U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

24–131 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–698 

RENEWING COMMUNITIES AND PROVIDING 

OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INNOVATIVE 

SOLUTIONS TO POVERTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

JOSHUA P. MCLEOD, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

PORTIA R. BAMIDURO, Minority Senior Counsel 

LYNN L. SHA, Minority Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Carper 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 16 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 20 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 26 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 45 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 47 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 

Robert L. Woodson Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood 

Enterprise ............................................................................................................. 6 

Peter L. Ochs, President, Capital II, Inc. .............................................................. 7 

Ron Haskins, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute ..................................... 9 

Olivia Golden, Executive Director, Center for Law and Social Policy ................ 11 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Golden, Olivia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Haskins, Ron: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Ochs, Peter L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Woodson, Robert L. Sr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX 

Chart referenced by Mr. Haskins ........................................................................... 57 

Charts referenced by Mr. Haskins ......................................................................... 61 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 87 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 88 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 89 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Woodson ..................................................................................................... 90 

Mr. Haskins ...................................................................................................... 94 

(1) 

RENEWING COMMUNITIES AND PROVIDING 

OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INNOVATIVE 

SOLUTIONS TO POVERTY 

WEDNESDAY, June 22, 2016 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to attend 

and for your thoughtful testimonies. I am looking forward to hearing them and looking forward to hearing your answers to our questions. 

The mission statement of this Committee is relatively simple: to 

enhance the economic and national security of America. I believe 

they are inextricably linked. My approach to solving problems is always to look for the areas of agreement. And, based on the subject 

matter of this hearing, I think it is, probably, good to start with 

an area of agreement. 

I do not care where you fall on the political spectrum, as Americans, we share the same goal. We all want a safe, prosperous, and 

secure America. We are concerned about each other. No political 

party has a monopoly on compassion. We all want all of our fellow 

citizens to succeed and to have the opportunity to build a good life 

for themselves and their families. 

So, I mean, I would like to start there, because it is true. And, 

if you start and you look for areas of agreement, it is just a whole 

lot easier to find common ground on the areas of disagreement. 

And, we might find a few of those areas as we get into the testimonies. 

The other thing that is pretty much inherent in somebody, like 

myself, who comes from a manufacturing background—I solve an 

awful lot of problems—I understand the problem-solving process. 

You never solve a problem until you, first, properly identify it, 
2 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 87. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 88. 

properly define it, understand the reality, and admit you have the 

problem. 

So, I was hoping to have a couple of easels here to display them, 

but I do have a couple of graphs. I just want to start there. But, 

let us look at the reality and ask ourselves some questions. 

The first one is the number of Americans in poverty. And, as a 

government, we started measuring poverty in, I think, 1959. And, 

you can see that, based on this graph1, when we first started measuring it, we had about 39.5 million Americans in poverty and the 

poverty rate was 22.4 percent. And, you can see the number of people in poverty—and the poverty rate—was falling, quite precipitously, through the early 1960s, because we had a booming economy. We had the ‘‘Baby Boomer’’ generation growing up after 

World War II and things in America were looking up. But, still, we 

are a compassionate society. The poverty rate—the number of people in poverty—was still too high, so, collectively, we decided to embark on a—and I know these numbers are, somewhat, subject to 

dispute—exactly what the numbers are—but, somewhere in 

the—in nominal dollars—$13 trillion to $19 trillion or $20 trillion 

‘‘War on Poverty’’. 

Now, I think you have to ask yourself a question. I mean, did it 

work? We started passing some of the means-tested programs in 

about 1964 and continued to pass a piece of legislation in 1965 and 

1966. Back then, in today’s dollars, we were spending somewhere 

around $30 billion, per year, on some of those programs. We, basically, doubled that spending, starting in about 1966, after all of 

these programs were passed. 

I just want to refer people to the next chart2, because I think this 

shows—and, again, this is just the reality of what has happened 

since we embarked on a—again, whatever that number is—$13 

trillion to $19 trillion or $20 trillion ‘‘War on Poverty’’. Basically, 

you can see that the number of people in poverty went from about 

29.5 million people—we are up to about 47 million people. But, I 

realize the population has increased, so that is probably not the 

best measure. So, what about the poverty rate? Well, you can see 

that that has pretty much flatlined around the 15-percent level. We 

are a little under 15 percent, right now, today. 

Now, I realize there is some dispute, in terms of how you actually measure poverty. Do you put, on top of what people earn, the 

welfare payments? Obviously, welfare payments, in terms of total 

income, pull people above that poverty line. But, from my standpoint—I thought the goal of the ‘‘War on Poverty’’ was to get people 

out of poverty on their own—working and basically earning their 

own success. And, of course, those people that cannot help themselves—people that are never going to be able to make it on their 

own—obviously, we want to continue to help those folks to live a 

good life. So, again, those are just sort of the basic facts. 

And, the other line I want to point out here is the—and, this is, 

actually, Daniel Patrick Moynihan who started pointing this out. I 

know, as a social scientist, he started talking about out-of-wedlock 

birth rates in the mid-1960s. He paid kind of a heavy professional 
3 

price for doing so, but he noted that the out-of-wedlock birth rate 

had gone from 4 percent to 8 percent. 

He was alarmed by it, because—if you are concerned about poverty—it is true that, if you have an intact family, you have a far 

lower probability of being in poverty than someone struggling as a 

single parent trying to take care of their kids. And, that is not a 

value judgment on single-parent families—just, as it relates to poverty, you are going to have a lower probability of being in poverty 

if you have an intact family. Since the ‘‘War on Poverty’’ 

began—now, I think—last year, I think, we were up to 40.6 percent 

of births occurring out of wedlock. I do not think that is a positive 

metric of success. 

So, again, with kind of that basis—I think those are pretty indisputable numbers. The causes and the results will probably be disputed, but that is really the purpose of this hearing: to try and lay 

out some realities and to try and agree on as much as we possibly 

can. And, again, I will go back to that goal. We all want a safe, 

prosperous, and secure America. We are concerned about each 

other. We want to help people that cannot help themselves. We 

want to help people to help themselves. We are a compassionate society. 

And, with that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much for holding this hearing today. 

It is great to see some of you again. Dr. Haskins, it is great to 

see you, Ron—and Olivia Golden as well. And, Peter Ochs, we welcome you here. And, Mr. Woodson, you are great to join us. And, 

thank you all for your work in these vineyards. 

Ron Haskins and I had a chance to work together pretty closely, 

back in the 1990s, during the Clinton Administration—and along 

with the then-Governor from Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, who 

was also Chairman of the National Governors Association (NGA). 

I was one of his successors. And, he and I worked closely together 

on welfare reform then, along with a guy named John Engler, who 

was the Governor of Michigan at the time. 

President Clinton used to say that work should pay more than 

welfare. People would be better off going to work than staying on 

welfare. And, if you think about what folks faced, prior to our welfare reform initiatives in the 1990s, the smart, rational decision for 

a lot of people was to stay on welfare. And, if you think about it, 

you go to work, what do you gain? You gain the right to pay taxes. 

You gain the right to pay for your health care. You probably lose 

Medicaid and you probably have to figure out how to pay for health 

care for yourself and your kids. You have to worry about transportation—how to get to work. You have to figure out that childcare 

and pay for that as well. 

And so, we pretty much had a system that encouraged people to 

get on welfare and to stay on welfare—and a lot of people did 

that. And, what we tried to do in my State—and in 49 other 

States—was to ensure that people were better off by going to work. 

And, in my State—in Delaware—we were given the opportunity 

to experiment, broadly. And, we did. We created a Family 
4 

Services Cabinet Council, which involved a lot of members of my 

cabinet—one of whom, Carmen Nazario, was later stolen by Olivia 

Golden to go to work for her. 

But, we started—before children were born—a statewide campaign on teenage pregnancy. We placed a huge focus on parenting 

training—starting in hospitals—literally, where babies were born, 

before moms went home with their children—and, hopefully, with 

dads. We had parenting training in our prisons. We found 

out—along with the late George Voinovich, who just died last week 

and who served on this Committee. George and I found out that 

about half of the kids in our States—in the country, actually—who 

were eligible for Head Start were not being funded by Head Start. 

So, we used State money to fully fund eligible 4-year-olds for Head 

Start. 

There was a big push for mentoring programs—all kinds of 

things that we did. And, we also changed Medicaid eligibility, so 

that, when people would go to work, they would not lose their Medicaid eligibility right away. The Earned Income Tax Credit 

(EITC)—one of the best anti-poverty programs, I think, we have 

ever had. States have introduced their own version of that to, 

again, make sure that work pays more than welfare. 

But, the idea there was to change the incentives. It helped to 

launch welfare reform in the midst of, maybe, one of the two longest economic recoveries in the history of our country. And, we 

raised the minimum wage during that period of time, because we 

wanted work to pay more than welfare. 

I think I may have mentioned we—I know, Peter, you have done 

a lot of work in prisons. And, I had a huge interest in corrections. 

I still do. And, we did all kinds of things, in our prisons, to better 

ensure that, when the guys and gals—inmates came out of prison, 

they were better parents—not just better criminals. So, those are 

some of the things that we worked on at the State level. 

Not everybody likes the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One of 

the things that I like about the Affordable Care Act—among others—is that, when people actually do go to work and get off of welfare, they have health care. They do not give up their health care. 

It is a big deal. It is a really big deal. And, they can sign up for 

Medicaid. And, if their income rises over 135 percent of the poverty 

line, they can sign up and participate in the exchanges in their 

State. So, the deal here is try to use some common sense and to 

use our hearts at the same time. 

