 

getting the education for something you want to do. I mean, I have 

seen girls go—well, some people go to programs and they go out 

there and they get jobs working at the Safeway, or Payless, or 

something making less than $9 or $10 an hour. Now, personally, 

getting off of public assistance, it is going to take you maybe $15, 

$16 an hour. The money—if you sit with $10 an hour on PA, you 

are not going to get off that way, not unless you are working two 

or three jobs. 

So I would say if somebody wanted to get off, they would have 

to find a position making that type of money or more. And I mean 

that is just right for me, because the position I have now is paying 

just about that much or more and I am hoping not to ever leave 

that position, but I like what I am doing. And I am hoping that 

whoever tries to get off likes what they are doing, because if you 

don’t love your job, it is not a job to you. And what I am doing now, 

it is not only my job, the people I am around are my family, you 

can say. So I mean that—it is—it is nice. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. So when you first got started and you 

were told, okay, you have to find work and—tell me a little bit 

more about the people trying to help you. Did they actually say, 

well, what do you want to do? What do you picture yourself doing? 

How can we help you get there? Did they give you options, you 

know, on a way to grow into a career rather than simply take a 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
61 

job at a convenience store or something like that to get minimum 

wage or slightly above minimum wage? 

Ms. SMOOT. No, the only ones that really helped me was America Works, and that is why today I am where I want to be. Back 

then, I mean, I got my certificates, but I didn’t have the training. 

I mean, I walked into an interview and she looked at my resume 

and said, you have never had a job. No, I had training, I had education, but I didn’t have experience. 

So the minute I got home I got the phone call saying I wasn’t 

qualified. And that really hurt me to my heart not having the experience and then no one wanted to train me. And now, look. I got 

the experience, I had the certifications, and I have my position that 

I really want doing something I love. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. It is a testament to your spirit that you 

just kept going through all that. 

Ms. SMOOT. Yes. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Anderson, do you want to comment 

on what you just heard? This is quite a remarkable story. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I have been in this business too long. 

One of the things I learned early is that we tend not to line our 

programs up with people’s interests, and we tend not to line our 

programs up with people’s aptitudes. And we put people in jobs 

that they have no interest in, that they cannot see a future in, and 

they collapse and they don’t stay. 

One of the things I think that I learned early and we are trying 

to put in our programs is that people need to be in a job that they 

enjoy and that they can see a future in. If they don’t see a future, 

they are not staying in that job, they are not giving everything 

they have. Now, I am an employer, and I tell my employees all the 

time, I want you to love what you are doing, because if you love 

what you are doing, you will give me everything you have. Why 

would I think different for people we have in our programs? And 

so the disconnect for me is that we say, I am going to put you in 

any job, and I believe that is the wrong move to make. 

The other thing that we try to do is that if we look at the requirement on 12 months of training in Wisconsin, I can’t get a person a good job with that simply because our jobs are manufacturing 

and high skills, and it takes 2 years. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Two years, yeah. 

Ms. ANDERSON. So in 2 years I can get you an associate degree. 

You can become a machinist, you can become a carpenter. There 

are all kinds of skilled jobs that I can get you in 2 years that are 

high-paying jobs. In 12 months, I can hardly get you anything. And 

we have jobs in Wisconsin that are going open because we can’t get 

skills to fill them. So what she said is what we are experiencing 

in our programs. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Yeah, we don’t want a program that 

takes somebody trapped in a hopeless situation and moves them 

into a trap of just despair. You can either put them—you know, 

hopefully have programs that help them achieve some growth and 

a career track, something they can embrace as their own, be proud 

of, and to advance their own—— 

Ms. ANDERSON. I think what she also said is something that 

is subtle, her children are following her. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
62 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I know. I was getting ready to make that 

point. That is a very important point—— 

Ms. ANDERSON. Successful. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Because we have seen too many families 

now where you have multiple generations who get caught in the 

same trap. And so you have now, Sherrie, allowed your children to 

see a path and you have a tremendous hope of achieving the American Dream. 

Thank you. I now yield to Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I think you made some good 

points, and it doesn’t help to get someone out of one dead end and 

into another. Secretary Anderson, I think you just made that point 

as well. 

Ms. Smoot, you were saying that really, to get by, you have to get up to the $15-, $16-, $17-an-hour level, depending on where you 

are in the country to get what is considered to be not just a wage, 

but a liveable wage, right? 

Ms. SMOOT. Yes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And there is no way you could get by on a minimum wage job, is there? 

Ms. SMOOT. No. 

Mr. DOGGETT. It won’t keep food on the table and won’t pay the 

rent. So often these programs seemed aimed at just getting somebody—just the numbers, just getting somebody into a temporary 

position. One of those jobs that you said might be at Payless or 

might be at Safeway sacking groceries, nothing dishonorable about 

that, but usually not a way that you can afford to keep paying the 

Safeway bill and the rent bill. 

I was impressed by, though you came at it in different ways and 

I know there is not total consensus on this, but that each member 

of our panel from the different perspectives you bring all seem to 

be saying that our current TANF work participation rules, our requirement is flawed. I guess I would just begin with Dr. Pavetti 

and go across to each of you and ask you if you do agree that we 

need to modify the TANF work requirement to make it more focused on results and not just on a process? And should the bottom 

line performance measure be the number of TANF recipients who 

find and maintain a good job and how might that requirement be 

more adequately stated? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I definitely think we should be focusing on—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Turn on your mike. 

Ms. PAVETTI. I definitely think we should be focusing more on 

results than on process. I think that what we need to think about 

is, one of the things that I think is important is there is a difference between work requirements and imposing work requirements on individuals, and the work participation rate. And I have 

been in enough States that I don’t think any State would move 

away from actually expecting people to either be in work or to be 

in training or to do something. I think that is very much a part 

of our culture. But I think what we measure needs to be what happens when people participate in that. 

