U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

70–891 2011

IMPROVING WORK AND OTHER 

WELFARE REFORM GOALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011

Serial No. 112–HR6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

TOM REED, New York 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of September 8, 2011, announcing the hearing ..................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Gary Alexander ........................................................................................................

Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Testimony ................ 7 

Kay E. Brown ...........................................................................................................

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office Testimony .......................................................................... 17 

Douglas Besharov ....................................................................................................

Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland Testimony ........... 40 

Scott Wetzler, Ph.D. ................................................................................................

Vice Chairman and Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral 

Sciences, Montefiore Medical Center Testimony ........................................... 62 

LaDonna Pavetti, Ph.D. ..........................................................................................

Vice President for Family Income Support Policy, Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities Testimony .............................................................................. 74 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS

kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
(1) 

IMPROVING WORK AND OTHER WELFARE 

REFORM GOALS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff Davis 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Davis Announces Hearing on 

Improving Work and Other Welfare Reform Goals 

Thursday, September 08, 2011 

Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families (TANF) program, including how States engage recipients in 

work activities that move them toward self-sufficiency. The hearing will take 

place at 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 8, 2011, in Room B–318 of the 

Rayburn House Office Building. 

The hearing was originally scheduled for 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, August 4, 2011, 

in Room B–318 Rayburn House Office Building, but was postponed. 

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

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include experts on 

the engagement of TANF recipients in work activities and other issues. However, 

any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a 

written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The purposes of the TANF program include providing assistance to needy families 

and ending dependence on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, 

and marriage. Adults on TANF may be required to participate in up to 30 hours 

of work or other constructive activities per week to be eligible for benefits, and 

States must ensure that 50 percent of work-eligible families satisfy this requirement. Since it replaced the New Deal-era AFDC program in 1996, TANF has resulted in reduced welfare dependence as cash assistance caseloads declined 57 percent through December 2010. The work-based 1996 reforms also played a substantial role in reducing child poverty, and even in the recession year of 2009, both African American and Hispanic child poverty remained below 1996 levels despite an unemployment rate 50 percent higher than the pre-reform level. 

While TANF has resulted in increased work and reduced dependence and poverty 

among many low-income parents, current pro-work policies may not reach all or 

even most adults in families on welfare. States may exempt individual adults on 

welfare from work requirements or otherwise adopt policies that reduce the 50 percent share of households expected to include an adult participating in work or other 

activities in exchange for benefits. For example, an increasing number of States 

have used ‘‘excess maintenance of effort (MOE) credits,’’ among other measures, to 

significantly reduce the share of current welfare recipients expected to work or participate in other activities while receiving benefits, undermining a key welfare reform goal. The TANF program is currently authorized through September 30, 2011, 

and the President called for a one-year extension of the current program in his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Davis stated, ‘‘TANF is designed to help 

low-income adults prepare for, find, and stay in jobs instead of spending year after 

year on welfare. Despite significant success since welfare reforms were enacted in 

the 1990s, in Fiscal Year 2010, over four-in-ten TANF families faced no work requirement at all, and less than a third of families facing work requirements actually 

met them in Fiscal Year 2009. With TANF requiring an extension before the end 

of this year, now is the right time to review the program to ensure that States are 

taking the necessary steps to help TANF families move up the economic ladder, as 

the 1996 welfare reform intended.’’ 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on oversight of the TANF program along with proposals 

to improve work and other TANF goals as part of upcoming legislation to extend 

TANF and related programs. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011. 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 TTD/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 on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/

f 

. 

Chairman DAVIS. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everybody here. I would also thank our panelists and also our guests 

in the audience for their patience. Votes have made us a little bit 

tardy in the beginning, but we are looking forward to having this 

discussion with all of you, have a chance to hopefully share afterwards, and appreciate you coming in. 

Today we will be reviewing ideas for reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Since it replaced 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
4 

the New Deal-era AFDC program in 1996, TANF has been successful at cutting welfare caseloads by 57 percent through last year. 

Even more importantly, by promoting work among single parents 

who are the most common welfare recipients, it has helped reduce 

child poverty in female-headed families by 10 percent, even with 

the deep recession. 

But despite such progress, TANF can and should be strengthened to help more low-income families support themselves in the 

years ahead. Unfortunately, the Administration has called for only 

a straight one-year extension of current law, which expires at the 

end of September 2011. Given that position it seems unlikely that 

significant changes to TANF will happen this year. In fact, I expect 

the House will consider a straight short-term extension of TANF 

later this month. But today’s hearing will let us start to focus on 

key problems that a straight extension would leave unfixed, and 

help us chart a path toward fixing those issues in the coming year. 

As with any program, we learn and develop as time and years go 

on and we encounter new things and identify processes that can be 

addressed or be improved, and that is what this focus is. 

Key concerns involve the fact that not enough adults on welfare 

are working or preparing for work today. For example, according 

to recently-released data from the Department of Health and 

Human Services, in Fiscal Year 2009 only about two in ten families 

on welfare included an adult who met a welfare-to-work requirement. The reasons are complicated, including because a rising 

number of welfare payments do not include an adult benefit, called 

‘‘child-only’’ payments. But as a testimony of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office discusses, many States are also 

using an obscure accounting technique known as ‘‘excess MOE 

credits’’ to weaken work requirements and avoid engaging adults in 

work or training, as they should. Instead of the State helping more 

adults prepare for and begin work, they scour their books to uncover more spending they can credit to the TANF program and 

thereby reduce the number of people they have to engage in work 

activities. This compounds underlying concerns that too few current recipients are actually engaging in constructive activities to 

prepare for work and life off of welfare. And that does a disservice 

to all poor families who want and need help to become self-reliant. 

Other concerns involve outright abuse of taxpayer trust, such as 

when adults on welfare spend taxpayer funds on liquor, gambling, 

tattoos, or even visits to strip clubs. As recent expose ́s have revealed, too many welfare recipients have accessed taxpayer funds 

at cash machines and casinos, liquor stores, strip clubs, and even 

on cruise ships. Some States, including California, have already 

taken action to plug this so-called ‘‘strip club loophole.’’ Senators 

Hatch and Baucus, our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, have proposed we do the same on the Federal level. We 

should consider that as well. 

A number of States have either enacted or are considering measures that try to ensure parents on welfare are not using drugs 

which stand in the way of their getting off benefits and into work. 

Our colleague, Mr. Reed, raised this issue at our last hearing and 

it is one attracting a lot of attention. In a world where many employers require drug testing to ensure workers are clean and sober, 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
5 

neither taxpayers nor welfare recipients are helped if we have a 

lower standard for those collecting welfare benefits designed to 

help them enter work. 

Finally, in addition to work and personal responsibility, another 

key driver of welfare dependence involves family formation, especially whether children are raised in married, two-parent households, in which they are most likely to thrive and avoid poverty. 

In 2009 the poverty rate for married families with children was 8.3 

percent, while the poverty rate for households headed by unmarried mothers was 45.3 percent, almost five and a half times as 

high. Yet current welfare rules create marriage penalties by expecting a greater share of married parents to be working and for more 

hours. States have responded by in effect opting out of such requirements altogether. It is time to ask whether the underlying 

rules should be reformed in favor of treating all families the same. 

This is one of several questions we should ask about how we remove marriage penalties and encourage stronger families in the 

next round of reform. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us today to discuss 

these issues and more, and we look forward to all of their testimony. 

Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record at 

this point. 

Chairman DAVIS. And now I would like to defer to my friend 

and colleague, the ranking Member, Mr. Doggett, to make his opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As we take 

up this question of how to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program I think we should focus on two goals: 

helping able-bodied recipients find the work that they need, while 

protecting the safety net for struggling families who are unable to 

do work because of disability, family crisis, or the fact that there 

is not a job available. I believe much work needs to be done on both 

counts. 

We are caught up in the millions and the billions, quite appropriately. But this is about looking into the face of one child who 

is left homeless on the streets because there is no protection, or is 

one of the four children in this country who wakes up not knowing 

whether there will be food at the end of the day for their family. 

We should be concerned about strip clubs or any abuse of this 

system and see that those who abuse these programs do not receive 

assistance, whether they are a pharmaceutical manufacturer or an 

individual welfare recipient. But I think our concerns must be 

much broader. We should be concerned about protection that is 

stripped from the many needy families across this country. 

Even though the number of eligible poor families has increased 

substantially with these hard economic times, the participation in 

TANF has not increased by a similar amount. In 2009, only one of 

every five children in poverty across America received any direct 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families assistance. It is the lowest level of poor children receiving cash assistance since 1965. 

And in Texas, of course, matters are worse. We only have about 

1 out of every 20 poor children receiving assistance; and when asVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:58 Dec 12, 2011 Jkt 070891 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70891.XXX 70891

kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
6 

sistance is received, a family of three could expect to get about 

$244 a month, or less than 20 percent of the generally accepted 

poverty line. 