And, I will close with this. There is a verse of scripture that I 

quote in here from time to time. The Chairman has heard it a 

number of times. And, it is Matthew 25: ‘‘When I was hungry, did 

you feed me? When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was 

thirsty, did you give me to drink? When I was a stranger in your 

land, did you take me in? ’’ 

And, I think we have a moral imperative—whatever our faith 

is—to the least of these in our society. But, given the fact that we 

still have a big budget deficit, we have a fiscal imperative to meet 

that moral imperative in a fiscally responsible way. And, that is 

what we are trying to do. And, this is a shared partnership—not 

just the Federal Government, not just the States, not just the faith 

community, and not just nonprofits. It is all of us, including the 
5 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

people, themselves, who are on welfare and want to be able to become self-supporting and self-sustaining. 

President Obama is going to sign into law, legislation, at 11:15 

this morning, that the White House and I worked on for the last 

4 years: the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st 

Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substance Control Act of 

1976 (TSCA). He was kind enough to ask me to come and to be 

there for the signing ceremony. And, I am asked to choose between 

two of my favorite children: that legislation, which I cared about 

and worked hard on—along with a bunch of my colleagues—and 

the subject here, which I have been focused on for years. And so, 

I wanted to start my morning with you. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a chance 

to say a few things. And, we look forward to hearing from you and, 

probably, to communicating with you later on. God bless you all 

and thank you all for joining us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. My guess is 

that we both have written statements1 we would like to enter into 

the record. Without objection, do you want to—— 

Senator CARPER. Let us do it2. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There we go. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you would all rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. WOODSON. I do. 

Mr. OCHS. I do. 

Mr. HASKINS. I do. 

Ms. GOLDEN. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Robert Woodson. And, I do have to point out 

I have a bunch of these books that I am happy to give to all of the 

Senators. This is a wonderful book. It is called ‘‘The Triumphs of 

Joseph’’. In it, Mr. Woodson describes a number of communitybased organizations (CBOs)—often faith-based—that were started 

by people who found redemption, turned their lives around, and 

then, turned their own personal redemption into helping other people—one person at a time. 

So, since I met you in a Senate Budget Committee hearing—was 

that about 4 or 5 years ago?—Mr. Woodson was kind enough to 

give me a book. Now, it has paid off dividends, because I bought 

hundreds of these things and I keep handing them out. But, I really recommend all of the Senators to pick one up. And, I will give 

it to the other witnesses as well. 

But, Robert Woodson is Founder and President of the Center for 

Neighborhood Enterprise. Mr. Woodson has dedicated his life to 

helping low-income people address the problems of their communities. For more than four decades, he has promoted the principles 

of self-help and neighborhood empowerment as well as the importance of the institutions of civil society. Mr. Woodson. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Woodson appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT WOODSON,1 FOUNDER AND 

PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ENTERPRISE 

Mr. WOODSON. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to address this Committee. I come to you, with my testimony, as someone who has worked as a civil rights activist. And, also I have 

worked as a corrections officer (CO) and as a trained social worker 

in the poverty industry. So, my experience is first-hand. The fact is, we have spent $22 trillion, in the past 50 years, on 

programs to aid the poor. And, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not 

to the poor, but to those who serve poor people. And, they ask, not 

which problems are solvable, but which ones are fundable. So, with 

our structural disincentives for people to move out of poverty, we 

have created a commodity out of poor people. To fund the solution, 

therefore, we must, first of all, diagnose the problem properly. You 

cannot generalize all poor people. There are four categories of poor 

people. 

There are those who are just broke—those whose character is intact. They have lost a breadwinner or a factory has moved out 

of town. People like that use the welfare system as it was intended—as an ambulance service, not a transportation system. 

Category two are people whose character is intact, but they look 

at the perverse incentives for achieving. Once they do, they will 

lose benefits. And so, they conclude that the numbers do not work. 

And, they stay on welfare. 

Category three are people who are either physically or mentally 

impaired. They need help. 

Category four are people who are morally and spiritually impoverished and, therefore, require some special intervention. 

The problem is, people on the left tend to look at all poor people 

as if they are category one, while people on the right tend to look 

at them as if they are all category four. And so, we miss each other. 

It is important for us to understand the problem and the type of 

poverty we are addressing. 

The group of people that concerns society most and are the most 

costly to us, is people in category four. And, these are the people 

that are the subject of my organization’s efforts. We specialize in 

helping to promote transformation. If you just try to apply programs or give money directly to people who have some moral 

failings, you injure them with the helping hand. 

It is important, therefore, to look at an alternative way to help 

people in category four. But, we cannot find solutions for them by 

turning to our universities or professionals, who parachute in the 

programs they desire. The solutions are found in the community 

suffering the problem. 

At the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, we do not do what 

the poverty industry does. They engage in what I call ‘‘failure studies’’—or needs assessments. If you study failure, all you can 

produce is failure. So, we go into high-crime, low-income neighborhoods and we identify the real anti-poverty warriors. 

One is the mom that lives in public housing, has 5 children, and 

was abandoned by her husband, at age 23, to rely on welfare. She 

gets off of welfare and then sends all five kids to college. Another, 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ochs appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

is the mom who has two children and sleeps in cars and in homeless shelters—yet her two girls graduate valedictorian and salutatorian and go on to succeed. Another, is Kurt Moore, a man who 

spent 13 years in prison, but came out, came to Christ, and then, 

started a small business, where he now employs 20 people in an 

auto detailing business. 

These are the real anti-poverty experts. Therefore, we must go 

into those neighborhoods and look for the anti-poverty experts, by 

exploring the capacities of poor people. And, once we find these experts, it is important to bring them to the table and to find out, 

from them, the source of their ability to achieve against the odds. 

And then, we must find what policies promote the expansion of 

these ‘‘centers of moral excellence’’, as opposed to always relying 

upon the advice of experts that never talk to the people suffering 

the problem. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Woodson. 

Our next witness is Peter Ochs. Mr. Ochs is President of Capital 

III, Inc. and Seat King. In 2005, Capital III began utilizing inmate 

manufacturing labor from a State prison in Hutchinson, Kansas. 

His programs help foster economic, social, and spiritual capital, 

while teaching inmates a marketable skill. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER L. OCHS,1 PRESIDENT, CAPITAL III, INC. 

Mr. OCHS. Thank you. Thank you for being here. 

At the age of 40, I came to the realization that I was successful 

economically, but I was not satisfied with life. And, I think that 

was a result of not focusing on two other forms of capital: social 

and spiritual capital. 

I define social capital as those things that money cannot buy: 

great relationships, ambition, a goal in life, and the ability to live 

in harmony with your fellow man. Spiritual capital, as I define it, 

is just the moral code by which we live. It is ‘‘love your neighbor 

as yourself,’’ as it were. So, with this newfound ambition, 20 years 

ago, we changed the focus of our company from being just an economic enterprise to one with what we would call a ‘‘triple bottom 

line’’, where we create economic, social, and spiritual capital. 

So, in 2005, we had a manufacturing company, in a small Kansas 

town, that was growing rapidly. And, we simply could not find 

enough labor to supply that business with people, so we moved inside of a prison. And, it did not take me very long to understand— 

if I am honest with you, I moved into that prison simply for economic reasons, but, within a few months, I understood that the 

men that were incarcerated there were not much different than 

myself. 

And so, we took this opportunity to really put into practice the 

creation of economic, social, and spiritual capital. Let me define, 

briefly, for you, how we do that inside of the prison setting. 

If you are an inmate and work for the State of Kansas, you make 

50 cents a day. If you work for us, you will make somewhere between $8 and $15 an hour—and that is set by the State of Kansas. 

In addition to the inmate winning, the State of Kansas wins. They 

take 25 percent of the gross salary for room and board. So, if you 
8 

make $10 an hour as an inmate, the State of Kansas will take 

$2.50 for room and board. This year, our inmates will pay the State 

of Kansas more than $1 million in room and board. That is about 

7 percent or 8 percent of the budget of that particular prison. 

The third entity that benefits is us. We get a steady, hardworking labor force that shows up on time every day. And, the last 

party to benefit is society, in itself. Restitution, child support, etc. 

comes out of their wage, if they owe that. 

So, that would be a summary of economic capital. Let me talk 

about social capital for just a moment. 

Inmates—we train them in welding, sewing, electronics, and 

computer-aided design. So, we have classes and they are learning 

those skills as they work for us. 

Family relationships are, probably, one of the greatest social capital benefits we have seen. It costs 17 cents a minute, if you are 

an inmate, to talk to your family. So, if you make 50 cents a day, 

you spend no time talking to your family over the telephone, OK? 

So, our average inmate probably spends 30 to 45 minutes, per day, 

visiting with their family—primarily, doing homework with their 

kids we found. 

Disciplinary actions in the prison are down, substantially. If you 

have a disciplinary action, you cannot work for us for 90 days. So, 

what you wind up doing is going back to 50 cents a day instead 

of $10 an hour, let us say. 

We also sponsor and teach classes on personal improvement: fathering, finances, interpersonal skills, etc. 

We think that recidivism is down. While we do not have specific 

empirical studies on that, we have employed 14 inmates that have 

come out of our manufacturing company inside of the prison on the 

outside—in our civilian workforce. Two of those 14 have been reincarcerated. That has been over a period of 5 years. So, that is 14 

percent. And, I think, as you know, recidivism rates, in most 

States, are north of 60 percent. Kansas is in the low 30 percent, 

but I think the reason for that is this ability for private company 

investment ‘‘private investment company ability’’—that allows for 

people to work in private companies. 

I would also tell you that, when an inmate leaves our employment, he, typically, has $5,000 to $10,000 saved up in the bank. We 

have tried to do the best we can to teach him some kind of a moral 

code. And, when he leaves, we do our best to get him a job. So, he 

has some money, he has a job, he has a mentor lined up, and he 

has some cash in the bank. The recidivism rates have to be declining, rapidly. 

I can also not overestimate the importance of self-esteem. 

Let me just finish up with spiritual capital. The most requested 

thing from our inmates is for some kind of guidance and teaching 

on moral codes, spiritual improvement, and guidance. And, we have 

started a seminary inside of the prison. We will graduate eight students from that seminary. It is a 3-year, rigorous program. They 

will graduate next month. Those inmates have now become the primary mental health counselors in that prison, because of State 

budget cuts. Those dollars have gone away. 