I think we really need to look at the workforce system so that 

we have a blending across and we are not treating TANF recipients 

differently than we are treating everybody else. And so I think 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
63 

there is a need on the work requirements themselves, the activities, to make those simpler and also to look at exactly the measures that you indicated to come up with a better system. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Ms. Wareing. 

Ms. WAREING. Yeah, I would echo what LaDonna has said. I 

think that there—you have to talk about have you been employed, 

have you had an opportunity—are you retained in that employment? There has to be some period of time where you continue to 

stay with a family, and what does your wage progression look like? 

I think it is interesting, I heard from one State that is looking at 

SNAP employment in training dollars, one of the States that was 

awarded those extra dollars from last year. They are looking at 

whether or not they can take families who actually transition off 

of cash assistance because they are employed, but following them 

because oftentimes they remain for a period of time receiving 

SNAP assistance. 

So they are employed, receiving SNAP assistance and can they 

receive that continued case management that is so important to 

progressing through the job career pathway, could we tie that in? 

I think that is a fascinating idea, and one we have to watch closely 

as Washington is doing that. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Ms. Reynolds. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Great. Thank you for your question. I think accountability is key, and I agree with my colleagues that the end result needs to be focused on not the process. You know, so many 

programs that are aimed at combating social issues, infant mortality, financial success for families, they really measure indicators, 

you know. Instead of measuring how much we are reducing infant 

mortality, we just measure if somebody has a medical home and 

stop there, we say we want to get someone to a financially successful place and then we just measure if they have reduced their debt 

by 10 percent, which, if you have $10,000 worth of debt and you 

reduce it to $9,000, that is good, but you still have a long way to 

go so—— 

What I would encourage is outcome measures, really. What the 

impact is we want to have would be four things: First, getting people into jobs. I think it is really important to get people working. 

The second would be retention, keeping those jobs because it is one 

thing, like one of our colleagues, Sherrie, to get a job, it is a different thing to keep a job. The third though, and this is where case 

management can come in, is to build skills. We know those with 

more education, I am not talking 4-year degrees even, I am talking 

certificate programs, vocation programs, we know they are less 

likely to be in poverty. So help people build skills and then eventually getting people to a living wage job. And I believe that those 

accountability metrics as good case management supporting families during those steps would be great. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Great. And I want to say as well I worked with 

Catholic Charities in San Antonio. They provided such important 

leadership on the needs of our immigrants, and the concern that 

many immigrant families, of course, we have many immigrant families that have American citizen children and other family members, and the work that I am sure you are doing in Tarrant County 

as well with our immigrant families is really important. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
64 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Secretary Anderson. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I am going to take a slightly different 

turn. I think we should quit treating two-parent families differently 

than we treat single-parent families, and we do that a lot in this 

program. We have done that for at least 40 years. And I think the 

outcome of that is that we have more single-parent families than 

we do two-parent families. And a way in which we do that is 

around our work participation rating for single-parent families. So 

we should do all families the same, and eliminate the difference between the two-parent families. I think that would help. 

I think the other thing that would be important is at least within 

our caseload, we have people who are ready to work, they just need 

skills. We also have people who have barriers, and those barriers 

are real important. And I think for those we need to figure out a 

way for our system to be incentivized to move people with longterm issues into the workplace, and that will be structurally different than people who we can send to a vocational education program. I think we have to come to grips, we have some families that 

the low-skill jobs are where they are going to be for the long term. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Cove. 

Mr. COVE. I just want to caution against us moving back toward 

the human capital approach for getting people jobs. Obviously, it 

differs from individual to individual what they are going to need 

to move them into a job and up in the job. But I used to argue with 

Senator Moynihan about this until he finally said to me, you are 

right, work first works better, then education and training and 

classrooms. And yes, education and training is terribly important 

and it should be there, because, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

it goes along with the employer and moving that person up in that 

job. 

But we have to be very careful if we are going to say that everybody has to go into the best job possible. We have the earned income tax credit, we have many other supports that are there for 

individuals who are going into $9- and $10-an-hour jobs or even 

minimum wage jobs. I just want to caution, we don’t want to go 

back there, and there is a tendency right now in this country to do 

that. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. No problem. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I open again by— 

I want to tell Ms. Smoot how much her testimony affected me, it 

was gripping, it was touching. The level of motivation required to 

navigate this complex system that you had to deal with, it is very 

impressive that you persevered. Your level of motivation ought not 

be necessary in order to end up as one of the success stories. 

In that sense, and because of the amount of time it took you to 

finally find a job that you saw offered a path forward, offered you 

a wage that made sense for you and your family, offered you opportunity and hope, in that sense, we have failed you, and so allow 

me to apologize as well and dedicate myself here today to trying 

to improve things however I can. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
65 

You did everything right. You listened to the experts. You took 

responsibility for actions, by your testimony and all accounts, and 

you played by the rules. So, clearly, we need to change some of 

those rules. And so, just thank you for being here very much. Impressive. 

Ms. SMOOT. You are welcome. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Anderson, I would like to go back to the GAO 

report that our Ranking Member referenced in his opening remarks, highlighting the fact that the TANF program lacks incentives for large numbers of State and local TANF agencies to adopt 

and test promising approaches to help TANF cash assistance recipients gain employment. So it is a lack of incentives for these 

State and local agencies; that is the heart of the problem. 

What might policymakers do to encourage more innovation within the TANF program and evaluation at the State and local levels 

to help more of these recipients attain jobs, attain employment, retain those jobs, develop more skills, and ultimately move themselves and their family out of poverty? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, for me, we have a focus on work and skill 

development. They are not separate; they are together. You work. 

So the way you are structured now is that the incentives are not 

to get people out of the program and into a job. You don’t get any 

credit for that. You are getting credit for if I hold onto you in some 

way and support that. 

We went to a pay-for-performance system, and we did two things. 

We looked at our food stamp population and said who were the 

people in there who were not in our program, and we went after 

them, so everybody thought we lost our minds. But we dropped our 

caseload because we have pay-for-performance systems and we pay 

our contractors to perform. You don’t do the same thing for us. 