TANF has become, I believe, more hole than safety net, protecting fewer and fewer families as more and more have fallen 

deeper into poverty. We all want to see more families advance from 

TANF into full employment and the middle class, but so many are 

just struggling to stay in the situation that they have now and 

have lost their chance to participate in the middle class. The goal 

is not achieved when caseloads decline due to a lack of access for 

poor families rather than a decline in the number of poor families. 

With fewer poor children and their families receiving Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, now is not the time to do even less 

with significant spending reductions. 

I am pleased to hear the chairman indicate that we might move 

forward with an extension, even if temporary, and I am hopeful 

that that extension will include the TANF Supplemental Grant 

program that has already expired this summer. That is what Texas 

and 16 other States rely upon. They would see up to a 10 percent 

reduction in TANF funding without it. 

Over 15 years ago, as part of the 1996 reform of the welfare 

laws, a reform that I personally supported, TANF Supplemental 

Grant funds were set aside to help the States that were negatively 

affected by the Federal formula. Ever since, Texas and a number 

of other States have depended on these monies in order to provide 

assistance that their families need, even at the relatively low levels 

that Texas funds. 

Without action on this issue, States will lose about $3 billion 

over the next ten years; $500 million of that will be in my State 

of Texas. The loss of these grants would place at risk a range of 

vital services, including efforts to ensure that children are cared for 

in their own homes, child-care assistance for working families and 

job training. With funding for TANF having expired, or will expire 

at the end of this month, it seems unlikely that Congress will design comprehensive legislation to reauthorize it. I do hope we can 

come together on a bipartisan temporary extension. 

Unless, Mr. Chairman, I direct all of my concerns at Republicans, which I have many, I must concede that the Administration 

has largely been missing in action on this issue which impacts the 

lives of so many of our most vulnerable neighbors. And I would 

urge the Administration to provide more leadership on improving 

the TANF program as we approach the current authorization expiration at the end of the month. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you on this as we move forward. It is going to be an interesting discussion over the intervening months, and hopefully we 

will come up with a good solution to that. 

Chairman DAVIS. Before we move on to our testimony, I would 

like to remind witnesses that we are limiting the opening statements, the oral statements, to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony will be made part of the permanent record. 

On our panel this afternoon we will be hearing from a number 

of folks. First, Gary Alexander, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
7 

Department of Public Welfare. He gets a persistence award today 

for coming, despite flooding in his own State, a lengthy commute, 

and driving rain. And as such, he may need to leave us a little bit 

early to attend to some other matters, but we really appreciate you 

taking the time to come down here and share from your experience 

and the things that you have done in Pennsylvania. 

We have back with us Kay Brown from Education Workforce and 

Income Security with the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

who has been with us before to share very critical information as 

we are beginning to address a range of issues under jurisdiction of 

the committee. 

Doug Besharov, Professor at the School of Public Policy at the 

University of Maryland, who has worked for many years in this 

area and whom I have gotten to know through work with the subcommittee as well. 

Scott Wetzler, Vice Chairman and Professor at the Department 

of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Montefiore Medical 

Center. 

And LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President for Family Income Support 

Policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Thank you all again for being here. Secretary Alexander, please 

proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GARY D. ALEXANDER, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC 

WELFARE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Chairman Davis—— 

Chairman DAVIS. You are in Washington. Things don’t always 

work very well here. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Not as lucrative as Pennsylvania. 

Chairman Davis and subcommittee members, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today. My name is Gary Alexander and I am 

currently the Secretary of Public Welfare for the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. This committee is well familiar with the fundamental changes in the social contract between the taxpayers and 

recipients of income and services under the Personal Responsibility 

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. For the first 

time, the stated objective of the program explicitly emphasized selfreliance, but equally and importantly, expectations were imposed 

in exchange for temporary assistance. With this central element in 

place, the legislation that once brought into alignment the interests 

of all parties—recipients, taxpayers and government bodies—recipients were motivated to move into jobs at the earliest opportunity 

because of time limits and TANF work obligations. Taxpayers could 

see that those that they were temporarily supporting were making 

real efforts to earn their own income, and government agencies 

were no longer bought out from the consequences of rising caseloads, but instead had every reason to encourage family self-sufficiency so that block grant funds could be saved or reprogrammed. 

This alignment of incentives, and not just the work program 

changes alone, was responsible for the 60 percent reduction in the 

national caseloads experienced soon thereafter 1996. 

When TANF was reauthorized in 2006, certain adjustments and 

updates were made, but the essential social bargain set forth in the 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
8 

original legislation remained intact. I would encourage Congress to 

keep that alignment of incentives intact as we move forward. 

There is no reason that other benefit programs should not encourage self-reliance incorporating a version of a work requirement. 

Although not all benefit programs are under the jurisdiction of this 

committee, it is important for the Congress as a whole to consider 

the nature of the social welfare system as recipients experience it, 

and to consider the adaptations of the early TANF success to other 

related programs. 

Large assistance programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, and unemployment insurance should incorporate a 

universal work or preparation and obligation to work for all ablebodied recipients. 

To be specific to Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania possesses a vast social welfare network that has become a way of life to many. Generally, lifetime benefits are limited to 60 months on the TANF program, but there are many exceptions, as you know, to receive extended TANF. 

Pennsylvania has approximately 18 percent of its caseload on 

after 60 months. With billions of dollars spent over the past decade, Pennsylvania only puts 5 percent of its clients in a 30-hour 

per week job, yet it touts a work participation rate of approximately 50 percent. Half of those leaving TANF for a job return to 

TANF within 1 year. Pennsylvania and most States meet their 

work participation rate with everything but a real 30-hour a week 

job. The welfare state in Pennsylvania is growing by 13 percent 

year over year. 

We and you in Congress know that our current welfare system 

does not work for America. As in all Federal programs, the rules 

of TANF are complicated, cumbersome, onerous and convoluted. 

For TANF the current measures and outcomes, while important to 

the Federal establishment, fail to accurately measure work, and 

they allow States to inflate numbers and not be held responsible 

for performance. Only a program that values and encourages work 

first, across all Federal programs, will increase accountability and 

empower individuals and families to self-sufficiency and independence. 

How do we solve this dilemma? One, create a performance-driven 

system across the board where contractors are paid for job placement and retention only. Simplify the rules and create simple performance measures for States, like work attainment and retention 

and healthy lifestyles; retain the current block grant, but do not 

penalize States for saving money; and ensure that States measure 

real job placement and retool the work participation rate to reflect 

real employment and do not allow States to pad participation rates 

by shifting caseloads into State-only programs. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
9 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 1 here 70891.001
10 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 2 here 70891.002
11 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 3 here 70891.003
12 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 4 here 70891.004
13 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 5 here 70891.005
14 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 6 here 70891.006
15 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 7 here 70891.007
16 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Ms. Brown, you may proceed with your statement. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 8 here 70891.008
17 

STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY 

Ms. BROWN Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss our work on the TANF program, a key program 

intended to assist women and children living in poverty. 

I will cover two issues: first, changes in the welfare caseload and 

spending; and second, State actions to meet work participation requirements. 

First, regarding caseload and spending changes. Following welfare reform, the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance 

dropped by almost 50 percent as States focused on moving parents 

quickly into jobs. This was followed by a slight uptick since the beginning of the recession. By 2008, about half of these cases still receiving cash assistance were what we called child-only cases. In 

these households only the child receives benefits because he or she 

is living with a parent or caregiver who is not eligible to receive 

cash assistance. The parent may receive supplemental security income, may be an immigrant, or may have been sanctioned for noncompliance with program requirements, or the child may be living 

with a nonparent caregiver, often a relative. These adults in the 

child-only cases are generally not subject to work requirements. 

As the number of families receiving cash assistance declined, so 

did TANF-related State spending for cash assistance from about 73 

percent of all TANF expenditures in fiscal year 1997 to 30 percent 

in 2009. Instead, States shifted spending to meet other purposes 

consistent with the program goals, such as child care and child welfare. However, States primarily report to HHS on families receiving 

cash assistance, the traditional welfare caseload, and not on these 

other forms of assistance. As a result, we don’t have a complete picture of the families that may be benefiting from TANF funds and 

the services that they receive. 

My second point is about how States have met their work participation requirements. Because of the program’s focus on job preparation and employment, States’ performance is measured in large 

part by their success in ensuring at least 50 percent of their workeligible cash assistance families are working or engaged in other 

specified work activities; yet our work shows that approximately 

one-third of TANF families participated in these work activities for 

the required number of hours each year from 2001 to 2009. 