Let me just, quickly, finish by encouraging you to consider three 

things. I do think we need criminal justice reform. Many of the in-
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Haskins appears in the Appendix on page 56. 

2The chart referenced by Mr. Haskins appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

mates working for us, I do not think, need to be there. They should 

be out in society. 

And, second, I think, if we want to have a great rehabilitation 

record in prisons, it needs to be a partnership between government, 

private industry, and the faith-based community, doing, essentially, 

what we are doing. We have seen great results there. 

And, third, I think the elimination of poverty—economic, social, 

and spiritual poverty—is not an outside-in thing. It is an inside-out 

thing. 

If we do not transform the mind, the heart, and the soul of the 

inmate, we are not getting done what we need to get done. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Ochs. It sounds like you are 

at the forefront of prison reform. 

Our next witness is Dr. Ron Haskins. Dr. Haskins is Senior Fellow in the Economic Studies Program and Co-Director of the Center on Children and Families (CCF) at the Brookings Institution. 

Mr. Haskins spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and 

Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Resources and has 

served as Senior Advisor to the President for Welfare Policy at the 

White House. Dr. Haskins. 

TESTIMONY OF RON HASKINS, PH.D.,1 SENIOR FELLOW, 

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. HASKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Carper. I am glad to be here. It is a privilege to testify 

on this important topic. 

I was asked, by staff, to cover four topics: spending on meanstested programs, basic trend data on poverty and opportunity, the 

importance of action by local communities, and whether evidencebased policies can improve our success in fighting poverty. Other 

than that, I can talk about anything I want to in my 5 minutes, 

so—— [Laughter.] 

I have provided some scaled-down figures, from my testimony, to 

the Members and I am going to refer to those. 

So, first, is total spending. I gave you a chart2 that shows the 

total spending of the top-10 means-tested programs. The Members 

should have it in front of them. The bottom line is, it increased 

every year. It has increased, dramatically, over the entire period 

since 1962. It has increased, from about $18 billion, to $609 billion. 

This does not include State spending. Between the Federal Government and the States, on means-tested programs—loosely called 

welfare programs—we spend about $1 trillion a year—and rising. 

Now, we did have a substantial drop for the first time. That is, 

probably, because of the great additional spending that we had in 

the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. I think we will pick up 

spending again. It already started last year and it will continue. 

So, we spend a lot of money. 

The second thing, I think, that is really important for this Committee to understand is that spending on social programs and 

spending on children, as a percentage of all Federal spending, is 
10 

1The chart referenced by Mr. Haskins appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

2The chart referenced by Mr. Haskins appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

declining. And, the reason that is happening is because spending 

on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—I call them the ‘‘big 

three.’’ They have no budget and no control. They just grow and 

they are squeezing all other Federal spending—except interest. Between those three programs and interest, we will spend 62 percent 

of Federal revenues—this is according to the Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO)—in 2025. So, we have to do something about that. It 

looks good right now, but it is going to get worse. 

The second thing I want to talk about is poverty and opportunity. 

It is true, as the Chairman said, that, if you look at the official poverty rate, we have not made much progress. But, I think that is 

very misleading. I think we should look at a broader definition of 

poverty. There are several available from the U.S. Census Bureau 

called the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). 

And, if you do that—if you look at Chart 51—it is the third chart 

here, but it is five and I did not want to confuse the Members. It 

is five in my testimony. This was done by the Center on Budget 

and Policy Priorities (CBPP). It shows what happens to the official 

poverty measure when you include the benefits from means-tested 

programs that I just described to you. And, the answer is, for everybody, poverty declines 45 percent—and, for kids, it declines 40 

percent. 

Even more directly, in Chart 62, this shows—and it is done by 

the Congressional Research Service (CRS)—untouched by anybody’s biased hands. And, what it shows is that, if you look at life 

in a state of nature, for single-mother families—this is only singlemother families—they are the most poverty-stricken group. They 

are five times as likely to be poor. ‘‘Life in a state of nature’’ means 

just based on their own earnings—a huge poverty rate—almost half 

last year, all right? And then, if we start including the government 

benefits, it steps down all of the way. It steps down between 50 

percent to 48 percent. 

And, that is why, generally speaking, I think we have a lot of incentive built into our structure of the work support programs plus 

earnings—which are up because we have more low-income families 

working now than we had in the past—in part, because of welfare 

reform. That strategy, I think, is the single most effective strategy 

that we have discovered so far—except Social Security. 

And, that leads to the shocking conclusion: If you give people 

money, they will be less poor. That is what Social Security does. 

But, if you want them to earn it, and then, subsidize their income, 

this is the way to do it. We figured that out. We could improve it, 

but it is a great way to do it. 

I want to say one word about mobility. We have very little mobility. It has not changed. It is not getting worse, but we have less 

mobility than many countries—especially from the bottom to getting higher. We have very good data showing that the probability 

of a kid born to the bottom 20 percent—whose parents’ income is 

in the bottom 20 percent—it is roughly $23,000 this year—has 

twice the chance of being in poverty when they grow up—twice the 
11 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Golden appears in the Appendix on page 67. 

chance, at 43 percent, instead of 20 percent. You would expect the 

bottom fifth to be just 20 percent, but it is 43 percent. 

So, we need to do something about opportunity. We made 

progress against poverty, I think, way more than progress towards 

opportunity. That is something that we really need to focus on. 

The next thing I want to talk about is communities. I only have 

a few things to say. Bob wrote the book on community initiatives. 

And, if you really want to know about communities, do not just 

read his book—go see the communities that he has worked in, with 

great success. But, implementation is always local. So, we need 

more control of Federal money at the local level and at the State 

level. I think we should figure out a way to do that and to do it 

successfully—based on evaluation—so that the groups that Bob 

works with—and other local groups—can have a lot more flexibility 

and be more effective in what they do. 

I mentioned, in my testimony, a study by economist Raj Chetty, 

which shows that communities across the United States have huge 

differences in mobility, based on things like their public schools, 

the percentage of married-couple families in the community, and so 

forth—identified many factors. So, this is very important. Communities should be a part of a poverty strategy. 

And, lastly, I just want to say one word about evidence. Evidence 

is more important now than it has ever been—and Congress recognizes that. Congress has passed at least five pieces of legislation, 

in the last 2 years, that increase our use of evidence. We have more 

successful programs, which have been shown by rigorous studies to 

be a success, than we have ever had in the past. That is a good 

foundation. The role of Congress should be to make sure that grant 

funds are spent on those programs that have a strong record of 

success, that we continue to evaluate those programs, and that we 

open Federal data systems in the Federal Agencies and the U.S. 

Census Bureau to more research. That would allow us to learn a 

lot more than we know now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Dr. Haskins. 

Our final witness is Olivia Golden. Dr. Golden is Executive Director at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). Dr. Golden 

served as Commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth, 

and Families (ACYF) and then as Assistant Secretary for Children 

and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She has served as an institute fellow at the Urban Institute and has served at the Federal, State, and local levels. Dr. 

Golden. 

TESTIMONY OF OLIVIA GOLDEN,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY 

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you very much. Chairman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

chance to testify on this crucial topic. 

You have heard that I am Executive Director of the Center for 

Law and Social Policy and that I have also led these programs at 

the Federal, State, and local levels as well as studied their effec-
12 

tiveness as a researcher. So, I wanted to draw on all of those in 

making four main points in my written testimony. 

First—and this is a point that Ron just made as well—the nation’s core economic security programs are highly effective. As Ron 

said, when you measure them right, they cut poverty almost in 

half, they improve nutrition and health care for millions of people, 

and they promote work. 

And, from the research perspective, there is a growing body of 

rigorous research showing that these supports have positive effects 

on children’s health, their education, and their work outcomes 

many years later. For example, expanding health insurance coverage for low-income children has large effects on high-school completion, college attendance, and college completion. 

The second main point is that changes in the economy, which 

have fostered low-wage jobs that are unstable, lack sufficient 

hours, and require volatile, last-minute job changes, mean that 

high employment rates do not translate into low poverty rates. In 

fact, the majority of people who get help from the core safety net 

programs are working—they are just earning too little to make 

ends meet. Nearly 70 percent of poor children, today, live in families with at least one worker. So, their problem is not a reluctance 

to work. It is low wages, insecure jobs, or too few hours. 

The third main point is that community-based innovations are 

the most effective when they build on the foundation of a strong 

safety net. Research demonstrates that families who are highly vulnerable and face multiple challenges—often the focus of intensive 

community programs—are especially likely to need health and 

mental health services. And, they are also likely to need financial 

support to meet basic needs, such as food and shelter, while they 

address more long-term changes in their lives. 

So, a priority, in supporting community innovation, should be expanding Medicaid in all States, ensuring continued support for a 

strong Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and 

providing other economic supports. I wanted to give an example 

from my own experience to illustrate the point. 

When I led the District of Columbia’s child welfare system—so 

dealing, every day, with the tragedies of child abuse and neglect— 

in the years before the Affordable Care Act, I found it tragic when 

a child would enter our care because her mother had an untreated 

mental health problem, like depression. If that parent had been 

able to get treatment earlier, the child might have been spared the 

trauma of maltreatment and the trauma of being removed from her 

family. 

But, in the absence of health care for everyone, we could only try 

small-scale innovations to help very few. Today, though, not only 

the District, but the 31 States that have expanded Medicaid, have 

an extraordinary opportunity to meet the health and mental health 

needs of vulnerable families. At CLASP, we are partnering with 

both community innovators and State and Federal policymakers to 

seize this opportunity. 

The fourth and final point is that, in order to reduce poverty and 

expand opportunity, Congress should avoid bad ideas—those that 

the evidence demonstrates do not work—and should seize opportunities that build on research and experience. Starting with the bad 
13 

ideas that evidence suggests do not work, the available evidence 

suggests that block grants do not work for core safety net programs. Their appropriations shrink, drastically, over time and they 

cannot respond to economic downturns. 