In fact, if you look at the work participation rate failure across 

the country, the reason why people are failing for those States who 

are trying to get people jobs, they don’t get credit for it. So if you 

just back up and start giving us incentives for putting people in 

jobs, I think you would have a complete turnaround. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Thank you. So the focus on work and 

making sure that we have the outcomes right and we are rewarding the outcomes. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Yeah. And there are a couple of things. You 

know, a lot of people go to work, but they still need a little help. 

Mr. YOUNG. Right. 

Ms. ANDERSON. But if we put them in a job where they don’t 

need a subsidy and we still help them, the States get no incentive 

for that. And we view that when we put a person in a job and they 

come back to the agency like America Works and America Works 

is helping them to retain the job and then go up in the job, there 

is no credit for the State for that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

So, with roughly 1 minute left, I am going to give Ms. Reynolds 

an opportunity to take a crack at how we incentivize States, localities to be a bit more creative, to try new things, and then to evaluate those outcomes so that we all might learn from their best practices. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
66 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Yeah. I agree with a lot of what my colleague 

said. I feel like the Federal Government should hold the States accountable for outcomes, and those outcomes need to tie to job retention and then ultimately a career ladder where they are able to 

move from minimum wage to a little higher wage to ultimately living-wage employment based on geography as well as family composition. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Thanks. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Noem, you are recognized. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Pavetti, I was very interested in your testimony because it 

was news to me that a lot of States aren’t utilizing a lot of their 

TANF dollars for workforce development. And I tend to be a person 

who usually sides on the side of the argument to give the States 

flexibility. So you give them block grants, you give them dollars to 

meet the needs that they have, because not every State is the same 

and not every population is the same; therefore, they can be more 

flexible and meet the needs of their people. 

But if the States are making decisions that aren’t investing in 

making sure that people can provide for their families and have a 

better future, then I think we have a real problem. And so I guess 

I would like to have you weigh in a little bit. 

I come from South Dakota, so we have a very unique situation 

in that we have a very low unemployment rate. In fact, there are 

towns that have 15,000 to 25,000 people in them that have 1,500 

to 2,000 open jobs. They are begging for people to move there and 

to work these jobs, and they will pay to train them to do that. 

So if anybody wants to move to South Dakota, it is cold, but we 

will take you. 

But we also have some Native American tribes that are the poorest in the Nation that have 90 percent unemployment. They are 

very isolated. They are in parts of the country that finding them 

a job would be extremely difficult. So we want programs to work 

for them and to give them skills and create economic development 

where it is needed, as well. 

I guess I would like you to speak a little bit to, do you believe 

that the Congress should place some requirements on the States to 

invest in increasing workforce participation? And how do you see 

that coming down? What would be the best way to do that, while 

still maintaining some flexibility for the States to meet the needs 

of their people? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think if you don’t mandate it States won’t do it. 

Mrs. NOEM. Why do you think that is? That seems to me—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think there are two reasons why States spend 

as little as they do on work and related programs. 

One is because they serve very few people in TANF to start with. 

And the incentives are they get a caseload reduction credit, so if 

their caseload goes down, they have to put fewer people in work. 

So they don’t need to spend it if they don’t serve people. So there 

is that incentive. 

And then the other incentive is that they can use the money to 

fill other budget holes. And we see States increasingly, and particuVerDate Sep 11 2014 13:00 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 021283 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21283\21283.XXX 21283

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
67 

larly when they have constraints, they are shortening time limits, 

they are even serving fewer people, so they can move those resources to fill other things that the State would have paid for otherwise. 

So there are lots of, sort of, incentives for States not to serve. 

Mrs. NOEM. So you are saying they could move those dollars 

to—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. They can move them to pretty much—— 

Mrs. NOEM [continuing]. Early childhood development, things 

like that—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. Exactly. 

Mrs. NOEM [continuing]. And that that is happening. 

Is there a State out there that you can think of that is making 

the correct decisions? 

Ms. PAVETTI. Well, I think States are—well, I will just tell you, 

I have the data for South Dakota. 

Mrs. NOEM. Oh, that is great. 

Ms. PAVETTI. Even though South Dakota, actually—South Dakota spends twice the share of dollars on work than the national 

average. So, even though they are a small State, they are actually 

investing. 

I think there are States that are—the States are all over the 

map. 

Mrs. NOEM. Yeah. 

Ms. PAVETTI. So I don’t think there is one State that points— 

some States are spending a lot on childcare; some States are spending none on childcare. But I think there isn’t a message that says 

that work is what we want these dollars to go to. 

So I think the way to actually make it happen is to have States 

be required to increase over time so they get to some point, so that 

you begin to, sort of, have those investments, to incentivize States 

that actually spend it, that they may be the ones that get the incentives. 

And then the other piece, I think, is I really do think, if we maintain penalties, that is a problem, because what you do is you have 

States that don’t meet the work requirement and then you take 

money out so they have even less requirement. So one thing could 

be to have States be required to spend more on work so that they 

begin to meet those metrics. 

So I think that I wouldn’t want to keep the work participation 

requirement, whatever that metric is. I think there are lots of different ways in which you could begin to incentivize States to have 

them move in that direction and spend more on work. And I think 

part of it has to be serving people who are in need—— 

Mrs. NOEM. Yeah. 

Ms. PAVETTI [continuing]. So that you can’t, sort of, just have 

States not serving anyone. 

Mrs. NOEM. Ms. Anderson, could you weigh in on this a little 

bit? You spoke about incentivizing States to make the correct decisions. When they get more people in the workforce, in a long-term 

job situation, is there a way you think we can incentivize States 

to do that, as well? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I think you have to reward work. I mean, 

to me, it is pretty simple. We reward States’ efforts in getting peoVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:28 Sep 09, 2016 Jkt 021283 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\IN\21283\21283.XXX 21283

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
68 

ple jobs. People go where the incentives are. A human animal is 

a pretty simple animal, you know. This is where the fruit is, that 

is where we are going to go. 