States have been able to engage less than 50 percent of participants in work without incurring penalties by taking advantage of 

allowable program flexibilities. For example, States can receive a 

credit that reduces their required participation rate by the same 

percentage as their caseload decline. In 2009, 38 of the 45 States 

that met their required work participation rate did so in part because of caseload declines. 

Many States also took advantage of a provision that factors in 

State spending. States are required to spend a certain amount of 

their funds every year to receive their federal TANF block grant. 

In recent years when States have spent above the required amount, 

they were permitted to correspondingly increase their caseload reduction credits. In 2009 32 States claimed this excess spending, 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
18 

and 17 States would not have otherwise met their participation 

rates. 

And finally, States made policy changes that helped ensure they 

met their participation rates. Some States made changes to ensure 

that families complying with work requirements continued to receive cash assistance. States also opted to provide cash assistance 

to some families completely outside of their TANF program, particularly those families that have the most difficulty meeting the 

TANF work requirements. These families were not counted in the 

State’s work participation calculation. 

In conclusion, although a central feature of the TANF block 

grant is the flexibility it provides to the States to design and implement their own programs, the lack of information on how noncash 

assistance funds are used and who benefits, combined with the limited usefulness of the work participation rate as the key performance measure, hinder our ability to fully understand how the program has been implemented and whether it is reaching its goals. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
19 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 9 here 70891.009
20 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 10 here 70891.010
21 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 11 here 70891.011
22 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 12 here 70891.012
23 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 13 here 70891.013
24 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 14 here 70891.014
25 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 15 here 70891.015
26 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 16 here 70891.016
27 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 17 here 70891.017
28 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 18 here 70891.018
29 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 19 here 70891.019
30 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 20 here 70891.020
31 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 21 here 70891.021
32 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 22 here 70891.022
33 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 23 here 70891.023
34 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 24 here 70891.024
35 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 25 here 70891.025
36 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 26 here 70891.026
37 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 27 here 70891.027
38 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 28 here 70891.028
39 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 29 here 70891.029
40 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Professor Besharov, if you could give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL 

OF PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. BESHAROV. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, 

and other Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here 

to testify on this very important topic. I teach at the University of 

Maryland, and I teach courses on program evaluation and poverty 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 30 here 70891.030
41 

alleviation. More importantly, I think, for today’s session, I also 

lead a project called Learning from Abroad where we look at programs in other countries, especially other OECD countries. And essentially my message to you today is going to be that we can no 

longer say the Europeans are not very serious about labor force 

participation and that we are so good at it. 

In my testimony is a figure that shows that the percentage of 

Europeans working is now about the same as the U.S. Two things 

have happened. U.S. labor force participation has gone down. It 

was going down before the recession. I think this is a long-term 

problem that ought to be addressed by the committee. 

Secondly, the Europeans have, I think, gotten much better at enforcing participation requirements in their programs, whether it is 

unemployment programs, disability programs, or social assistance, 

and I think those are lessons for us as well. 

When I first met Chairman Davis, he said, I knew a professor 

would have some charts, so in my testimony are some charts. I notice that the testimony as we gave it to you does not have page 

numbers, but figure 1 picks up on, I think, part of what is the main 

interest of the committee. And that is, we have seen since 2009 a 

major increase in unemployment, one of the largest increases and 

most sustained periods of unemployment in our history, at least 

since we have been counting this, and yet TANF has hardly gone 

up. TANF participation, the caseload is about 14 percent up, cumulatively, in those years. 

As the prior two speakers mentioned, there are a lot of things 

that States can do to distort recipiency rates so that we don’t get 

exactly an accurate number, but there is rough agreement that the 

TANF numbers haven’t risen that much. If you look at figure 1, 

you can begin to see some of the reasons. Number one, the Congress has been extremely generous about unemployment benefits. 

From a time when about 30 or 35 percent of the unemployed received benefits, we have been running at about 70 percent of the 

unemployed receiving benefits. They won’t go on TANF. If you look 

at this chart, also you will see that SNAP or food stamp benefits 

have really increased. And a surprising part of this is disability 

payments. 

If you look at figure 2 in my testimony, you will see the relationship between unemployment and SSDI applications. 

Now, I could not find a chart, and I couldn’t create a chart that 

quickly that had the approved applications, but I can tell you that 

they reflect these numbers. Which is to say that a substantial number of the people who are unemployed, especially in their fifties, 

are turning to the disability programs and going on disability, 

which is another reason why the TANF caseloads are not rising 

and another reason why I think, as Secretary Alexander said, 

many of us are coming to the conclusion that, as we move beyond 

this recession, that something be done to consolidate the pro-work 

provisions of all of these programs. Because in a post-welfare reform, and, I hope, a post-recession environment, if we don’t fix disability, if we don’t fix unemployment, we will continue to fall behind even the Europeans on labor force participation. 

Is this doable and is it doable in a time of a recession? Figure 

4 is I think a demonstration of that. This is how the Dutch, when 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
42 

they saw that their disability caseload was increasing many times 

faster than their population—in 1980 they had three times as 

many people as we did as a percentage of the population on disability—reformed their system. And now the percentage of Americans on disability and the percentage of the Dutch on disability are 

the same. These reforms that are possible. 

There are many recommendations made from the Democratic 

side and the Republican side by academics all over this country 

and actually all over western Europe about what to do. 

In my testimony I summarize the major changes that have been 

made. Tightened eligibility rules, a mandate which includes, for example, physical examinations. 

Whoops, I am out of time. I have the list there. I hope the committee will consider this kind of consolidation of programs. This is 

the time to worry about labor force participation, not after the recession and unemployment pass. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Professor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Besharov follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
43 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 31 here 70891.031
44 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 32 here 70891.032
45 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 33 here 70891.033
46 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 34 here 70891.034
47 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 35 here 70891.035
48 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 36 here 70891.036
49 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 37 here 70891.037
50 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 38 here 70891.038
51 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 39 here 70891.039
52 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 40 here 70891.040
53 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 41 here 70891.041
54 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 42 here 70891.042
55 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 43 here 70891.043
56 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 44 here 70891.044
57 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 45 here 70891.045
58 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 46 here 70891.046
59 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 47 here 70891.047
60 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 48 here 70891.048
61 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 49 here 70891.049
62 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Dr. Wetzler. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT WETZLER, VICE CHAIRMAN AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL 

SCIENCES, MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 

Mr. WETZLER Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for having me. I want to 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 50 here 70891.050
63 

talk to you about the specialized issue of substance abuse as it relates to welfare reform. 

As you know, the law stipulates that people are allowed to be exempted from the work participation requirements for 4 consecutive 

weeks up to 6 weeks per year to engage in intensive substance 

abuse treatment. And as a result, I actually run a program in the 

Bronx, New York, which really has some of the highest rates of 

substance abuse and poverty in the Nation, where we do evaluate 

welfare recipients in terms of their substance abuse disorders to 

determine whether they are employable or not, and refer them for 

various sorts of substance abuse treatment that is appropriate to 

the level of care that is needed. 

What we found over the years of running this program, we have 

evaluated more than 20,000 people, is that the vast majority of people with substance abuse are in fact able to participate in a work 

program and don’t even require the exemption at all. About 70 percent of the people at the initial evaluation are eligible for work, 

and another 20 percent of people after a brief period of intensive 

treatment are able to work. 

So the real main message I would like to leave you with, as I 

have said in my written testimony, is that just because somebody 

has a substance abuse disorder doesn’t mean that they can’t work. 

Now, having said that, I think it is important to emphasize the 

importance of treatment for these folks. And what we do is we refer 

them for treatment and work at the same time, simultaneously. So 

we take if not a rigid work-first approach, certainly a work-early 

approach. Because the treatment referral is a mandated appointment, in a sense we are putting pressure on people, a kind of coercive pressure on them to do something which they might not otherwise do voluntarily. But one of the things I would like you to know 

also is that treatment under that sort of circumstance, coercive 

treatment, is as effective as people who went through treatment 

voluntarily . . . and it actually helps to increase people’s motivation and attendance in treatment. 

In New York we have in addition, a case management program 

where we try to help people attend treatment. And this I guess is 

part of the flexibility that was discussed before of how the funds 

can be spent. In New York it is called customized assistance. And 

these folks have lots of different problems that make it difficult for 

them to work, make it difficult for them to attend treatment. They 

have housing issues, psychiatric problems, medical problems, legal 

issues. Obviously, they also have lack of job skills. And the comprehensive case management program really develops a customized 

assistance program to help them attend treatment, and we have 

been very successful in getting people to attend as a result of that. 

The other point that I want to make with you is that actually 

as the caseloads have dropped so much in New York, I would say 

only one out of eight people with substance abuse disorders is on 

cash assistance. And in fact, I think that this issue is a much bigger problem, as referenced before, for the people on Medicaid-only 

population. 