So, during the recent ‘‘Great Recession’’, for example, SNAP and 

Medicaid, which are not block grants, provided greater support to 

States, communities, and families as need rose. But, the capped 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant, 

which allowed, as Senator Carper discussed, opportunity for innovation at the beginning—now its value has shrunk by a third 

and it left families and States without resources during the recession—just when they needed help the most. 

Overly flexible approaches, like block grants or large-scale waivers, can also divert funds from a program’s core mission. And, they 

are not well-suited to national goals like ensuring that every American starts life healthy and well-nourished. Instead—and Ron 

talked about this—they contribute to disparate life chances, based 

on where a child is born. 

So, to reduce poverty and to renew communities, Congress needs 

to tackle the economic headwinds facing workers and to fill remaining gaps in the safety net. My testimony identifies five ‘‘next steps’’: 

to ensure access to high-quality child care and early education, to 

expand effective workforce development programs and career 

opportunities, to tear down financial barriers to post-secondary success—that is a key aspect of work—to fix gaps in the safety net for 

the neediest Americans, and, finally, to establish minimum standards for wages and job quality—so that jobs support, rather than 

destabilize, families. And, I am thrilled that Mr. Ochs added a 

sixth, which would be to reduce incarceration and conduct criminal 

justice reform. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator CARPER [Presiding.] Thank you all. Those are wonderful 

testimonies and we are grateful to hear them—grateful that you 

are here. 

I just was trying to write down, while you spoke, some things 

that we agree on. I like to start by saying, ‘‘Well, what do we agree 

on? ’’ One, we need to think with our hearts, but also with our 

heads. We need to remember this is a shared responsibility. It is 

not all on the Federal Government. It is a broadly shared responsibility with others. It includes State and local governments and it 

includes individuals and families. It includes the faith community, 

nonprofits, and so forth. 

Almost every one of you has, basically, said that we should—just 

not in so many words: ‘‘Find out what works. Do more of that. Find 

out what does not work and do less of that, too.’’ There is a fair 

amount of agreement here. I am not surprised and I am actually 

encouraged by that. 

I am going to start, Dr. Golden, with you. And, I am going to ask 

you to—thinking about what Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the 

former Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee—where Ron 

worked for, what, 14 years?—has proposed. And, what I would like 

for you to do for us—each of you, starting with you, and then Ron, 

and Mr. Ochs, and Mr. Woodson, but I—mention a thing or two 
14 

you like about the proposal and maybe a concern that you have 

about what is being proposed—and very briefly—very succinctly. 

I am going to have to run out of here to run and vote and then 

head for the White House, but we will lead off with that, please. 

Ms. GOLDEN. So, I think what I like is that he is focusing on poverty. And, I would say something that he has proposed, before, that 

I like—and that there is bipartisan support for—is expanding the 

Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a work incentive, to be much 

greater for adults without children. But, that is not in this current 

plan. It is a past agreement. 

Senator CARPER. All right. We did a fair amount of work on the 

Earned Income Tax Credit, as you know, late last year. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Absolutely. That was truly important. 

Senator CARPER. Some of it was program integrity work, but 

also, I think, the idea was to make it permanent. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. And, that is a truly important accomplishment, both for promoting families’ work, because that is one of the 

things that helps people work more—and it reduced poverty by a 

great deal. 

In terms of concerns, I think the plan is inaccurate about the 

success of the safety net. That is a point both Ron and I made. It 

is in my testimony, with a lot of research about the dramatic reductions in poverty as a result of the safety net and the way the safety 

net supports work. 

It does not recognize the extent to which low-income people today 

are working. And so, what we need are work supports and improvement in low-wage jobs. And, it turns to solutions that actually do 

not have evidence in terms of words about flexibility and requirements for work, rather than what we know about what succeeds 

for work. 

So, for example, Congress passed a bipartisan workforce bill that 

says that what you really need is the capacity to succeed in a postsecondary credential. That is what you need to succeed in a job. So, 

I would say those are concerns. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Dr. Haskins, same question—a couple of things you like about 

this proposal and maybe one that you have a concern about. And 

then, we will go to Peter Ochs. 

Mr. HASKINS. The emphasis on evidence, I think, is terrific. We 

have, residing in Federal data systems in all of the Agencies and 

in the Census Bureau, a treasure of information that, as a study 

by Chetty, which I mentioned in my testimony, points out, could 

be used to learn a lot more about poverty, the solutions to poverty, 

and how to increase opportunity. So, I think that, first, that is a 

good thing. 

Second, he wants to strengthen work requirements in food 

stamps and housing. We have very modest work requirements in 

both programs now. They should be stronger. I was recently a part 

of a group of Brookings Institute and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—bipartisan—eight liberals and eight conservatives. 

We met for 15 months, five times, in New York and Washington 

to develop a comprehensive plan for reducing poverty and increasing opportunity. 
15 

And, the liberal side agreed with more work requirements, on the 

condition that no one lose their benefits without being offered a job. 

That strikes me as a good bargain. I do not know how the Committee would feel about that, but I think it is worth it, because everybody needs to get this message from the welfare programs: They 

have to work. They cannot just stay on welfare. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. HASKINS. Third, the emphasis on local initiative and local 

programs, I think, is well-placed. We need more local energy. I 

agree, somewhat, with Olivia. I am concerned about block grant 

States, which have not done a great job with the TANF block 

grant. I do not think that their decisions have been completely responsible. 

Senator CARPER. I would agree. 

Mr. HASKINS. So, I think what we ought to do is give 5 or 10 

States the option of having much more flexibility in the use of Medicaid, food stamps, housing, and so forth. And, they would have to 

present a plan about exactly what they are going to do and how 

they are going to spend the money so that at least there would be 

a plan. Right now, there is no plan for TANF States to do whatever 

they want to, so they spend the money on child protection and all 

kinds of other things. And then, once they do that, they cannot get 

it back to spend on welfare for recessions and other purposes. 

So, it is a compromise. I think it is a reasonable compromise. If 

we do not enlist local government, local citizens, and local business, 

we are not going to be successful in reducing poverty. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Ochs. And then, I am going to have to run—two minutes and 

then I am going to have to run, but—— 

Mr. OCHS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead, please. 

Mr. OCHS. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Congressman 

Ryan’s proposal, so I really could not comment on that. But, I can 

just tell you, as an entrepreneur, the less regulation you can put 

on us, the more jobs we will create. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Woodson, just very briefly? I have 1 minute and I have to 

run. Please go ahead. 

What do you like and—— 

Mr. WOODSON. I like Paul Ryan’s antipoverty agenda, because it 

consolidates programs and lets recipients apply in one place for the 

services they need, so they do not have to run all over the place 

to qualify for numerous programs. I like that part of it. And, I also 

think it devolves responsibility to a government level that is closer 

to the people. 

What I do not like about the plan is that—I do not think local 

government is any less bureaucratic than national government. I 

support charitable tax credits, where the allocation of resources is 

devolved directly to taxpayers, who can write off a portion of their 

tax liability and give that to an organization in their community. 

We had bipartisan agreement on this back in the 1990s, but the 

Bush Administration walked away from it. I think we should reconsider charitable tax credits that devolve responsibility and author-
16 

ity to individuals who donate, rather than having the government 

involved. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

I thank you all. I would love to stay here. And, we are going to 

be following up with you—probably each of you—to further pull 

great ideas out of your fertile minds. 

And, I like to say that everything I do, I know I can do better. 

The same is true of all of us. The same is true of all of our Federal 

programs—however well-intentioned. So, what we want to do is 

‘‘find out what works, do more of that; find out what does not work 

and do less of that.’’ And, you have given us a lot of good things 

to think about. 

So, thank you. Thank you for your work in these vineyards as 

well—and your personal example—your personal life and your 

business life. 

All right, I think the next person up is a lieutenant, retired—so 

lieutenant colonel in the Army—and her name is Joni Ernst. And, 

she is a wonderful Member of this Committee. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Ranking Member Carper. 

And, I would like to thank all of our witnesses today as well. 

This is a topic that I have a very special interest in, of course. 

Iowa—I am intent on combating rural poverty. And, what we have 

seen—and just using some numbers—going back a few years—but, 

in the 2013–2014 school year, just in my home community—the 

community that I live in—about 65 percent of our primary grade 

school children were enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. And, statewide, we see about 41 percent of our children participating in that program. 

So, that is an indication of where we are as a State—and poverty—and those that qualify for those needed programs. But, I do 

want to dive in a little bit more. We need to talk about it a lot 

more. We have to come together and really work on some of these 

issues. So, I am glad you are here, today. I love the passion that 

we hear from all of you, so thank you very much for that. 

One of the foundations of our country’s identity—and a number 

of you have really hit upon this—regardless of anyone’s background—is that we understand that everyone that works hard 

should have an opportunity to succeed. And, I am glad that some 

of you have stated that, today—and that we will work on improving 

the programs designed to help those that are really in need. 

And, I would like to start the questioning with Mr. Woodson and 

Mr. Haskins, please. As you know, the Federal Government, operating through 13 different agencies, oversees 80 different programs 

designed to serve low-income Americans. And, according to the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), these programs are too 

fragmented and overly complex for clients to navigate and for program managers and policymakers to assess program performance. 

I would love to hear some of your opinions on that as well as 

what potential limitations the complexity of these programs presents to the folks, as they seek to understand how to utilize this 

system. And, what suggestions could you offer as a means to re-
17 

duce the programmatic duplication? So, a lot of issues there—a lot 

of duplicative programs. How do we make it easier to navigate? 

Mr. WOODSON. Well, I would like to just start with, I think, what 

Paul Ryan has recommended. There should be, wherever possible, 

some consolidation and coordination of these programs. 