Mrs. NOEM. Uh-huh. 

Ms. ANDERSON. And so the way in which TANF is structured 

now, that is not where the fruit is. The fruit is someplace else. 

Mrs. NOEM. Is there another program that does that that we 

could use as an example? 

Ms. ANDERSON. I think the child support program actually 

does that. I mean, it is kind of strange that that would be the program, but the incentive system is around what the Federal Government says it wants, and that is where the incentives are, and that 

is what they pay for. And over in the collections part, where everybody is struggling, is where the most incentives are. 

And so I think it is a good model for you to decide what your 

goals are, and then that is what you pay for. But paying for process, you need to stop that. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. 

Ms. ANDERSON. And the work participation rate is paying for 

process. 

Mrs. NOEM. Appreciate it. 

I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all of the witnesses for their testimonies and for 

being here. 

Mr. Cove, you have put a lot of emphasis on getting a job and 

that that is what agencies are supposed to be able to do. And you 

also emphasized that your agency has been quite successful in 

terms of the numbers of jobs that you have been able to direct or 

acquire for people. 

What percentage of those would you say were livable jobs, jobs 

that approach where Ms. Smoot might be? 

Mr. COVE. The average wage at America Works, across the 

board, has been over $10 an hour. That includes, obviously, as I 

mentioned before, other supports that the government provides. 

Obviously, depending on what city you are in or what State, that 

may or may not be fully a livable wage. But it may well move you 

quickly, if things are organized properly, into what you would consider a living wage. 

But I do consider work, any work, better than sitting home. And 

it is more money than sitting home. 

Mr. DAVIS. I certainly agree that it is more money than no 

money. 

Mr. COVE. Or than welfare. 

Mr. DAVIS. And better than welfare. 

So you are saying that, if the person is earning, say, $10 an hour 

and there are some other supplements that they might be able to 

require, that they can feel better about themselves in terms of 

what they are contributing to self-sufficiency and well-being and 

moving on. 

Mr. COVE. Well, without question. And I think we heard that 

testimony a few minutes ago. The children of the parents that go 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
69 

out and start working are really affected by this, as is the person 

themselves in terms of their self-esteem. 

I really do believe any job is better than no job. And I understand there are problems in various communities with, quote, ‘‘a 

living wage,’’ but we can’t solve everything. And the first thing I 

think we have to solve—and we have been talking about this in 

this panel—is how do you get the States incentivized in a way so 

that they get people working. 

There are other issues, as well, but I am not sure I can take care 

of that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Smoot, I think all of us are indeed impressed 

with your success and what you have been able to do. What would 

you say exactly that TANF did for you? 

Ms. SMOOT. Basically, TANF just provided something, as far as 

me doing for my kids and for things for me to buy in the household. 

I couldn’t afford a home, could hardly afford food until I got SNAP. 

That is about it. That is all I could really afford—get personal 

things, as far as the house, as far as taking care of the kids, as 

far as healthwise or any conditions in the home. 

Mr. DAVIS. During the process, did that give you some of the energy that you needed, some of the hope that you needed, some of 

what you needed to keep moving? 

Ms. SMOOT. Well, it provided me transportation to go look for 

jobs. That, and for my kids to maybe eat at school when they 

couldn’t afford the food, as far as—I mean, sometimes they had the 

programs where you can get free food at school, but—it was mainly 

nothing, as far as trying to survive in the home. 

I mean, look at the houses that they—condos are going up. They 

are running in the 200s, 300s for sale. And then other homes you 

rent, they are $1,500, $1,600 a month. I mean, no one on TANF 

can afford that. Not even if you are making $10 an hour, you still 

can’t afford that. The money I am making right now, I can’t afford 

that. 

So, money-wise, if you really want to be stable or comfortable, 

you have to be making at least $50,000 a year. If you want to be 

stable, about $30,000 a year. But that still is not going to get you 

off TANF. 

If you want to get off TANF and stay off TANF to do on your 

own or for your kids or see your kids see you thriving and they 

want to do it, too, instead of them falling back on TANF—because 

my mom, she was on it. And I didn’t see much of any good job 

where it was as though she could take care of me and my brothers. 

And it was just her. She couldn’t afford it. 

And I am looking—my kids look at me, and they see that I 

couldn’t do it, and they are going to try to do for themselves before 

they can even try to think about TANF. 

So, to get off of it, I say $15, $16 an hour, but if you want to 

be comfortable, it is $50,000. I mean, these companies—I am thinking the companies today, some of them, they are not hiring permanently. They are hiring temporary. And, as you see, just about my 

whole life was temporary positions. That is the only way I could 

get experience. There were no stable positions, no permanent ones, 

because they weren’t hiring for us. And basically they are still not. 

I am on a contract. I am not on a permanent roll. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
70 

And I am still trying to strive for it today. I am not looking back 

on TANF, no. I am not looking back. I am looking forward. I am 

trying to move up to own my own home, where my kids can do the 

same thing. 

And my kids are now about to be successful because I picked myself up. I didn’t want them to see me keep struggling along with 

them on my back, just keep it moving and keep it moving with 

them on my back. No, I wanted to keep it moving so they can go 

ahead, go before me, run for the stars. You shoot, you go ahead. 

I want you up there. 

So I got up. America Works helped. Veterans Group helped. And 

I still say, if you want to get off TANF, that is the only way to go. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I think you make a great case for job creation 

as being one of the great needs of our country. Thank you very 

much. 

Secretary Anderson, when we talk about flexibility and providing 

more flexibility for States, what are we talking about? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I guess the first thing I can say is that, 

for Wisconsin, I don’t think we are like Ms. Pavetti’s States that 

she is looking at, because we don’t want children in poverty, and 

so we do everything we can to make sure that parents have opportunities for work. 

For us, what we need from you—and I have to now speak for 

Wisconsin—what we need from you is the ability for you to put 

some incentives in front of us so that when we put a person to 

work—and we do that a lot—that that is what we get credit for. 