There is a famous case in New York of one man who was on 

Medicaid who was in in-patient substance abuse detoxification for 

270 days in one year, and the next year he was in in-patient detox 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
64 

for 272 days. This was a man who never followed up with outpatient treatment and he was free to enter the hospital as much 

as he wanted and there weren’t any leverage that was brought to 

bear on him. 

One thing I would suggest is that in thinking about the responsibilities attached to various sets of benefits, we think about Medicaid just like we do about the temporary assistance. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Dr. Wetzler. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wetzler follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
65 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 51 here 70891.051
66 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 52 here 70891.052
67 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 53 here 70891.053
68 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 54 here 70891.054
69 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 55 here 70891.055
70 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 56 here 70891.056
71 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 57 here 70891.057
72 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 58 here 70891.058
73 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Dr. Pavetti. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 59 here 70891.059
74 

STATEMENT OF LADONNA PAVETTI, VICE PRESIDENT, FAMILY 

INCOME SUPPORT POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Ms. PAVETTI. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and 

Subcommittee Members, thank you for inviting me, for giving me 

this opportunity to testify today. 

In my capacity as a researcher I have observed firsthand how 

States have implemented TANF work requirements over the last 

15 years. What started as an income maintenance program with a 

very tiny work program attached to it is now a program that is almost entirely focused on work. The cash assistance the program 

provides is minimal, accounting for only about a quarter of all 

State and federal dollars. 

While this shift to a work program has been remarkable, it has 

not served all poor families well. And with a weak economy we now 

face an entirely new set of challenges. As we prepare for TANF’s 

reauthorization, we need to remember that TANF was created with 

a balanced approach in mind, to both create an expectation of 

work, and to provide a safety net when work isn’t available. So 

both aspects are important and we need to focus on both of those. 

In order to make improvements in both of these areas I make 

three key recommendations. One is that we need to redefine 

TANF’s work requirements to better reflect the characteristics of 

the caseload. Second, we need to redefine how performance is 

measured. And third, we need to provide adequate funding to 

States so that they can do the job that they have been asked to do. 

Now, what I would like to do is tell you how I arrived at those 

recommendations. First, the TANF caseload today is very different 

than it was 15 years ago, and it really does demand a different approach to work requirements. We have evidence that many who receive TANF today face significant barriers to employment, it 

doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be expectations and they 

shouldn’t be encouraged to work, but it does mean that the assistance they need is quite different than when we started TANF. 

We know little about how to serve people with a lot of barriers, 

and it will take time and targeted resources to identify the most 

cost-effective approaches. 

As people have noted, we have minimal data available to actually 

assess what TANF has accomplished and how that has changed 

over time. As Chairman Davis noted, only about 24 percent of 

TANF recipients are meeting their TANF work participation rate 

standard. And while that number may seem low, it really tells us 

very little about whether TANF is succeeding or failing as a work 

program. 

From the work I and other researchers have done, we know that 

when families apply for assistance they are quickly referred to a 

mandatory work activity. Individuals that don’t comply are sanctioned for noncompliance, which in almost every State means that 

they lose their cash assistance after a few months. The assumption 

that States have failed to impose a work mandate or that they 

have stopped focusing on work, either because of changes in the 

DRA or because the economy weak, is simply not an accurate reflection of reality. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
75 

The question we should be asking is if States have imposed 

stricter mandates, why are so few meeting the work requirements? 

I believe that many of those answers can actually be found in the 

data that you have from HHS on work engagement. First, about a 

quarter are participating, but they don’t meet the standard, so they 

are actually doing something, they are trying, but they are not 

quite at the level where they count. 

Second is about half have no hours of participation, but most of 

those can be explained and are understandable and, I would say, 

even appropriate. The largest share is exempt from participation by 

the State, mostly because their family or the individual herself or 

a family member is disabled. And only 8 percent have no hours because the State has actually failed to engage them in work activities. 

When evaluating how well States are doing we should ask ourselves what is it that we want States to do that they are not doing. 

Will stricter mandates result in better outcomes or just a greater 

abandonment of the most vulnerable families? Or is it time to give 

States more flexibility so they can take risks, be innovative, and 

discover what works best for families who are left on the caseload? 

The reality is the TANF participation rate is an inadequate 

measure of whether or not a State has implemented an effective 

work program. As Mr. Alexander noted in his testimony, TANF’s 

success should be judged on how well States do at getting recipients into jobs that last. The work participation rate measures process, it doesn’t measure outcomes. A State that moves recipients off 

TANF into jobs quickly could easily fare far worse than a State 

that keeps people on the rolls. We can do better, and we can start 

simply by giving States the option to measure outcomes instead of 

process. 

The last thing I would like to say is I think that a work-based 

system can’t be held as a success when it doesn’t provide assistance 

to vulnerable families when the economy fails. TANF has responded only modestly to the recession. And what we know from 

looking at the evidence is that TANF did well at getting people into 

the labor market when the economy was strong, and a strong economy has to be a part of everything that we do or we will fail. 

I think that the other thing that is important is we don’t have 

evidence that people have failed and don’t want to take jobs. In 

fact, we have the opposite. So I think that we need to think about 

how we can again make sure that the labor market is strong and 

that the resources are there to actually help TANF recipients and 

others to actually take advantage of those. 

And finally, the last thing I want to say is that we really do need 

to make sure the resources are there. Mr. Doggett mentioned about 

the supplemental grants. And that really means that for 17 States 

they really don’t have the same amount of resources that they had 

when TANF started, and they are being asked to do more with 

less. And then the other thing is that we also have a contingency 

fund. 

Chairman DAVIS. Excuse me. Your time has expired. 

Ms. PAVETTI Okay. I am sorry. I missed that. I was watching 

that go. I didn’t notice they kept going up. Sorry. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
76 

Chairman DAVIS. No problem. It just continues in the other direction. But I appreciate your thoughts and comments. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pavetti follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 60 here 70891.060
77 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 61 here 70891.061
78 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 62 here 70891.062
79 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 63 here 70891.063
80 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 64 here 70891.064
81 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 65 here 70891.065
82 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 66 here 70891.066
83 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 67 here 70891.067
84 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 68 here 70891.068
85 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. And we will proceed now to questions. I would 

like to start now with Secretary Alexander. In 1996, welfare reform 

implemented a newer approach to helping low-income families. And 

in exchange for benefits, recipients were expected to work or prepare for work. While it was not the only policy to encourage work 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 69 here 70891.069
86 

among low-income families, welfare reform played a substantial 

role in increasing employment and earnings of single mothers and 

also reducing child poverty. 

Yet according to HHS data and the testimony we heard today, 

relatively few families face a work requirement as a result of receiving welfare, and even fewer actually meet work requirements. 

What keeps States from engaging more welfare recipients in activities leading to self-sufficiency and what can we do to ensure the 

TANF program doesn’t support this dependency but really focuses 

to work more effectively to end it? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, first of all, we operate a vast welfare 

system that encompasses much more than just TANF. And unfortunately, I think in our other programs like food stamps and Medicaid, there is scant—there is a scant work requirement or no work 

requirement at all. I think what we have learned from TANF from 

1996 is that there was a focus on self-reliance, personal responsibility, the focus on work, it was time-limited, and that there was 

a focus on bringing families together in a healthy marriage. And 

I think that if we are going to proceed in the future and end dependency, we are going to have to work harder at encompassing all 

of our programs across the welfare spectrum and bring all of these 

together. 

In all of these families that we touch, if they are on TANF they 

are on Medicaid; generally, they are on food stamps. So we have 

separated families. And we give them an EBT card, we put benefits 

on an EBT card, we separate things out. We have to approach this 

holistically with these families, with a life coach to try and bring 

them to self-reliance and personal responsibility. 

So I think we can learn from TANF, but we have to move on 

from TANF and really do much much more. We have got to reach 

out to the business communities in a better way to engage them. 

And I think it can be done, but I think that the current requirements, the current TANF requirements are not conducive, as all of 

the speakers have said, to really measuring personal responsibility 

and self-reliance because we are not measuring real work participation. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Professor Besharov, do you have 

any thoughts on this? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Well, I think, first of all, having all the meanstested programs work in concert is tremendously important, as I 

indicated in my testimony. If there is no serious work requirement 

in food stamps, if it is relatively easy to go on disability and then 

have no work requirement, if the unemployment program doesn’t 

enforce work or job-looking requirements, then we have only used 

one in four, or whatever, of the programs to encourage job-related 

activities. And I want to emphasize here that it doesn’t have to be 

just looking for jobs. We have a population that also needs different 

forms of job training, transitional training, work preparation. Much 

of that is going by the board in this period, in part because we 

haven’t mobilized all these other programs. So it is not just job 

search, it is also job training that ought to be part of this program. 