But, more importantly, the programs, themselves, must be reformed. I will give you one example. The system today is designed 

for self-perpetuating foster care. Seventy percent of everybody in 

prison has spent some time in the foster care system. Everyday, a 

half-million kids are in foster care. These are programs financed by 

the Federal Government and run by the State. I want to just walk 

you through how the problems of these young people not only continue, but expand within the system. 

Only 3 percent of children coming into that system have any psychological dysfunction. But, the moment that they come into the 

system, after being abandoned and neglected by their parents, they 

experience three or four or five moves. The more they move, the 

more they decline and the more the system moves them deeper 

in—from foster care, where the reimbursement rate is $15,000 a 

year, then to a $20,000 reimbursement rate, in a group home, etc. 

The more the system destroys the child, the more value the child 

is to the providers of services to the poor. 

A solution is what my friend Pastor Soaries in Somerset, New 

Jersey has done, where the church has taken on its original role 

as a community hub and it has operated a system of foster care 

and adoption, where there is no attrition rate of foster families and 

more children are moving into adoption. I think we need to look at 

models of re-privatization of government programs by devolving responsibility back to the church and some of the other neighborhood 

institutions—where outreach originated until the Federal Government took them over. 

The more we can devolve government roles back to private charity and back to private institutions, the better the outcomes will be. 

We could go step by step through a number of program areas and 

look at prospects for re-privatization. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate that input. Dr. Haskins. 

Mr. HASKINS. First, the 80 programs are definitely excessive. 

They are overlapping, redundant, and all of that—and it would be 

good to try to reduce them. The only time that I know about—successfully reducing the number of programs—was back in welfare 

reform, in 1996. We killed, I think, three daycare programs. We did 

not cut them. We put all of the money in one place, gave it to the 

States, and gave them more flexibility in using the money. 

I think most people agree that that has been a successful thing. 

Congress has added more money several times since then. So, I 

think that was a good approach. And, that is, roughly, the approach that Paul Ryan would like to take—to consolidate programs 

and give more control to the States. 

But, I want to caution that, once you give the States more flexibility, they will use it. And, they may use it in ways that you do 

not like—that the Congress does not like. This has been a particular concern of Democrats. It would be very difficult—I think, 

impossible—as long as Democrats control the Presidency or the 
18 

House of Representatives, to pass legislation that creates these 

kind of big block grants. 

So, I think the way to go is demonstrations. If you could show 

that these are more effective ways to do it and that the States and 

localities have good ideas—including not just the government, but 

using more of the money in the private sector as well, with voluntary agencies and so forth, which we have thousands and thousands in the United States—that will be a good way to do it. 

Senator ERNST. Yes. 

Mr. HASKINS. Can I say one thing about foster care? 

Senator ERNST. Sure. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yesterday, the House passed—I believe they have 

since already passed the Family First Prevention Services Act of 

2016. It has other things in there. But, listen, this is really important. 

Title IV–E has a bunch of open-ended entitlements. It, roughly, 

pays to take the kids out of their homes. The States cannot get 

money out of that, until they at least reduce the parents’ rights 

and take the kid out of the home. IV–B is supposed to be for services and prevention and it is tiny. It has hardly grown at all. 

So, years ago, Mr. Johnson, a member of the Ways and Means 

Committee, proposed letting the States have more flexibility to use 

that money, so they did not have to remove the kids from the home 

and so they could use it for prevention and treatment. And, Democrats did not like it. They killed the bill every time we tried to pass 

it and Olivia will probably tell you why. 

But, I still think this is a solid idea. And, this legislation we 

passed opens a little hole in that Title IV–E, so the States can get 

money out of IV–E to use for prevention and treatment and to 

avoid the very problem that Bob is talking about. Once you take 

the kids out of the home, it is, ‘‘Katy, bar the door.’’ You do not 

know what is going to happen. I think, if you are totally honest, 

you admit that. 

But, anyway, we ought to learn how to use prevention better 

than we do now. I think we can all agree on that. 

Senator ERNST. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, one of the keys—so, to take prevention—back 

to your original question—Medicaid and the Medicaid expansion is 

one important source of prevention. So, I agree that the new Family First Prevention Services Act of 2016 offers an opportunity to 

do a little bit of helping parents upfront. And. those States that 

also have access to Medicaid services, because of the expansion, can 

then put those things together. 

So, that takes me back to your question about what to do with 

this complexity. And, I think, the first headline I want to say is 

that I spend a lot of time working with six States—Governors and 

legislators of both parties—Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Illinois, Colorado, and Rhode Island—which have done a great job 

of delivering Medicaid and food assistance—SNAP—which are 

the—and childcare subsidies, to some degree—in a way that is 

much more seamless for the States and for families. They did not 

need changes in Federal laws. 

And, one of the big things they discovered was there were a lot 

of myths about the Federal law. In fact, the core Federal programs, 
19 

typically, are there for a reason, like to make sure that every 

American does not go hungry or can get health care. And, when a 

State is committed to making that less burdensome and more effective, they can find ways to do it. I mean, there are lots of examples. 

One simple one is that it is much more burdensome, both for 

workers and for families, if you make people bring in their pay 

stubs from work every time. They, probably, need both health care 

and food assistance. If you can copy those documents, technologically, or use—— 

Senator ERNST. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. The data system, it is much quicker. 

Senator ERNST. Great. 

Ms. GOLDEN. So, I think that is the headline. 

The second really short headline I will pose—— 

Senator ERNST. Yes, very quick. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. Is that, usually, when you look at any 

chart that has a long list of programs, what it will have is a couple 

of big ones and then small ones. And, the small ones are typically 

there because the real problem is not enough resources. So, when 

you are trying to address, say, the fact that child care just reaches 

1 in 6 eligible children, the Congress may create a small program 

for a particular targeted group. 

But, I think one of the important ways to solve that is by making 

sure that the core programs are resourced enough so that you do 

not have to add lots of additional other little pieces to get to those 

core priorities. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Well, I appreciate all of your input 

today. 

I apologize for going over. This is a very important topic, Senator 

Johnson. Thank you, Chairman, for bringing this forward. I think 

we need to explore a lot of these ideas and have some very good 

discussions on it. 

But, thank you all very much for being here. 

Chairman JOHNSON [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. And, make 

sure you pick up your ‘‘Triumphs of Joseph.’’ [Laughter.] 

As long as we are on this topic, though, Dr. Woodson, did you 

mention Irene Pernsley in this conversation? I was voting. Did you 

talk about the story on page 28 of your book? 

Mr. WOODSON. No. And, that is an example of what I talked 

about. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Just quickly—— 

Mr. WOODSON. I am from Philadelphia and I worked as a trained 

social worker in that system. And, many years ago, there was a 

young social worker, Ms. Irene Pernsley, whose 17-year-old daughter had a baby out of wedlock. And, they placed that child up for 

adoption, assuming that the child would find a loving home. That 

healthy baby boy went into the system. 

Irene Pernsley later became the Commissioner of Social Services 

for the city of Philadelphia. Eighteen years later, a friend who was 

a consultant told Irene that there was a child in the system named 

Pernsley—and asked if she had any relatives in the system. She 

said, ‘‘No, my grandson was adopted 18 years ago.’’ The consultant 

said, ‘‘Well, there is a Pernsley here.’’ 
20 

That healthy child had remained in the system for his lifetime. 

Four people attempted to adopt him, but—because the child was 

getting high reimbursements from the local agency. Irene sought 

information from the agency, which she was funding, and they denied her access to information about her own grandson. That child 

was a commodity in that system. 

The agency that had him in its care lost its license. But, this is 

a typical example of the kind of perverse incentives that exist within the system. Fifty-three of these well-established social service 

agencies have been put into court-ordered receivership—including 

the one in Washington, D.C.—because of their injury to children. 

Ms. GOLDEN. We brought it back. We are so proud of bringing 

it back. 

Mr. WOODSON. Yes. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes—and wrote about that. 

Mr. WOODSON. But, the point is, they were in court-ordered receivership. 

One final point: these group foster homes, around the country, 

are the primary source of sex trafficking. Pimps wait outside these 

group homes, run by the State, on Friday and Saturday nights so 

that girls—13 years old and 14 years old—can crawl out of windows and get into their cars in the city of Atlanta and dance in 

strip clubs and prostitute themselves. This is the kind of outrage 

that we are tolerating in society that goes unrecognized and 

unaddressed as we talk about the professionalization of service delivery. 

The only answer to that, is to take the responsibility away from 

the government—whether it is Federal, State, or local—and devolve authority and resources directly into the hands of private 

churches, where there are higher levels of accountability. We must 

find a way of devolving authority from the government. We have 

been doing it wrong for 50 years. Now, it is time to go back to what 

worked, prior to the government getting involved. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again—just to summarize—a child was 

given up for adoption as an infant. Eighteen years later, that same 

child was not adopted and was in foster care. 

Mr. WOODSON. Exactly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We know the benefits of adoption compared 

to foster care. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Montana must be in a different country, because our foster parents do not get paid enough money—— 

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. To keep a foster kid. It is not a 

money-making proposition. The foster parents, in Montana, are 

doing it out of love for those kids and that is the only reason they 

are doing it. 

And, I would also just say that if there is a kid that is put in 

the foster care system, where the hell is the oversight? Where is 

the Mayor? Where is the Mayor of Philadelphia? 

Mr. WOODSON. Right. 
21 

Senator TESTER. Where is the Mayor of Atlanta, if these kids are 

being prostituted? 

These people are not doing this stuff in a vacuum. If they are 

doing it—— 

Mr. WOODSON. Right. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. There needs to be oversight. And, 

I do not know which came first—the chicken or the egg—and I do 

not know which came first—the government or the churches. I do 

not know if the churches were doing it—and quit doing it—and the 

government took it over—or if the government swept it away from 

them—but, the truth is, the real problem here is poverty. That is 

the real problem. And, there are some other issues, too, but I do 

not want to get into those. 