And the way we have tried to structure our programs is to do— 

we try to reward work, and, because these are family programs, we 

try to supplement childcare, because these are people with children. So we do that. 

But there is another piece that we keep continually not wanting 

to look at that we need flexibility around, and that is that we want 

the fathers to be able to be incentivized to work, as well. Because 

when we get a dad paying child support and a mom working, we 

are putting income in that family that will help that family. So it 

is a two-parent thing; both of them need to be working. 

And when you give us flexibility around that two-parent family, 

all family issues, we can start putting more and more fathers to 

work even if they are not in the home. And that is important. We 

cannot forget fathers are important to the well-being of their children. And we need more flexibility around allowing fathers to participate in the work programs and have the same kind of services 

that the mothers have. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I am so delighted to hear you say that, because 

it seems to me that when we strengthen and enable the father, 

even though he may not be physically in the home, that you are 

actually strengthening the family and you are dealing with it as a 

family unit. 

And I really appreciate that perspective, because we try to work 

a great deal with fatherhood. And we have something called a fatherhood initiative, where some focus is put on those individuals 

and the roles that they play. 

Ms. Reynolds, if I could just—— 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
71 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Well, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to get to the others—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. 

Chairman BOUSTANY [continuing]. Because we are going to 

have votes coming up, too. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. DAVIS. I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cove, if you could take a minute and sketch out for me how 

it would have been different had Ms. Smoot met you on day one 

of entering into, you know, this maze. How would it have been different under your program? 

Mr. COVE. Well, let me tell you why it would have been different 

first. The reason it would have been different is that we are—and 

I am going to sound like a broken record, but we are only paid if 

we get her a job and she stays in that job. Otherwise, I go out of 

business. And we do quite well as a company, and we do quite well 

because we quickly move people into the jobs and give them the 

help that they need to stay in the jobs, which is a terribly important thing. That point has been made by others here, as well. 

We focus hard on moving the person quickly and attaching them 

quickly to the labor market—— 

Mr. HOLDING. Give me some specifics, just, you know, how your 

program works. 

Mr. COVE. Sure. 

Mr. HOLDING. I mean, just tick through it. 

Mr. COVE. First, the person gets assessed, and we get a sense 

of what their strengths are. 

Second, during that period of time, we have a very hard-nosed, 

hard-hitting sales force. Think of us as, like, Manpower, Inc., or 

Kelly or whatever. We have salespeople—we don’t have job developers—we have salespeople who go out into the community, and 

they sell to companies and say, ‘‘We are going to get you someone 

who you are going to want to keep, and we are going to reduce your 

turnover. You are not going to do us any favors or the person any 

favors. You are going to do yourself a favor by hiring a person who 

we get to you.’’ And that makes a significant difference. 

We then have what we call corporate representatives who are 

available to the individual if they get into any issues that are in 

the way of work. I call it the static in their lives—— 

Mr. HOLDING. So transportation issues or childcare. 

Mr. COVE. Exactly. All of those things. So, if the person is a 

good worker, we try to put a protective cocoon around them so that 

they are prepared to stay in the job and handle the things that 

maybe they wouldn’t have been able to handle without us. 

So you have this assessment of a person’s strengths—and, by the 

way, you will hear a lot about barriers to employment. I just don’t 

believe in it. I mean, of course there are people that have certain 

things that will keep them from certain jobs and certain things 

that might ultimately keep them from going to work. But, if you 

start with the issue that people have barriers, let’s see what the 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
72 

barriers are and let’s get rid of those barriers, you don’t get people 

into work. 

About 20 percent of this country are working alcoholics. If a person came in to me and I knew that they were an alcoholic and I 

didn’t place them and I said, ‘‘You have to go into an alcoholic 

treatment program,’’ we would lose 10 to 20 percent of our working 

population here. 

We have to be very careful. You don’t know what barrier is going 

to get in the way. And that is why we have these corporate representatives, so when something does pop up, we are there to help. 

And I don’t mean to sound naive. Of course, someone comes in 

with a drug issue, we make sure that person goes into a drug treatment program. But it is a drug treatment program where they can 

work. And then we make sure that they continue in that drug 

treatment program. 

Mr. HOLDING. So if a person comes to you and they have very 

few skills and you are not able to get them a job, I mean, what 

happens then? 

Mr. COVE. They have very few skills? 

Mr. HOLDING. Very few skills, and it just doesn’t—you are not 

able to find them a job. 

Mr. COVE. Well, let me give you something that might seem 

counterintuitive. 

We place thousands of ex-offenders in jobs. Many or most of 

them don’t have high school degrees, don’t have hard skills. You 

know where we place a lot of them? Customer service, because they 

are very good at BS. And you put them behind a phone, and they 

can sell someone in South Dakota a refrigerator. They are amazing. 

It is backroom, so they don’t have to interact with other people; you 

know, we are not worried about them getting in trouble. And they 

are highly successful doing that. 

That is only one example. I could give you others, but that is an 

example. 

Mr. HOLDING. Good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COVE. You are welcome. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank each and every one of you for your testimony. 

Ms. Smoot, I have to tell you, I very much appreciate your testimony and listening to your questions and your responses. You have 

been a blessing—a blessing to this Committee and a blessing for 

me to sit here and hear your story. 

And all that I can keep thinking over and over when you say 

that you want your kids to do better and that you are going to do 

better, you are the American Dream. You are what everyone 

strives for. And they will do better, and you will continue to do better. And I think that is a lot of hope and inspiration for myself and 

for so many people. 

If you would talk to my grandparents, who none are alive today, 

they would tell you that they were all in poverty and now their 

grandson is a Member of Congress. They never had the opportunity 

to live and see that. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
73 

But I have to tell you, they will do better. Who knows—you 

know, the U.S. Marshal or whatever job—they could be a Member 

of Congress. And you have made a big step today. And I just want 

to say thank you for that, for myself. 