Chairman DAVIS. Anybody else like to share? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think that one thing that is important when we 

think about this is to distinguish the difference between whether 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
87 

people meet the work requirement and whether people are mandated to work. Because I think in TANF most people are mandated 

to work. They may not be meeting that requirement and I think 

that is important to consider about where we go. 

The other thing that I think is important is that in all of our programs, if you look at data from when people come into the program 

and a year later, the vast majority do work, so it is really a temporary situation; it is not that people are on for long periods of time 

without working. Most people on food stamps or Medicaid work 

within a year. So I think we need to really think about what the 

portion of the population for which work is not working. A huge 

portion has to do with not being able to find jobs, not that they are 

not willing to take them when they are available. 

Chairman DAVIS. Would Dr. Wetzler or Ms. Brown like to comment? 

Ms. BROWN As part of our recent work on program overlap and 

duplication that we have been doing across the government, we 

have also looked at the types of activities that not necessarily focus 

on means-tested programs, but thinks like the WIA program and 

other employment and training programs. That is another example 

of where resources could be combined and perhaps reach a broader 

range of needs. 

Chairman DAVIS. It would seem that the lack of data standardization and data matching across the States that we have talked 

to—several of us have had discussions on this in prior meetings— 

is going to be one key component to eliminating improper payments 

or dealing with some of the challenges that we have, I think, that 

would streamline and significantly reduce costs. And I appreciate 

your answers. 

And I now would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Doggett from Texas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. And thank you for all of 

your testimony. 

Dr. Pavetti, you discussed the TANF Supplemental Grant program. It is really a misnomer because these are not supplemental 

grants, but they are a crucial part of the way that Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, a total of some 17 States, address the problems 

that they face, and they were part of the reform in 1996. Isn’t it 

true that these 17 States who had their assistance cut when the 

TANF Supplemental Program was allowed to expire this summer, 

that these are the same States that are already receiving less funding through TANF per person than most of the other States in the 

country? 

Ms. PAVETTI Yes. The reason why the supplemental grants 

were included as a part of the TANF block grant was that there 

were a group of States that really fit two characteristics. One is 

that they had less spending per poor family, and the other is that 

there was some adjustment for our changes in population, so that 

it really was just a different way of getting funding to those States, 

but they have always been perceived as part of the original deal. 

I don’t know where the name ‘‘supplemental’’ came from, but it is 

part of what they think of as their block grant, and for them it is 

a cut. And again, it is to the poorest States in the country. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
88 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I think the important point, we may have 

differences on the committee and among our witnesses about where 

the priorities ought to be in making changes here; whether they 

ought to be on marriage or work, or both, or the substance abuse 

issues that are so critical that you obviously have some creative 

ways of handling and note some of the problems within the current 

system. But whatever your priority is, in these 17 States, if this 

program is not renewed, if the expiration continues and they get 

shortchanged in the funds that they have to do any of the things— 

new, old, wrong, right, high priority or low priority—and that is 

why I think it is so critical that any extension include this Supplemental Grant program. 

Dr. Pavetti, you were about to comment as your time ran out 

about a contingency fund. Would you like to elaborate on that? 

Ms. PAVETTI. One of the other parts of the original deal was the 

contingency fund, which was really intended to help States during 

poor economic times. There was a recognition that with a block 

grant you needed to have some mechanism to provide additional 

assistance to States. 

And there are two problems with the contingency fund, two main 

problems. One is there is no money, so there really is no money for 

States to draw on to provide extra help. And the other is the contingency fund is very poorly designed. And Mr. Alexander mentioned this in his testimony. It is very difficult for States to access 

that fund, and when they do access it, there is no guarantee that 

they actually use those resources for countercyclical activities. 

So I think there are two things that need to happen. One is we 

need to fund it, and the second is we really need to think of a redesign that will allow it to do some of the countercyclical things that 

we know are successful, like subsidized employment, emergency assistance, things that really do help families who are looking for 

work and can’t find it. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And, Ms. Brown, if I understand correctly, this 

Governmental Accountability Study concluded that 90 percent of 

almost all of the decline in the TANF caseload is due to fewer eligible families receiving cash assistance? 

Ms. BROWN Yes. That is a study we did where we actually 

looked at the time that the program changed, up until about 2005– 

2006. And at that time it was about 87 percent of the decrease in 

the caseload was caused—was related to families who were eligible 

but, for whatever reason, chose in their decision-making process 

not to participate. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. And Dr. Pavetti, is one of the reasons for that low rate of participation that some of the States are 

diverting eligible families away from TANF? 

Ms. PAVETTI They are. One of the things States did, particularly after the Deficit Reduction Act, was they made it much more 

difficult for families to get onto TANF. One of the ways a State can 

meet their work participation rate is to make sure that the only 

families who get on TANF are families who can meet that rate, so 

they just increased the standards. And so it means that the front 

door is closed to many families. 

Mr. DOGGETT. What type of family would be excluded? 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
89 

Ms. PAVETTI Well, you know, any family—like in one State that 

I visited, any family who cannot participate for 30 hours a week. 

So a family—I can give you an example of a woman whose case I 

reviewed in a study I did who had a very serious anxiety problem 

to the point that she could not leave her house, and she had sores 

throughout her head because she would pick her head, so that 

there was no way she could show up at the agency. That kind of— 

that person with those issues would not be able to receive assistance in a State that requires people to show up for 30 hours before 

they get assistance. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here. I appreciate the input from the witnesses, and obviously a scenario that needs a lot of review, it needs a lot of 

thoughtful debate. 

Mr. Besharov, our last authorization, North Dakota, was part of 

trying to develop some new and innovative ways, and we came up 

with a program called Pay After Performance. In essence what it 

says is, during the first 4 months the TANF portion goes to the 

children, but the other portion is kind of held for that 4 months to 

ensure that that work requirement is fulfilled, and then the participant would receive their portion of that after that period. And quite 

frankly, it has shown in our State; we have had over a 50 percent 

participation rate. 

And I guess my question is how can we use what we have done 

successfully in North Dakota and some of these other States to 

apply to a national level to create positive incentives within the 

program? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you very much, Mr. Berg. I think 

throughout the program the incentives have become skewed since 

its original passage in 1996, as Dr. Pavetti said, as a number of 

us have said. As the rules have gotten more complicated, as there 

is this footnote rule and that footnote rule. But many of the States, 

I think most or a vast majority, in fact, game the system. I think 

Gary even talked about his own State and how it does it. These 

participation numbers don’t really reflect the level of nonparticipation that happens in a State. 

So the short answer is the kind of innovation that you described 

has to be encouraged by the law, not discouraged. And my sense 

about that is to simplify the participation requirements so that the 

States have an easier way of explaining how they are going to show 

participation. 

Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, just in a nutshell, how would you 

simplify them? If there was like one statement—you said, well, do 

this, it will simplify and make it easier—what would that be? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you very much because I do have a view 

about that. Forget about all this other stuff and say 15 percent of 

the caseload has to be in a work experience program, everything 

else falls into place. You can’t have 15 percent, or make it 10 or 

whatever number you make; you can’t get any percentage of the 

caseload into an actual work experience program without doing all 

the other things we want the State to do. That is all you would 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
90 

have to do, and the States I think would be pretty honest about 

fulfilling that requirement. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. Dr. Wetzler, a lot of organizations believe 

TANF’s recipients with substance abuses should be exempted. We 

kind of talked about that and you kind of in your testimony kind 

of addressed that, and I guess kind of almost got the impression 

that to some degree people with drug abuse would benefit from the 

activity. And I just want to know how participating in a work program will help people who are recovering from substance abuse? 

Mr. WETZLER Yes, thank you, Mr. Berg. It is true that there 

are many people that seem to believe that somehow—that going to 

work is somehow going to be so stressful that it will lead people 

to not participate in treatment, or to actually relapse. But our experience over the last ten years has been that actually work has 

a very positive effect when it is done conjointly with treatment; 

that it helps people, it gives them a structure, it gives them a focus 

for their daily activities, it actually can increase self-esteem. And 

I think, most importantly, it actually increases expectations for 

what they should do and really combats a culture of dependency. 

And even if it is done, as we said before, about coercively or it is 

mandated in some way, it really does—people do participate and 

they do benefit from it, from the treatment. 

Mr. BERG. Do you have like some specifics in your case management where again there is financial incentives or consequences in 

addition? How is that working? 

Mr. WETZLER So in New York there are all sorts of sanctions 

that occur if people don’t attend these mandatory appointments. 

For the person who is going to work and going to treatment simultaneously, they have a heavy schedule, they have to do both; and 

if they miss either one, they will be sanctioned and that will have 

some problems. 