I mean, this is a high-powered panel here. I want to talk about— 

in Montana, it is, probably, no different than in the inner city. We 

have reservations that have 80 percent unemployment. Businesses 

do not want to move there. When it comes to hope, there is not 

much of it. And, consequently, poverty—housing, water, you go 

down the list—it is not a place people covet. 

So, how do we turn that around? I would like the people on this 

panel to give me the three most important things that need to be 

done—whether it is at the Federal, State, or local level—to encourage businesses to come to create good-paying jobs to lift these people out of poverty. I just want you to give me your top three. 

Ms. GOLDEN. So, my three—should I—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. GOLDEN. I would say—and these come—while I do not know 

Montana really well, I have worked a lot in Idaho, so—and 

rural—— 

Senator TESTER. Just give me your top three, as it applies to 

New York City—I do not care. Just give me your top three. 

Ms. GOLDEN. The whole country. 

First, I do think that it is crucial to focus on babies and young 

children. Everywhere—including in rural communities—young children and their parents are the poorest. And so, one of the pieces 

is to focus on early childhood: home visiting, early Head Start, etc. 

Second, you have put your finger right on the set of issues surrounding jobs, which, I think, is crucial. And so, one piece of that, 

I think, is about improving jobs, themselves—the minimum wage 

and job quality—strategies that—paid sick days. But, the other 

part is about ensuring that people get the skills and the training, 

so they are able to succeed at work. And, that is not just about 

workforce programs. It is also about community colleges and postsecondary education. 

And, I actually do know that Montana is really interested in career and technical education strategies, including in the Indian 

communities—around the reservations—to help make powerful connections—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. All of the way to school. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, again, I am not sure if this is three or four, 

but I would also say that using subsidized and transitional job 

strategies, where you need them—because sometimes what you 
22 

need—people need to eat while they are learning and building 

skills. And so, whether it is apprenticeships, on-the-job training, or 

transitional jobs, that is an important piece as well. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Mr. Haskins. 

Mr. HASKINS. OK, I think trying to convince businesses to come 

to the reservation is a losing proposition. Why would they do it? 

Senator TESTER. That is correct. 

Mr. HASKINS. People are not trained. There are all kinds of environmental problems, transportation issues, and so forth. 

Senator TESTER. So, what do—— 

Mr. HASKINS. So, here is what I would do: First, training is crucial, like Olivia said. The training has to be in consultation with 

local business and it has to be providing skills for jobs that are 

available in the local economy. That is number one. 

Senator TESTER. Amen. 

That is right. That is correct. I could not agree with you more. 

Mr. HASKINS. OK, good. 

Senator TESTER. It does not do any good to train people to do 

theater set designs—— 

Mr. HASKINS. I am glad to be correct. I wish I could tell you 

something new. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. If there are no theaters, right? 

Right on. Keep going. 

Mr. HASKINS. All right. The second thing is to forget about taking business to the people. Reservations should set up transportation. They should develop relationships with businesses that are 

within 50 miles or whatever. And, they should have transportation 

that they can arrange—small buses or vans or something—to take 

people to their jobs and to bring them back. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. HASKINS. I think that would be a much more successful 

strategy. 

And then, the third thing, which you know very well, is to develop businesses using Native Americans on the reservation, itself. 

A lot of reservations do this. On some of them, it is gambling and 

industries associated with gambling, but others are associated with 

tourism, showing interesting things that are part of their handicrafts—crafts that the tribes make. So, developing businesses on 

the reservation would be a third thing I would do. 

Senator TESTER. OK, that is good. Peter. 

Mr. OCHS. Yes, we have several manufacturing companies. I can 

tell you, 5 or 6 years ago, literally, we supplied products to original 

equipment manufacturers, OK? So, we would provide products to 

people that build other things, which the consumer is going to buy. 

Over the last—let us say, 10 years—those original equipment 

manufacturers, who we were producing for, have come to us and 

just literally said, ‘‘You have to reduce your price by this or that, 

etc.’’ OK?

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. OCHS. And, basically, we have seen a lot of that going offshore, OK? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. OCHS. I am a manufacturing guy, so—— 
23 

Senator TESTER. Fair trade policies, is that where you are heading? 

Mr. OCHS. I am sorry? 

Senator TESTER. Fair trade policies, is that where you are heading with this? 

Mr. OCHS. Well, I am a free-market guy, so I think that is one 

thing. I think it boils down to the American people. Do you want 

to pay $20 for a pair of jeans that were made in China or $40 for 

a pair of jeans that were made in the United States? I am going 

to put it back on the American people. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. OCHS. There are some businesses abusing the system. I 

agree. But, overall, the free market is alive and well in the United 

States of America. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. OCHS. And, until Americans say, ‘‘We are going to buy American’’—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. OCHS [continuing]. I think we have a problem. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. OK. 

Mr. WOODSON. People just do not look at price. People want to 

know the value of goods and the work that they provide. The first 

of my three recommendations is to create violence reduction and 

civil order—returning civil order to a community. Nobody can operate a business if there is not civil order. 

Senator TESTER. I would agree with that. Yes, keep going. 

Mr. WOODSON. The way you do that is to empower the people inside of those same cultural and geographic zip codes who have 

demonstrated that they can help transform and redeem people. 

And then, once a heart has been transformed, opportunity works. 

And, the same is true with drug addiction. Drug addiction has 

risen—not only in low-income communities, but all over the country. The answer is not professional therapeutic intervention—it is 

moral restoration. And, again, for this, I would look to local institutions. 

The third element is transportation—similar to the program of 

Pastor Jerome Smith’s church, in the Senator’s city of Milwaukee. 

This church is providing vans to take people out to where the jobs 

are, but it is also promoting personal restoration. 

So, those would be my three recommendations. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I appreciate you guys—I am sorry I was 

not here for your opening remarks and your testimonies, but I appreciate you being here. I appreciate your perspectives. 

We deal with a lot of frustrating things in Washington, 

D.C.—and excuse me for going over, Mr. Chairman—but poverty is 

one of those tough nuts to crack, I have to tell you, because we 

are talking about Indian Country, where we have 70 or 80 percent—I am sure the inner cities are the same way. 

And, there are so many challenges that you do not know what 

to do first. You do not know whether to rebuild the K–12 education 

or to do the preschool education. You do not know whether to empower the community colleges and the technical colleges, to be able 

to get a well-trained workforce with jobs that actually can employ 
24 

people, or whether to put it in transportation and police protection—or in spiritual reinvigoration. It is all part of the equation. 

But, I do want to thank you guys. I think this is a good discussion and I think this is an opportunity to start to figure out ways 

we can bore down to really make a difference. The only other thing 

I would add to all of your comments is that the Federal Government cannot fix people’s problems alone. We need help from the 

people on the ground to make this happen. If we work together, we 

can make it happen. Thank you all. 

Mr. WOODSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

If you just wait for 2 seconds—I want to answer—because I know 

Mr. Ochs answered a question from Senator Carper, in terms of 

what we can do, and he said that we could reduce the regulatory 

burden. 

Now, I was talking to one Wisconsin paper manufacturer. Just 

four regulations, issued recently, are costing that paper manufacturer the equivalent of $12,000 per year, per employee. Now, the 

Wisconsin paper association came up with cost estimates—somewhere between $12,000 and $22,000 is the cost per year, per employee, of the regulations issued over the last 5 years. So, that regulatory burden is massive. And, if we can reduce that, you will 

have more money going to people’s paychecks as well. 

Senator TESTER. And, I would say it depends on what the regulation is. If that regulation there is downshifting costs to the next 

generation, that regulation needs to be enforced. If that regulation 

is regulation for the sake of regulation, you are exactly right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We have a $2 trillion regulatory burden— 

which is about $14,800 per household—so it is massive. 

Again, I want to thank all of you. 

And, Senator—whoops. Rats. [Laughter.] 

Give that to him—page 28. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. Ochs, in your testimony, you were talking about how one of 

the reasons that you did this was because you could not find 

enough people for your manufacturing plant. I have been in manufacturing for 30-some years. It was many years before I could hire 

enough people. I have traveled around the State of Wisconsin, tirelessly. There is not one manufacturing plant I visited, in 6 years 

of traveling around the State, that can hire enough people. That is 

an unbroken record—not one. 

Mr. OCHS. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Why? What is your evaluation of that? I 

mean, we are talking about jobs. We are talking about all of these 

opportunities. Why can manufacturers not hire people? I have my 

own theories. I would like to hear yours. 

Mr. OCHS. Sure. 

I think, first, we have really turned from a production society to 

a consumer society, OK? So, one factor is that everybody is thinking consumption instead of production—and manufacturing is, primarily, production. 

I think, also, in some sense, manufacturing is a difficult job. It 

is, oftentimes, a physical job. And, why work for $15 an hour doing 
25 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 89. 

that when you can work for $15 an hour doing something else? In 

our case, we were in a small town and we just simply did not have 

the labor resources there. 

And, I will second your motion on regulatory burden. It is difficult for us to compete, as a small business—and small businesses 

create most of the jobs in the country, as we know—to compete 

with the large institutions. We have, literally, seen large companies 

who love the regulatory burden, because they can afford it and they 

can stand it, but they know the small guys cannot. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a barrier to entry—— 

Mr. OCHS. Yes, it is a barrier to entry. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. And, to competition. 

Mr. OCHS. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, again, the numbers are, I suppose, 

somewhat disputable, but I would say they are also undeniable. I 

mean, when you talk about people—$12,000 to $20,000 per year, 

per employee—just from the regulations issued over 5 years. And, 

you can argue about specific regulations, but $2 trillion—a number 

of studies put it at that—divided by the number of households— 

$14,800 per year, per household. It is a massive regulatory burden 

and that is money that could be in people’s paychecks. 

Ms. GOLDEN. On the ‘‘why,’’ Senator Johnson—one of the things 

that we do a lot of work on at CLASP is career pathways—on how 

you can create a pathway where somebody, who is starting out in 

a school system that is not giving them what they need—that does 

not have the basic requirements—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Are we talking about school choice? 