Mr. Cove, I have a couple questions from the perspective, looking 

at the State of Missouri, where I am from. The general assembly 

just passed a piece of legislation that would change the TANF benefits because the scorecards have shown that they have rated F’s 

in managing the programs and not really having a work requirement in receiving TANF benefits. And this would require a work 

benefit. It also would shorten the length of time from, I think, 60 

months to 30 months. 

The Governor vetoed it today, so now it has been sent back to 

the general assembly to either override it or to change it. 

What are your thoughts on the work activity? I mean, do you 

think it is extremely important to have work activity tied to TANF, 

or—I would assume it is, but do you see a great advantage? 

Mr. COVE. I think what has been mentioned is there is, as 

my wife calls it—she is the CEO; she just had to leave— 

‘‘administrivia.’’ There is an awful lot of work that has to be done 

to show that people are there and that they are participating. I 

think that needs to be simplified. 

I think, again, the effort has to be to look at whether the person 

is going into a job and getting a job. That, to me, is what is important. And, as Eloise said, incentivizing States to do that is, to me, 

so terribly important. And, again, incentivizing the delivery of 

these services through pay-for-performance is terribly important, as 

well. 

So I think you are going to have to look carefully at that. The 

participation rate issue is a serious issue. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Anderson, what are your thoughts? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Well, I am just going to be repeating. 

Incentivize work. Treat us the way we in our State treat our contractors. We pay for performance, and they deliver. Pay us for performance, and we will deliver. 

When you set out the performance criteria, it is hard to do something else, because it is—this is what you want, either we do it or 

we don’t, and if we don’t, we don’t get paid for it, and if we do, we 

get paid for it. I think that is simple. And I think it is simple for 

you; it is simple for us. We spend a lot less work and time on administrative stuff, and we spend much more of our time on actually 

getting people jobs. 

And what will happen is that—when I look at this system, in 

some places I don’t see much change from the old AFDC program. 

Because a lot of the pieces in it, a lot of the structure in it are 

carryovers. And I want to get rid of the carryovers. 

Make this a pay-for-performance system, and I think you will see 

the States deliver. 

Mr. SMITH. Is there anything else any of you would like to— 

Ms. Reynolds. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. We just cannot stop at getting a job, though. 

We have to work to move people to get skills, while they are working and respect the dignity of work, but we have to move them 

across the finish line. Because we have seen it time and time again 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
74 

in our community, throughout the Nation, you get people employed, 

you support them a little, then you back off because you have your 

next client coming through the door, and then they cycle back into 

crisis. And so we need to make sure we move people across the finish line into that living-wage job. 

In addition, if you just look at the economics of this, often what 

you will find is that people on TANF aren’t just getting TANF. 

They are getting food stamps, they are getting public housing, they 

are getting a multitude of other benefits. And sometimes working 

a minimum-wage job or a $9-an-hour job, depending on family composition, it is cheaper for them to—it is more economically sensible 

for them to live on all kinds of welfare programs. 

And so what we have to do is support people across that finish 

line. Otherwise, we are disincentivizing people to ever get out of 

poverty. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman yields back. 

Next, we will go to Mr. Dold. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also want to echo my thanks to all of you for your testimony, for taking your time to come and help us understand what 

is going on. 

And, Ms. Smoot, I particularly want to thank you for sharing 

your story. 

And I would like to start with you, if I may, because you have 

an interesting perspective that I think most don’t have, in terms 

of actually understanding, going through these different programs, 

many of which didn’t work. 

Can you tell us from that perspective, kind of, what didn’t work 

and what would you have liked to have seen differently? We know 

that, obviously, when you came to see Mr. Cove that things started 

to work, but before then? 

Ms. SMOOT. Well, before, I didn’t have the education. My obtaining my bachelor’s degree, that was one. Having certifications 

and experience in what I have now, that is number two. And no 

other programs provided that. When I was in America Works, they 

enrolled me in Veterans Group, where I received my certifications. 

And now I am doing everything I love, as far as all the education 

I have. I mean, the bachelor’s degree was in computer information 

systems, which is IT, the certifications are IT—— 

Mr. DOLD. Right. 

Ms. SMOOT [continuing]. And now I am in the IT field. So I am 

feeling, if anybody wants to do something they like doing, they 

have to get those skills and those certifications to do it. 

Mr. DOLD. Well, and you are a testament to being—you know, 

your perseverance, as well. But I think your point also goes to what 

Ms. Pavetti said earlier in terms of just the percentage of what 

people are putting—or what some organizations are putting toward 

work. 

And I think you had mentioned it was 8 percent? 

Ms. PAVETTI. It is 8 percent nationally. 

Mr. DOLD. What do you think that the number should be, in 

terms of the emphasis for organizations? 

Ms. PAVETTI. That is a hard one. I mean, I think that there is 

such a, sort of, wide range, that I think what we want to do is to 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
75 

figure out a way to gradually increase it so that people are spending more. But, again, I agree with Eloise that you have to 

incentivize States to focus on getting people jobs and paying for 

those results. So I don’t think just spending the money is what you 

want. 

Although I do think that one thing that is important is that 

there is no real correlation between how much a State spends and 

their work participation rates. So some States don’t spend much 

because they don’t have anybody on TANF. 

Mr. DOLD. And I also think one of the big problems that we see 

is that a one-size-fits-all mentality—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. Exactly. 

Mr. DOLD [continuing]. From the government is oftentimes the 

response coming from Washington, and that really doesn’t work. 

Ms. PAVETTI. Right. And I think that paying for results, 

though—then you allow States to use the strategies that work in 

their communities. If it is a Native American community, that is 

going to be different than an urban area. 

And so, if you are paying for the end result, you want to take 

into account the employment situation and the differences there. 

But, again, if you are paying for results, you allow States that flexibility, that they can do things differently if that is what they 

choose to do. 

Mr. DOLD. What would you say—because there are those that 

would say, listen, there are those who just need help and they are 

not going to be able to find a job and we need to make sure they 

do it, we just need to make sure we help them. 