On the other side of it, we also have some positive incentives for 

people who actually do obtain employment. There are what we call 

performance milestones that people get for obtaining employment 

at the end of the day. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mrs. 

Black from Tennessee for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Besharov, pronounce—— 

Mr. BESHAROV. Besharov. 

Mrs. BLACK. Yes. Thank you very much. I will not kill your 

name. 

So let me go back to a statement that you made, and in your testimony you talked about European countries and how many now 

have a larger portion of their population working than we do. Do 

you have a sense for why is that? Is that by policy or is it more 

employment availability, or what is it that makes that difference? 

Mr. BESHAROV. I think those countries looked at the trend 

lines of a greater and greater proportion of their citizens not working and became frightened, as we should in this country. And 

whether it was Germany, the Netherlands the U.K., even now 

France, they said what levers does policy have to increase labor 

force participation? And actually one of the things they did is they 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
91 

looked at TANF, and they took the ideas from TANF and applied 

them to the other social assistance programs that they ran. I think 

that is a large explanation for why their labor force participation 

is increasing while ours decreases. 

I should add a footnote here. Someone is going to say, well, you 

know, you have to control for demographics and so forth, but I 

think that is the story line. And I think it was policy, and I think 

it was policy because the European countries saw what was coming 

and knew they couldn’t afford that many people on, in effect, welfare. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Alexander, I want to come to you and ask you—or excuse 

me, it was Ms. Brown. In your testimony you note that over half 

of the current TANF caseloads consist of child-only cases, meaning 

that children are living with an adult who is not subject to the 

work requirements. And from your research, do you know if these 

families receive any assistance from TANF agencies in becoming 

self-sufficient? And second, is this like the old AFDC program, 

where these families receive benefits year after year until the child 

turns 18, without the family moving forward in independence from 

welfare benefits? 

Ms. BROWN Regarding the question about whether they receive 

assistance for self-sufficiency, many don’t. The types of families 

that are receiving the assistance, the child-only assistance, include 

families like where a parent may be SSI-eligible and determined 

that they were unable to work, so they are not able to participate 

in the TANF program, they are not eligible, but the child would be 

eligible for the benefits. 

Another example would be if a caretaker, like a grandmother 

was taking care of their grandchild, that in many cases would not 

be an expectation that they work in some States, not even a means 

test. But there are also cases where there certainly would be opportunities to encourage work. And the flip side of that example of the 

caregiver is if a child were living with a caregiver that was of the 

age where they would be eligible for work and unable to work, 

there is—right now most of them are not required to do that. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Could I add one outrageous example here to 

this? I don’t know the exact number. The last time I looked, 

though, it was over 25 percent of the child-only cases involved the 

children of immigrants; immigrants not being eligible for TANF, 

therefore, they are not on TANF, but the child is eligible. So here 

is the irony. 

Mr. BESHAROV. If you are a noncitizen, TANF’s requirements 

don’t apply to you but they do apply to citizens. 

Mrs. BLACK. So in that case you might have a child then from 

birth until 18 years old is continuing to get the services without 

the parent ever being required to work? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Sure. But the great thing about this country is 

most of those people are on the up escalator for work and they 

eventually get jobs and do better. But yes, that is a technical possibility and I am sure it happens in some number of cases. 

Mrs. BLACK. Are there others that wanted to speak to that? I 

yield back my time. 

Chairman DAVIS. I thank you. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
92 

With that I would like to recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. McDermott for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Dr. Pavetti, I do casework in your office; it 

is always interesting and I have a case for you. It is a couple. He 

is 47, she is 45, high school education, they had a combined income 

of 90,000 bucks or 84,000 bucks when all this started back in 2007. 

They both lost their jobs. They have three kids, 7, 9, and 12. They 

have drawn on all their unemployment benefits, all 99 weeks, so 

they have nothing left. They have been using their 401(k), what little they had, to keep their mortgage payments up so they wouldn’t 

lose their house, but now they are in foreclosure and they have no 

house and they are going to move into their car. 

What State would you suggest they go to where they could find 

a program that would meet the needs of a middle-class couple that 

is being crushed by this economy of 9.2 percent unemployment? 

You can put them on all the work search you want, they can go 

out every day looking, they have been doing it for 2 years, they 

haven’t found anything. 

Where should they go? Or is there a State that has a program 

that meets the needs of a family like that that was once middle 

class 2 years ago and is now not? 

Ms. PAVETTI Well, there aren’t many. And the one that I 

think—and I mentioned this last time when I was here talking 

about program integration—the place where they would probably 

be treated—everybody is treated the same is Utah. So anybody that 

walks in the door in Utah, regardless of whether they are middle 

class or on TANF, goes through the same set of employment services, so that they really wouldn’t be treated any differently there. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Would they be able to get a cash grant? 

AFDC was set up in the thirties to deal with children. They need 

food and clothing and housing and medical care. That is what 

AFDC was about. Then in 2006 when we wrote this TANF bill, it 

was at the height of an economy that was booming, the bubble 

around the high-tech industry was going like mad, you could find 

a job anywhere, and now we are in a place where you can’t find 

a job anywhere. And in fact people who have been unemployed are 

having difficulty because employers don’t want somebody who has 

been unemployed 2 years. They want somebody—because you have 

got a bad credit rating. They have used their credit cards, they 

have got themselves into horrible messes. So where is the program, 

or what needs to be done to make something available for those 

people in what is now a totally different economy than 2006? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think part of what needs to happen is we need 

to acknowledge, one, that the economy is part of the problem and 

that unless Utah has jobs, even if they could get services, it is not 

going to lead to employment. So I think what needs to happen is 

really trying to figure out—and Mr. Besharov mentioned this—is 

that this is a time where it works for people to upgrade their skills; 

but it doesn’t work to upgrade your skills if you can’t work along 

with that or if you can’t have some sort of cash support to do that. 

For that reason I would send them to Chairman Davis’ State, to 

Kentucky, which does probably one of the best jobs in the country 

of really allowing people to do education and combine that with 

work. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
93 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Would they let this person, this couple, go to 

community college—— 

Ms. PAVETTI. They would. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Upgrade and get a welfare grant at the same 

time? 

Ms. PAVETTI Yes. What they would do in Kentucky, what generally happens for people is they do encourage people who have the 

skills and interests to go to community college, and they provide 

a cash grant to help them get started. And then they basically have 

used quite a bit of their TANF funds to do work study so that they 

provide work for people after a year because of the work participation requirement. So it is one place where they probably could be 

able to figure out a way to move forward. 

But I think that our system is not set up to serve that group of 

families. It is really set up on an expectation that people don’t 

want to work, and need to be required to work, so that all that is 

generally provided for TANF recipients is job search. So they are 

required to show up and to participate in a class to look for jobs. 

There is not a lot of help that is provided beyond that. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. No help for the children. Will they get onto 

Medicaid for the kids? 

Ms. PAVETTI Yes. I don’t know what their assets are and how 

that would play out. I don’t know the assets rules as well as I probably should. But they should be able to, if they meet the asset 

rules, to be able to get food stamps and Medicaid and, depending 

on the State, a cash grant. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So the only thing they are eligible for is food 

stamps. 

Mr. BESHAROV. I would just add that you opened your question 

with a statement that they have been on unemployment for 99 

weeks. And what I would ask: What did they do, and what did we 

do for them in those 99 weeks? Because that is a long time for 

them to just be looking for a job without getting a different set of 

skills. 

Look, it is very bad out there. I don’t want to minimize how 

much unemployment there is. But every day people get jobs. There 

are about 31⁄2 million available jobs today. I am sure the President 

tonight is going to say that there are jobs available for some number of people if we can retrain them. Part of that ought to be in 

that 99 weeks, and we shouldn’t be asking TANF to do all the work 

here. 

There are, as the chairman said, a whole set of programs that 

have not been harnessed for this emergency; they have not been 

harnessed, and they ought to be. 

Chairman DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I am 

going to indulge the panel in continuing this discussion for a moment. 

One of the challenges relates to integrating these siloed programs that in many cases don’t talk to each other. Within certain 

constraints within States they have been able to get a degree of integration, but often bump up against the Federal statutes, which 

create additional costs and also has folks fall through the cracks. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
94 

But I know Mr. Alexander was chomping at the bit over here to 

share an insight. Since you came through the rain, I thought we 

would just give him a chance to do so. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It is on his time. 

Chairman DAVIS. I was looking at this as bipartisan right here. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. We share the extension. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Could you tell me which State you are from 

again? I am sorry, maybe I missed it. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Washington State. 

Chairman DAVIS. Which is usually like the environment you 

drove down in today. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, absolutely. 

You said they were 47 and 45, had a combined income of $84,000. They have three children, so presumably they at least 

have a high school education if they were making 40- to $50,000 

a year. What I would say is that there are jobs available for them. 