Ms. GOLDEN. No, I am talking—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I have other questions for you. 

Ms. GOLDEN. OK, great. 

Mr. HASKINS. Could I add something really quickly? 

I was in Wisconsin 2 years ago, meeting with the State legislature. And, they invited a manufacturer, who told an anecdote about 

needing welders. And, he said good welders could make $60,000 to 

$70,000 a year. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes, right. 

Mr. HASKINS. And, he said they are always short because 

they—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. HASKINS [continuing]. Cannot get trained people. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. HASKINS. He said he would even be willing to train them, 

but then, they go to another plant, so—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, here is my—— 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, we used to have—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Here is my theory on the case: First of all, 

we tell our kids, you have to get a 4-year degree, which implies 

that working in a factory is somehow second-class status. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. All work has value. 

We pay people not to work. Let us put up a chart.1 As long as 

we are talking about this, let us put up the one from the head of 

the Pennsylvania welfare department. I think, Dr. Woodson, you 
26 

might have been in the Budget Committee hearing a number of 

years ago. This is a study done—households headed by a single 

mom, in Pennsylvania—shows the welfare cliff. 

And, basically, just to quickly summarize—and it is kind of a difficult chart to read, but, for a single mom, in Pennsylvania, it was 

marginally beneficial for her to make up to $29,000. Past that 

point, because of the increase in taxes and the reduction in welfare 

benefits, there was no marginal value. She did not put another 

penny in her pocket until she was able to make $69,000 per year. 

So, you have that massive gap. It pays to keep working up to $29,000. Past that point, somebody who is economically rational 

would sit there and go, I am not going to work anymore. 

Ms. GOLDEN. It is not—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Very few people go from $29,000 up to $69,000. It does not happen all that often. So, that would be, certainly, my evaluation of why manufacturers cannot get enough 

workers. We denigrate the trades. We do. 

I was head of the ‘‘Partners in Education Council’’ of our chamber. And, we actually had an initiative—first, life skills, but then, 

the next step after high school was—we asked, ‘‘How do we give 

kids and their parents the information they need about all of their 

options after high school—above and beyond just 4-year degrees?’’ 

And so, I must have, in these meetings, said a hundred times, 

‘‘We have to stop denigrating the trades.’’ I had made the comment, 

and 5 minutes later, a very sympathetic school administrator was 

talking about a young man and, basically, said, ‘‘Well, Bill is kind 

of struggling in school. I mean, let us face it; all he is ever going 

to be is a mechanic.’’ 

Now, fortunately, the head of Oshkosh Tire was at the other end 

of the table. And, she goes, ‘‘Hey, I need those mechanics.’’ At 

which point, the administrator goes, ‘‘Oh, that is not what I 

meant.’’ Unfortunately, that is exactly what she meant. 

So, again, it is an attitude we have inbred in our culture that 

says that there are first-class and second-class ways of realizing 

your full human potential. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

All work has value. 

And, by the way, in Wisconsin, so many manufacturers pay for 

the training. You leave high school, you go into manufacturing, and 

you do not have to get $30,000 into debt. You can actually get a 

job, you can start making money, and then, the company, themselves—because they cannot find workers—they will pay for your 

education. You never have to go into debt. But, we do not tell our 

kids that. We tell our kids, you have to get a 4-year degree. And, 

we have done a huge disservice. 

I have more time, so I will turn it over to Senator Peters right 

now. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, thank you to the panel for your testimony here, today, on 

a very important topic: how we make sure that everybody in this 

country has the opportunity to achieve whatever their version of 

the American dream is. So, people should have the opportunity to 

do that. 
27 

Mr. Ochs, I would like to just ask you to talk a little bit about 

some of your programs, because this is an issue that I have 

thought a great deal about—and I am concerned about, when it 

comes to folks who have gone to prison and are paying their price 

to society, which they should. These are individuals that have done 

something wrong. They need to pay their price—do their time. 

But, what we find is that, too many of them, when they get out, 

they find out that they are actually serving a lifetime sentence. It 

is not a sentence for 5 years or 10 years or whatever it may be. 

And, it does not seem to be dependent upon whether or not they 

get skills as well. Now, you provide some wonderful skills for the 

folks that you have talked about. I appreciate your comments on 

that and it is wonderful to have those skills, but, my experience is 

that it does not matter when they get out, but that employers are 

simply unwilling to hire somebody who has spent some time in 

prison. 

The whole system is premised on second chances—that if you 

have done your time, you should have a second chance to be able 

to get back on your feet. And, I know a number of young men and 

women want to do that, particularly, young men in some of the cities in my State, who never get that chance ever. 

Now, you have talked about hiring some individuals and I applaud you for doing that with your company. I also applaud you for 

your statement that you help folks get jobs when they get out. But, 

if you could tell us some of the impediments that you find for these 

individuals—because, I assume, they are having a difficult time 

getting hired—just like they are in Michigan. What can we do to 

help these individuals and to help employers hire these individuals—to give them the second chance that the system is premised 

on? 

Mr. OCHS. Sure. 

The greatest impediment is that they have a felony on their 

record—— 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Mr. OCHS [continuing]. And so, who wants to hire a felon? 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Mr. OCHS. And, I know you are familiar with ‘‘ban the box.’’ And, 

we are, probably, for that. 

I would say that, before that, I think we just need to educate the 

business community that these are not all bad people. There is a 

stigma in society and somehow we have to get over that stigma in 

society that says that because this person came out of prisons and 

has felonies, he is not worth hiring. 

We are working amongst the businesses we know and the nonprofits we know to try to reduce that. We, literally, have a group— 

because of the ability to not hire people, we think there is a great 

opportunity for felons coming out of prison to get jobs, but they 

need training, they need mentorship, and they need some kind of 

accountability, I think, for a year, maybe, after they are out. 

We just had a gentleman that was in for 47 years. He came out. 

We hired him. He went back in 3 months later. And, he wrote me 

a long apology and he said, ‘‘Pete, I am sorry, but I cannot live outside anymore. I have been inside too long.’’ 
28 

And, the system—there is no rehabilitation inside of the prison 

system. And, I think it starts inside of a prison. We have to start 

training. We have to, some way, create economic, social, and spiritual capital inside of the prison. And so, we have to incentivize 

businesses, nonprofits, or faith-based people to get in there and do 

that, OK? When they come out, there needs to be some kind of a 

re-entry ramp that helps them, for a period of time, to do that, I 

think. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, I would just add, if I may—— 

Senator PETERS. Yes, please. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. Because I am very much hoping we 

can touch base afterwards, to work together on this—we just did 

a forum, sponsored by CLASP and others, with young people, including those who had been incarcerated—and others. And, I would 

underline exactly what you said about ‘‘ban the box’’ and reaching 

out to employers, but also about the role of education and training. 

And, I mean, it think is also an important point for Senator 

Johnson’s theme, which is that preventing the initial incarceration 

is also about work opportunities, training, and job opportunities, 

because people who are incarcerated—not only does it disproportionately hit communities of color hard, but it disproportionately 

hits people without a high school diploma. It is about school discipline. It is about the ways in which you interrupt that. 

And so, I am just tremendously excited to see the interest in this 

room, in thinking about how employment strategies and training— 

and that happens before, that happens during, and that happens 

after—can be solutions. 

The only other solution I would mention is that we hear a lot 

from young people—both before and after—about health, mental 

health, and trauma. And so, I would also put those on the list of 

strategies that are part of the solution. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. WOODSON. Senator. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Woodson. 

Mr. WOODSON. There are several barriers—to presume re-entry. 

One important factor is a prisoner’s contact with his natural support system—his family. 

Some of those 2.3 million incarcerated individuals must pay as 

much as a dollar a minute to make telephone calls home. Two companies make $1.2 billion providing telephone service to inmates. It 

is outrageous. My daughter lives in Costa Rica. It costs me nothing 

to call her. It would be a dollar a minute if she were in prison. And, 

that is a burden on families. 

The second barrier is that, if you come out of prison and you 

have a trade—and if you were a plumber or electrician, for example—you lose your license to operate. Ohio Governor John Kasich 

came together with Democrats and Republicans and passed legislation that would restore the licenses of former inmates. 

Some who are released from prison do not have identification. 

They do not have a driver license, so they cannot get to work. Yet, 

it can take up to 6 months for a person coming out of prison just 

to get a driver license. 

So, there are practiced barriers that we place in their path that 

can be easily addressed. Occupational licensing must be restored, 
29 

identifications should be easier to get, and the fees for telephone 

calls to families from prison must be lowered. Currently, those calls 

represent a $1.2 billion industry. In addition to the profits of community firms, 40 percent of the money from inmates goes to those 

prisons. It is the biggest fleecing of inmate families in America. 

This is a national outrage that is being ignored. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I appreciate all of your comments on this. 

And, I also appreciate the comments on ‘‘ban the box,’’ which is 

going to be critical to at least give an individual the opportunity 

to interview and not to be thrown out before they even get a chance 

to make their case to somebody. And, presumably, if they make 

their case, an employer may be impressed and say, ‘‘I am willing 

to take that chance.’’ 

But, nevertheless, even with the training and all of the aspects 

that you have brought up—which are all very important points— 

you still get to the point where an employer feels like, ‘‘I do not 

know if I want to take this risk with someone who has this felony—even though they have interviewed well and come across as 

sincere.’’ 

I mean, is there something that we should be doing to make it 

easier for those employers that are on that edge? And, I am sure 

you have all seen this. 

Dr. Golden, do you have an idea? 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, I guess I have two thoughts. 

One is that people who have had the experience, like Mr. Ochs, 

are very powerful ambassadors—— 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. To other employers. 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, we have seen that work in other arenas. 

I think the second thing that I would say—and this is partly because we have been working with States on workforce strategies 

that take advantage of some of the opportunities that Congress authorized—for example, for on-the-job training or subsidized employment. Sometimes, if the employer has a tryout opportunity, as part 

of training and skills—and, as a part of that training and skills, 

if somebody is working and they get to see them, that is also important. 