What are your claims—Ms. Reynolds, what would you say to 

someone that says, listen, we just can’t do that? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Yeah. I think you have to look at poverty in 

several different ways. You have to look at it from a situational 

poverty situation. Somebody comes through your doors, you know, 

has run on hard times, and you just have to give them a little bit 

of intervention and support to get them back on their feet. 

You have folks in generational poverty, you know, families who 

have not seen anything different, not seen mom or dad go to work 

in the morning, who have been on welfare for generations. And so 

those folks, again, work, same as with situational folks. 

But then there is a group who will always be in chronic poverty 

and, because of mental abilities, disabilities, several things like 

that, may not have the ability to work. 

I think the most important thing is we figure out in all groups 

how they can contribute to society, depending on what level of contribution folks can make based on their individual circumstances. 

Mr. DOLD. Well, and I think in your opening statement you 

were talking about individualization, so—— 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Absolutely. 

Mr. DOLD [continuing]. How do we target programs for the individual as opposed to, ‘‘This is what you might fit into’’? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Right. Right. 

Mr. DOLD. Can you talk to me a little bit more about that and 

what you are doing to—— 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Absolutely. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
76 

So, like, for example, in our organization, we will have a focus 

on pulling families out of poverty. And what we mean by ‘‘out of 

poverty’’ is a living wage, 3 months of living-wage savings, so if 

they fall on hard times they still have some savings in order, no 

government or charity assistance needed, as well as appropriate 

levels of debt. So that is the end goal. That is what we are trying 

to accomplish. That is the result we intend to have. 

But then what we do is we sit down, we thoroughly assess what 

is going on in that family’s life. We understand what their 

strengths are so we can build on those strengths that the family 

has. And then we will work on a customizable plan for that family. 

And we are aggressive about it. You know, in one of our services, 

we are saying—you know, every 7 days we are having contact with 

our family, and every 21 days they are making progress on their 

individual goals. And we are sticking with them for a long period 

of time. People do not often move out of poverty in 6 to 12 months. 

People move out of poverty in usually about 18 to 36 months because they need to get a skill to get to a wage where they can support their family. 

Mr. DOLD. Well, I certainly hope that we can focus on what 

unites us. And I know that we can all agree that we want to get 

people out of poverty into work, where they can support themselves 

and have better opportunities for their children. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

But, again, I want to just thank you all for your testimony and 

for what you are doing out in the workforce. Thank you. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. 

We will go now to Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each and every one of you for the work that you 

are putting into this very, very important area and making the difference in so many families’ lives. 

But it is a complex situation, including—we are often dealing 

with families, and you sort of identified it, in a particular context. 

There are a lot of other factors that play in. I saw a lot of transients when I was a prosecutor dealing with families’ movement, 

other kinds of factors. 

How do you deal—you have a flexible program, but you have 

these other elements that are part of the family circumstance. 

Some may be of their control, some beyond their control. 

Ms. Reynolds, you have impressed me not just with your enthusiasm but this idea of working through to a point, staying with 

them. So how do you accommodate these various stages in which 

a lot of curve balls can be thrown in the process? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. It is not easy, and it is complex; there is no 

doubt about it. But there are a variety of interventions. 

Number one, it is about engagement. It is about, from the moment you meet a family that you are serving, starting to meet their 

basic need, because if someone does not have a roof over their head 

or wonders where their next meal is coming from, they are not 

thinking about self-sufficiency. And so, first of all, it is meeting a 

client where they are at. 

But, second of all, it is instilling hope in them, giving a picture 

of a tomorrow and what life could look like—— 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
77 

Mr. MEEHAN. I don’t want to interrupt your—— 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Yes? 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. Answer, but let me ask: Are you getting—because one of the things that Ms. Pavetti and I think Ms. 

Wareing and some others have said, we want to reward success 

and progress. But are there abilities to be able to measure those 

things? Are we giving you the capacity to be able to measure that 

as a success? Or are some people going to say, well, it has been 9 

months and, you know, you are still dealing with hope, we still 

haven’t gotten them to work? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. I don’t think the Federal Government needs to 

measure if we are creating hope or if they are engaged. I think that 

gets into the very problem of all these indicators and no end result. 

I think the end result needs to say what folks are saying: jobs, and 

I would argue living-wage jobs, as the ending point. 

But I would say, we know on the ground that if you do not have 

engagement, if you don’t create hope, if you don’t take a client 

where they are at and move them step by step by step and help 

support them, bring out their individual strengths and what is 

going on in their family—they are survivors—how you move them 

forward, I don’t think you all need to be involved in those metrics 

and measuring. I think the end result needs to remain on jobs. It 

is our work to make sure we get clients across that finish line. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Can any of the panel say their followup on that 

thinking? 

Or, as well, sometimes we often hear—and there was testimony 

already that there is a variety of other programs out there, competing programs, and the families often qualify for multiple things 

simultaneously. How do you deal with the variety of programs 

being out there together? 

Ms. Wareing, you are raising your hand. 

And is there a way for us to get to a point in which none of the 

programs are so completely needed? 

Ms. WAREING. Yeah, I think we have a huge opportunity, Mr. 

Meehan, to align our programs. And it is not that those other programs are always out of line. They can be very important and supportive. I think the notion about how much we spend on work in 

the States has to also look at what that spending on work supports, 

like childcare. So someone can’t go to a job if they have a young 

child and don’t have support, knowing what childcare costs, to have 

some subsidy supports for that. 

But the biggest opportunity I see right now is one that Congress 

put before us last year, which is we reauthorized the Workforce Investment and Opportunities Act. And one of the things you all did 

was say TANF should be a mandatory partner. Now, States can opt 

out, but TANF can be a mandatory partner. 

And that means looking at the entire workforce engagement system, how all those supports work together, and thinking about how 

other supports—TANF should be short-term, TANF subsidy and 

cash assistance should be short-term—help someone so that their 

kids have food on the table and they can pay their bills, and get 

to the place where then we have moved someone into a job, into 

a job that has progression, into a job with a living wage, and then 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
78 

we have to have a mechanism by which those other supports slowly 

scale down. 