The jobs may not pay exactly as much as they were making. 

Part of my job as a welfare director, I have been in this business 

for over 15 years and have served at the head of agencies in two 

States. Every time I go into a store, whether it is Target, the Dollar Store, WalMart, I ask—I go up to the desk and ask for an application for employment. And nine out of ten times they give me the 

application. And I ask them: Are you hiring? They say, yes, we are. 

And then when I ask them what the general requirements are, 

most times it is basically a high school diploma or a GED. 

And I will tell you from my experience that we have a lot of people in our programs, especially the food stamp program which has 

no asset test, that have an abundance of an education and they 

have assets and they choose not to go to work because they are getting these benefits. And I have questioned some people on the program as such. 

What I would say to you is that I would like to speak to this couple, if you don’t mind, and try and help them find a job. And I will 

tell you this, I was just in Philadelphia. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Philadelphia. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I was in Philadelphia yesterday at what we 

call an ‘‘earn center,’’ which is where clients come in to actually 

find jobs. And there was a management job available there, I can’t 

remember the company, but it was a management track job; not a 

management job, but a management track job. And they were asking me—they were having trouble actually encouraging people in 

the earn center to take the position. So there are jobs out there. 

And lastly, I just want to say that I am very interested in the 

discussion of substance abuse because it does present barriers to 

clients. 

But I would like to sit and learn more from you. People want to 

work and can work. And I will give you an example. In Luzerne 

County in Pennsylvania, Lowes, which is a major corporation, has 

a distribution center of 1.5 million square feet. We have been working with Lowes to create jobs for intellectually disabled and physically disabled individuals. They have hired over 70 individuals 

with either intellectual or physical disabilities. Their productivity 

is as good or if not better than folks like you and I. Their tenacity 

to come to work and their enthusiasm to come to work is better 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
95 

than you and I, and they are very happy that they have these jobs. 

Lowes happened to do this on its own with very little government 

money. 

We have to do as government workers and as Congress and as 

States, we have to do a much better job of reaching out to the business community to try and create jobs. Will there be hundreds of 

thousands? I don’t know. But certainly we can start to place one 

individual at a time. And I believe we can do that because the opportunities are there. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize Dr. Price from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

witnesses as well. This is an important topic and I think we are 

beginning to have some interesting conversation now, and I appreciate the input. 

The folks that I hear from back home want to make—nobody 

wants anybody to go without help when they need it. And they 

want to know that the individual receiving the help is intent upon 

getting back on their feet and back in the mix. 

And so I want to touch on the incentives that are in place right 

now that, as a couple of you have alluded to, make it such that individuals look at the, entry-level job or the down-income job from 

what they had before, and the incentives for them not to engage 

in that position because of the assistance that is provided, one. 

And, two, I want to—I have heard that we aren’t aligning the work 

requirement with other programs in our system. 

And I would ask kind of a general question: What is keeping us 

from doing that? Is that our ineptitude? Or is that the program is 

written in the wrong way or what? Mr. Alexander, would you like 

to start? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, I would like to start off. Yes, it is the 

Federal Government. Because there is not a day that goes by that 

I don’t get emails from Washington, from the Federal establishment, about new rules and regulations. And trying to run a 20,000- 

employee welfare agency, the largest in the Nation in Pennsylvania, I don’t have time to read all that. 

We need to have a new partnership with the Federal Government, with States, so that we have clear and simplified rules across 

all programs with clear performance measures. If we had that, 

States can innovate and achieve excellence, and we can work together with you to do that. The Federal Government should be 

there to monitor our progress, incentivize us, and pay us for performance. And if you do that, you will start to see States work 

more like private businesses. But we can’t. We are inundated with 

the flood of rules and regulations and a myriad of programs, myriad of agencies. It is USDA, it is Department of Ed, it is HHS, it 

is CMS. We can’t handle all this. 

So even—this crosses Democratic and Republican. This is not a 

Republican issue. Most of my colleagues would agree that we need 

a new relationship. 

Now, some people may want more benefits, some people might 

want less benefits. But the bottom line is we have to have clear expectations, and we can’t be trying to figure out rules and regulations on a daily basis. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
96 

So we need to work across programs, start to bring some of them 

together to comport with one another. Most of these individuals or 

families exist in each of those programs, and we need a new redesign. And I think working together, if you engage the States, I 

think we can do this. 

Mr. PRICE. Would you recommend that under a waiver of the 

existing programs not being able to meet—or is it a new law? 

Mr. ALEXANDER No. The reason why I would not encourage— 

just by its nature, the word ‘‘waiver’’ means that the existing program is broken. We need a new redesign of and clear goals and 

performance measures that work: work retention, healthy living, 

children in school, drug-free society. We need to have these type of 

broad performance measures from the Federal Government. The 

Federal Government needs to get out of the business of trying to 

run what is going on in the State. And if the Federal Government 

wants to do that, I will be happy to give up my position and let 

them come in and just run everything. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Besharov. 

Mr. BESHAROV. This might be the first time I disagree with my 

learned friend here, Gary Alexander. Part of the problem is the 

Congress and the committee structure, because many of these programs are in different committees—— 

Chairman DAVIS. I would remind the gentleman that has been 

a tradition since 1789. So. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Has TANF been around that long, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. BESHAROV. I think I have seen the waiver process generate 

knowledge and political support for reform. That is what happened 

in welfare reform and other programs as well. 

So, Gary, yes, if they can get it; but if not, something like the 

super waiver that has been on the table for a number of years 

would be very helpful. And then not to recognize—not to not recognize what the chairman mentioned earlier, some States are trying 

to work around this entirely by their IT systems, which is to say 

if you can’t fix it from Washington, the power of computers now 

will enable many States to do much of what we are talking about; 

not similar rules across States, but will let the States figure out 

the best way to work the programs together internally. And at a 

minimum, that ought to be encouraged in any new legislation. 

Mr. PRICE. My time has expired, but I think you are absolutely 

right. I think that is the direction we should head, is to allow the 

States to be able to have the flexibility and then teach us what the 

heck we need to do to fix this. 

Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. And now Mr. Crowley 

from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today, and I particularly want to thank Dr. 

Wetzler from New York, and from the Bronx in particular, from in 

his day job at Montefiore Hospital. So thank you for being here 

today. 

Dr. Pavetti, research has shown that women leaving the TANF 

program are far more likely to stay employed if they have adequate 

child care and subsidies to pay for the child care. I have introduced 

Child First Act to increase funding for child-care subsidies so the 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
97 

parents are better able to access child care, which in many States 

costs more than a college tuition. And I don’t know about college 

tuition in New York, but I can attest certainly to high school tuition. 

I was wondering if you could discuss the role child-care availability plays in helping parents find work, and maybe more importantly, help them to keep that work and keep those jobs after 

transitioning out of the TANF program. 

Ms. PAVETTI. What we have learned through the years in 

TANF is that there was an expectation that people would move 

into low-paying jobs and they would move up a ladder, and that is 

really not what we saw. So what happens is people move into lowwage jobs and they stay in those low-wage jobs for very long periods of time, which means that they cannot afford child care, so that 

the only way they are able to work, particularly in low-wage jobs, 

is to have a child-care subsidy. 

One of the things we have also seen in TANF is States have done 

very different things, so some of States have used a lot of their 

TANF dollars for child care and others have used lesser amounts. 

But what we do know is that you cannot have an expectation of 

work without also having a way for people to afford child care. It 

is not safe for kids, and it means a very unstable workforce if parents don’t have child care. So I think it is a critical need. And I 

think that without it we can get nowhere. 

The other thing I think is important, as you said, you increase 

funding. In many States, the TANF grant is so much lower than 

the cost of child care, without additional funds there isn’t money 

to actually pay for the child care that is required to go to work. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Wexler, I am glad that you highlighted some of the work that 

New York City is doing to make the TANF program work even better, particularly with case management. 

Is it fair to say, based on your experience and your expertise, 

that New York has been successful in identifying TANF recipients 

in need of substance abuse treatment without requiring every 

TANF applicant or recipient to be drug tested? 

Mr. WETZLER Well, I am sure there are about—today, about 12 

percent of the caseload in New York City has identified substance 

abuse disorder, and it comes through when they apply for welfare. 

They get a basic screen at the welfare center, in a sense they are 

self-identifying, and then they get referred to us for a more thorough clinical evaluation—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. My question is, do you think that—— 

Mr. WETZLER. So there clearly are many, many more people 

than that that actually have a substance abuse disorder that are 

on the welfare system, but because they actually are participating 

and being referred for the work activities that are required, it is 

obviously not severe enough to interfere with that. So even though 

they are not identifying it, it isn’t that severe or would ultimately 

become apparent when they actually are on the work site, in which 

case they would then be referred. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I think the country has a lot to learn what New 

York is doing. If New York was required to drug test every TANF 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
98 

applicant and recipient, that would most likely leave less money for 

treatment programs like yours. 

Do you think it is a better investment, given the nature of the 

resources that we have, to drug test everyone or to provide treatment to those who have been identified as needing assistance, as 

is done now? 

Mr. WETZLER. Well, it would be a huge, huge, practical problem 

to actually drug test everybody. It would be hugely expensive. 

There are two ways of doing drug testing. You can either do an oral 

swab, which is very easy but very expensive; you can do urine 

screens, which is much less expensive but kind of difficult to enforce. So it would be very difficult. It would be very expensive. 

The other thing I would say is that you would probably identify 

somewhere around 35 to 40 percent of the caseload that would test 

positive in that case, and it is not clear that you actually would be 

able to have the treatment capacity to receive all those people into 

treatment. So it is not clear what you would even do with that information if you had it. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Dr. Pavetti, can you comment on that, please? 

Ms. PAVETTI. I think that the evidence we have from other programs or studies suggest that that number is too high. I am not 

sure it would be that high at all. And Florida’s experience of doing 

drug testing has a very low percentage. So I think that the percent 

who would test positive wouldn’t be that high. 

The other thing I think is important about substance abuse is 

that there seems to be an impression that most States exempt people who have substance abuse problems. 

I actually did work on substance abuse programs in TANF agencies, and that really is not the case. What New York has done is 

very much what other States do except most States don’t do as 

much around providing case management or the treatment. But 

they do, if someone has a substance abuse program issue, they require them to participate in treatment, or they require them to participate in work, and they are sanctioned just like everybody else 

if they do not participate. So I think the idea that they are exempted is just a misnomer, and not accurate, based on what States actually do in practice. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank you both. My time has run out. 

I appreciate again, Mr. Chairman, your giving the opportunity 

for this hearing. I think the Nation has a lot to learn in terms of 

what is happening in New York today in terms of TANF and drug 

treatment, and I appreciate this hearing today very much. Thank 

you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. And I would like to 

thank everybody for taking the time to come here today. I appreciate your help and understanding—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, can I make a unanimous consent request? 

Chairman DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I ask unanimous consent that an article from 

today’s Politico, September 8, by Joe Stiglitz, called ‘‘All Roads 

Won’t Lead to Economic Downfall and Doom,’’ be entered into the 

record. 

Chairman DAVIS. Without objection, so be it. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGS
99 

[The information follows:] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 71 here 70891.071
100 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 72 here 70891.072
101 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 73 here 70891.073
102 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. If members have additional questions, they 

will submit them to you in writing, and we would appreciate your 

responses back to us for the record as well as to them. And with 

that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourn] 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Mr. Tom Reed 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 74 here 70891.074
103 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 75 here 70891.075
104 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 76 here 70891.076
105 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 77 here 70891.077
106 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 78 here 70891.078
107 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 79 here 70891.079
108 

f 

MEMBER SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Mr. Jim McDermott 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 80 here 70891.080
109 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 71 here 70891.071
110 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 72 here 70891.072
111 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 73 here 70891.073
112 

f 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Association of University Women 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 74 here 70891.074
113 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 81 here 70891.081
114 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 82 here 70891.082
115 

f 

American Public Human Services Association 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 83 here 70891.083
116 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 84 here 70891.084
117 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 85 here 70891.085
118 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 86 here 70891.086
119 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 87 here 70891.087
120 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 88 here 70891.088
121 

f 

Center for Family Policy & Practice 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 89 here 70891.089
122 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 90 here 70891.090
123 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 91 here 70891.091
124 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 92 here 70891.092
125 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 93 here 70891.093
126 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 94 here 70891.094
127 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 95 here 70891.095
128 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 96 here 70891.096
129 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 97 here 70891.097
130 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 98 here 70891.098
131 

f 

Center for Fiscal Equity 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 99 here 70891.099
132 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 100 here 70891.100
133 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 101 here 70891.101
134 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 102 here 70891.102
135 

f 

Center for Law and Social Policy 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 103 here 70891.103
136 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 104 here 70891.104
137 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 105 here 70891.105
138 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 106 here 70891.106
139 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 107 here 70891.107
140 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 108 here 70891.108
141 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 109 here 70891.109
142 

f 

Center for Public Policy Priorities 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 110 here 70891.110
143 

f 

City University of New York (CUNY) School of Public Health 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 111 here 70891.111
144 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 112 here 70891.112
145 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 113 here 70891.113
146 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 114 here 70891.114
147 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 115 here 70891.115
148 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 116 here 70891.116
149 

f 

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 117 here 70891.117
150 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 118 here 70891.118
151 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 119 here 70891.119
152 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 120 here 70891.120
153 

f 

Congressman Danny Davis and Congresswoman Gwen Moore 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 121 here 70891.121
154 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 122 here 70891.122
155 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 123 here 70891.123
156 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 124 here 70891.124
157 

f 

Coordinator for the Connecticut Alliance for Basic Human Needs 

(CABHN) 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 125 here 70891.125
158 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 126 here 70891.126
159 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 127 here 70891.127
160 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 128 here 70891.128
161 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 129 here 70891.129
162 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 130 here 70891.130
163 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 131 here 70891.131
164 

f 

County Welfare Directors Association of California and the California State Association of Counties 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 132 here 70891.132
165 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 133 here 70891.133
166 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 134 here 70891.134
167 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 135 here 70891.135
168 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 136 here 70891.136
169 

f 

Feminists for Life of America 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 137 here 70891.137
170 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 138 here 70891.138
171 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 139 here 70891.139
172 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 140 here 70891.140
173 

f 

Goodwill Industries International 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 141 here 70891.141
174 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 142 here 70891.142
175 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 143 here 70891.143
176 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 144 here 70891.144
177 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 145 here 70891.145
178 

f 

Legal Action Center 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 146 here 70891.146
179 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 147 here 70891.147
180 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 148 here 70891.148
181 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 149a here 70891.149a
182 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 149b here 70891.149b
183 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 150 here 70891.150
184 

f 

Legal Momentum 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 151 here 70891.151
185 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 152 here 70891.152
186 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 153 here 70891.153
187 

f 

Monroe County Coalition for Children and Families 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 154 here 70891.154
188 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 155 here 70891.155
189 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 156 here 70891.156
190 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 157 here 70891.157
191 

f 

National Association of Working Women 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 158 here 70891.158
192 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 159 here 70891.159
193 

f 

National Indian Child Welfare Association 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 160 here 70891.160
194 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 161 here 70891.161
195 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 162 here 70891.162
196 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 163 here 70891.163
197 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 164 here 70891.164
198 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 165 here 70891.165
199 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 166 here 70891.166
200 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 167 here 70891.167
201 

f 

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 168 here 70891.168
202 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 169 here 70891.169
203 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 170 here 70891.170
204 

f 

Parents Organizing for Welfare and Economic Rights 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 171 here 70891.171
205 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 172 here 70891.172
206 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 173 here 70891.173
207 

f 

Public Citizens for Children and Youth 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 174 here 70891.174
208 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 175 here 70891.175
209 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 176 here 70891.176
210 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 177 here 70891.177
211 

f 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 178 here 70891.178
212 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 179 here 70891.179
213 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 180 here 70891.180
214 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 181 here 70891.181
215 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 182 here 70891.182
216 

f 

The Community Economic Development (CFED) 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 183 here 70891.183
217 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 184 here 70891.184
218 

f 

The Hatcher Group 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 185 here 70891.185
219 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 186 here 70891.186
220 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 187 here 70891.187
221 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 188 here 70891.188
222 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 189 here 70891.189
223 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 190 here 70891.190
224 

f 

The National Association of County Human Services Administrators 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 191 here 70891.191
225 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 192 here 70891.192
226 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 193 here 70891.193
227 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 194 here 70891.194
228 

f 

Welfare Rights Initiative 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 195 here 70891.195
229 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 196 here 70891.196
230 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 197 here 70891.197
231 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 198 here 70891.198
232 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 199 here 70891.199
233 

f 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 200 here 70891.200
234 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 201 here 70891.201
235 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 202 here 70891.202
236 

f 

Wider Opportunities for Women 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 203 here 70891.203
237 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 204 here 70891.204
238 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 205 here 70891.205
239 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 206 here 70891.206
240 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 207 here 70891.207
241 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 208 here 70891.208
242 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 209 here 70891.209
243 

f 

Women of Color Policy Network NYU Wagner 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 210 here 70891.210
244 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 211 here 70891.211
245 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 212 here 70891.212
246 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 213 here 70891.213
247 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 214 here 70891.214
248 

Æ 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 215 here 70891.215