And our end game is someone is employed with a living wage 

and not on government support. And I think all of us agree that 

has to be what we are aiming for. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Ms. Pavetti. 

Ms. PAVETTI. I just would like to make one comment, that I 

think it is important to recognize that there is this huge diversity 

of people who are receiving TANF as well as other public benefits, 

and their ability to move into work is varied. And I think what 

Heather said about really thinking about what contribution can 

people make—it is not always going to be work. It is not always 

going to be work at 40 hours, 20 hours. 

So I think we have to recognize there are families who have extreme limitations and that we need to think about what is the support we provide for them so that their kids always have some basic 

level of support, a roof over their head, and food. They need to be 

able to provide for them. 

So I think we need to be thinking of the diversity and moving 

people as far as they can go. But I think that if we assume everybody can go to work, we are fooling ourselves. There aren’t enough 

jobs in every place, and there are also some people who have just 

very significant issues. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Can you quantify success, though, in that category? Because you were saying, ‘‘Pay us for success.’’ 

Ms. PAVETTI. Right. And I think you are not going to have success with everybody, but I think success will be different for different people. So, again, I think what you want is to aim for work 

and get as close as you can, but recognize that for some people they 

may not be able to sustain work all the time. 

There was a program in Chicago called Project Match. What they 

did was they created jobs that were 10 hours a week, where they 

paid people stipends to be part of their communities so that they 

were making a contribution. I think we have to be thinking about 

what can we do to create opportunities for people to be part of their 

communities, where they feel like they are making a contribution, 

if they can’t sustain, sort of, being in the regular labor market. 

That is going to be a small group of people, but we can’t leave 

them behind. We have to make sure that we have a safety net and 

a way to help that group of people, as well. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, thanks, each and every one of you, for your 

insights. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but there is a—one of the 

panelists wants to—— 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Yeah, that is fine. 

Mr. MEEHAN [continuing]. Have testimony. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Yeah, I just have to step in on this one. 

The mentally ill and people with physical disabilities need to be 

not looked at as people who can’t work. They can work. Every 

morning, I see people come into our garage at our work going to 

work who have some serious disabilities. 

We may need to think about having both rehab and TANF do 

more collaborative work. Goodwill has done an excellent job at putting people to work. So I don’t like hearing people can’t go to work. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
79 

One of the things that got me started in this work was a person 

walking in—wheelchairing himself into my office, with no ability to 

use his hands, he had to use a pencil in his mouth, saying, ‘‘I want 

a job.’’ That did it for me. If somebody can come in my office with 

nothing going for him in terms of physical capability saying, ‘‘I 

want a job, and I want to work,’’ we need to throw this notion out 

of our heads that people with mental disabilities and physical disabilities cannot work. 

There are jobs out there for them, and we have a lot of agencies 

that prove that. So I don’t—I don’t like hearing that. I get very 

upset—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. Can—— 

Ms. ANDERSON [continuing]. Because, when you are in the 

workforce, however you are in it, you are part of the community. 

And we have to quit isolating people and making them less than 

human. And, in our society, the first thing we ask people when we 

go to parties or whatever we do is, what do you do? We don’t even 

ask you what your name is. So let’s not isolate people. 

Ms. PAVETTI. Can I just—— 

Ms. ANDERSON. I am sorry, but that is my soapbox for today. 

Ms. PAVETTI. Can I just make one quick clarification? 

I think that we need to just sort of—I don’t disagree that people 

can work, but I think the evidence of what we can do is quite limited, and we need to accept that there are alternative pathways. 

New York City did an experiment, at one point, where they took 

the group of people with the most significant barriers to employment and put them in a special program where they provided very 

significant resources and really tried to move them on a path to 

work. And they did have an increase in the number of people who 

went to work, but, in the end, they got about a third of that group 

of people into jobs. So we have a long way to go to learn how do 

we get people into jobs who have those barriers. 

So I agree that we should believe that everybody can work, but 

I think the reality of what we have been able to accomplish is different than getting everyone in. So I think that we can’t, sort of, 

assume that we have the answers, because we don’t. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Cove. 

Mr. COVE. I want you to understand that what you are hearing 

here are two very different ways of approaching the world. 

Part of what you are hearing is what we had before TANF, which 

was, there are lots of people who are broken, there are lots of people who need a lot of services. And you know what happened with 

that? No one went to work. 

What you want now is you want to recognize that that may exist 

but not start from the position that the barriers are there. You 

have to start from the position that everyone can go to work and 

then deal with those who turn out they cannot work. But if you 

start with the other position, you are going to end up where we 

were before TANF. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is a very great closing 

argument on all of this. 

I want to thank all of you. This was really compelling testimony, 

very helpful to us, as we are trying to shed light on this fundaVerDate Sep 11 2014 13:00 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 021283 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21283\21283.XXX 21283

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
80 

mental issue on how can we improve the TANF program and get 

individuals and families back into the work world and escape poverty. And I think your testimony was very important in shedding 

light on that and helping us to understand what steps we need to 

take. I think you all did a terrific job, so I want to say thank you. 

And, with that, we will conclude the hearing. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB
81 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.042
82 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.043
83 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.044
84 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.045
85 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.046
86 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.047
87 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.048
88 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.049
89 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.050
90 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.051
91 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.052
92 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.053
93 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.054
94 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.055
95 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.056
96 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.057
97 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.058
98 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.059
99 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.060
100 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.061
101 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.062
102 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.063
103 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.064
104 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.065
105 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.066
106 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.067
107 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.068
108 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.069
109 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.070
110 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.071
111 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.072
112 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.073
113 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.074
114 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.075
115 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.076
116 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.077
117 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.078
118 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.079
119 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.080
120 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.081
121 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.082
122 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.083
123 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.084
124 

Æ 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with $$_JOB21283A.085