Transitional jobs, similarly, give somebody the comfort that, not 

only do they look good on paper, but they have actually worked— 

either in my organization or for a supervisor somewhere else. 

So, I think those are—I do not think there is a single perfect answer—— 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. But, I think those are pieces of it. 

Senator PETERS. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. OCHS. In Kansas, I think we have a $2,400 tax credit for a 

new employee. And, that is useful, for us, because that covers the 

training costs for that first 4, 5, or 6 months. And so, of course, tax 

credits are great—and are a great incentive. So, that would be 

something you could consider also. 

Senator PETERS. Now, of course, you hire some folks that come 

out. You said you hired 14, I believe, in your testimony. 

Mr. OCHS. Yes. 
30 

Senator PETERS. You employ considerably more in the prison, I 

would imagine. As folks are coming out, how do you make the decision as to who to hire? They have worked for you in the prison? 

And, is that, in some way, instructive for us to have other employers use that sort of process? 

Now, obviously you are in a different position, because you have 

actually seen them work and you have the opportunity to supervise 

them—— 

Mr. OCHS. Sure. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. But, are there still some lessons 

that may be helpful to us, as we think about helping folks actually 

get employed with these—— 

Mr. OCHS. Yes. We have just simply made the commitment, personally, that if they come out of that prison and they parole to 

Hutchinson, Kansas, where our main office is and where our main 

manufacturing facility is, we will hire them. We will make a space 

for them, OK? 

Once again, I think a trial period where you would not be subject 

to the unemployment situation and the laws, etc.—that would be 

helpful. Tax credits would be helpful. I think it is just a matter of 

the business community needing to start educating each other on 

how these are—it is a great supply of labor—and however we can 

do that. It is an education thing. 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Mr. OCHS. I have lots of friends that are fellow business owners 

and I just, literally, get on the phone and say, ‘‘Here is Joe. He is 

coming out. He is a good guy. He has worked for me. You need to 

give him a chance.’’ 

Senator PETERS. That is great. 

Mr. OCHS. And, they employ them. 

Senator PETERS. Great. 

Mr. OCHS. And, we do that throughout cities in Kansas. 

Mr. WOODSON. Senator, I would not undervalue your presence, 

as policymakers, in the communities we serve. I have the pleasure 

of taking Congressman Paul Ryan, every month, to site visits in a 

different city. And, just the fact that he came and visited a program helped to validate it. And, I am sure similar visits by Senator 

Johnson and others, who would take the time to visit our programs, would serve as a means of validating them and highlighting 

their importance. That is something beyond your legislative role, 

but it could make an important difference. 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Mr. WOODSON [continuing]. Your reputation helps to validate 

what we do. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you for all 

of your answers. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Senator Peters, let me describe a program that is actually working—doing exactly what Robert Woodson 

is talking about. And, we named it after his book. We called it the 

Joseph Project. 

And, it was teaming up with Pastor Jerome Smith of Greater 

Praise Church of God in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And, what Pastor 

Smith does is he identifies, he vets, and he screens, but then he 

gets people to commit to turning their lives around. And then, what 
31 

we do, with our Senate staff, we go in as a constituent service a 

1-week training program. 

We teach them soft skills. We teach them interview skills. And 

then, we set them up with interviews. And, they are getting jobs. 

They are getting real careers. It has actually been so successful 

that the Sheboygan County Economic Development Corporation donated two vans to provide the transportation. 

The program is still in its infancy. We have had, I think, 10 of 

these different training programs. He starts with about 60 individuals and then, again, by screening, vetting and, again, getting 

them to commit to succeed, he winnows it down to about 12 people. 

And, generally, those training sessions have somewhere between 12 

and 20 people. And, it actually works—other than our Senate staff 

just doing it as constituent service, there is no government funding—there is no government program. It is just an individual, community-based and faith-based program helping people, one person 

at a time. 

One of the individuals, whose name is Willy—one of the graduates—I just saw him up at Nemak, a company in Sheboygan, Wisconsin—he said that he had gone through, literally—he said, ‘‘I 

would need your hands to get the number of fingers’’—the number 

of job-training programs and placement programs he has gone 

through. And, he said that the difference between this program and 

those—it kind of gets to what you are talking about, in terms of 

the foster care system—is that the people in the Joseph Program, 

they are not concerned about their program, they are not concerned 

about their government funding, and they are not concerned about 

themselves. He said, ‘‘They are just concerned about us.’’ 

But, again, that is a community-based and faith-based program 

that actually works—no government involvement other than, as 

Robert talked about, you are using the Senate office to highlight 

success—and it actually works. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here and for the work that you do all 

of the time in dealing with poverty issues across the country. 

Mr. Haskins, let me bring this up to you first. There are some 

interesting studies that you have done dealing with just marriage—two-parent households, one-parent households, and what I 

believe you call the three norms. I did not hear you mention it earlier in your testimony. I had to slip out for a vote and then come 

back—and want to make sure we come back to that, because I 

want to make sure I have this right. 

I believe, in your study, you have identified three norms: if someone completes high school, if they have a job, of any type, working 

full-time, and if they delay parenthood until marriage, they have 

a 71 percent success rate in getting out of poverty. I want to make 

sure that number is correct and have you be able to highlight that. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, it is. It depends on the year that you do it. 

This is based on a representative sample of the American population and it just describes how, if people meet those three criteria, 

they have over a 70 percent chance, depending on the year, of 
32 

avoiding poverty—not getting out of it—of avoiding it—in any 

given year, when you do this study. 

And, conversely, if they violate all three norms, they have, like, 

a 10 percent chance of being—I am sorry, about a 70 percent 

chance of being in poverty. So, yes—and it is just correlational. It 

just describes what the actual situation is. 

So, the implication is, if we could get kids educated, if they waited until 21 and married before they had a baby, and if they worked 

full-time at whatever job they could get, they would avoid poverty. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, just may I add to that—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Sure. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. Because, I think the point that it is 

correlational is really important, because, one of the things that I 

highlighted, in my testimony, is that about 70 percent of poor kids 

live in families where somebody is working, but they are often not 

able to get enough hours. 

And so, full-time work, for most low-wage workers, is not a 

choice. I actually just talked to someone the other day who is working 3 days a week, trying to live and get by, here in D.C., and go 

to school the rest of the time—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. And, they just cannot get more hours. 

So, I do think that the evolution of low-wage work, in terms of 

hours and schedules, is very important. 

In terms of single-parent families, I do want to highlight that 

about 5 million children are poor in married couple families. And 

so, the percentages are different, in part, of course, because it is 

so much harder to raise kids and work full-time, but I do want to 

highlight that, for a large chunk of poor children, the challenge is 

hours and wages. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And so, we need to really focus on that. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. For someone like myself, who grew up 

in a single-parent household—which, by the way, today is my 

mom’s birthday, so I can say happy birthday to her, as well. But, 

she worked incredibly hard—— 

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. To be able to raise my brother 

and I in a single-parent household—and also just to set an example 

and to set the character traits. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. It just goes back to something, Robert Woodson, you have said multiple times—that I have heard you say. It 

is not a matter of going into a neighborhood and saying that everyone here is not successful. 

Mr. WOODSON. Exactly. 

Senator LANKFORD. That is not true. There are good examples in 

every neighborhood and in every community where people have 

beat the odds on it. And, what I am trying to look at, with this research—and what you had mentioned before, Dr. Haskins—was the 

evidence. What are the things that we know work? Finishing high 

school, having a full-time job, and delaying having children until 

you are married. 
33 

You also had mentioned, I think, in some of your evidence—if I 

remember the number right—there is a five times higher poverty 

rate for those that are in a single-parent household than there is 

for those that are in a two-parent household. Correct? Not correct? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, that is correct. That is correct. Dr. Golden 

likes to state how many kids live in married couple households. 

Fine. But, the odds are that, if you get married and if you stay 

married, your financial situation will be much better. And, by the 

way, we now have huge research—I have been alive long enough 

to know that this has changed, dramatically. 

The academic world used to think that marriage was not that big 

of a deal for child development. Now, there is almost universal 

agreement that it has a huge impact on children. Kids who are 

reared by married-couple families do better, in many important respects, than kids who are reared by single parents. 

I used to work in the Bush Administration. And, the President 

wanted to talk about the importance of marriage. The first thing 

he always said was, ‘‘The hardest job in America is being a single 

parent and I admire single parents.’’ So, he did not want to cast 

any aspersions—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Never. 

Mr. HASKINS [continuing]. On single parents. But, the facts are 

the facts. And, if you are talking to kids—if they want to do the 

best by their children and for their own well-being—they will get 

married, they will not have children outside of marriage, and they 

will maintain their marriage once they are married. 

Senator LANKFORD. Because that worked for them. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, I think the two conversations are connected, 

because the high incarceration rates for young men are a very big 

contributor to young women’s and young men’s inability to become 

a stable couple. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right, not having that same connection. 

Ms. GOLDEN. So, that is a solution—— 

Senator LANKFORD. I want to come back to another barrier on 

that. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Woodson, were you going to say something as well? 

Mr. WOODSON. Yes, I just think—and Ron and I have had this 

discussion many times before. What concerns me about the academic community is that they do not study situations where there 

are cohorts of low-income families that have demonstrated that 

data is not destiny. There are some who have started life in that 

disadvantaged group, but who found surrogate ways to cope and to 

rise up. 

I saw the success rate of a public housing development, where 

residents sent 460 kids to post-secondary education and witnessed 

the dramatic reduction of teen pregnancy in that development. But, 

I did not see researchers coming into circumstances like that to 

study the successes of people, in spite of their situations. ‘‘60 Minutes’’ can find them, the networks can find them, but our academic 

community does not seem to be interested in studying the successes of people in those situations. 
34 

Senator LANKFORD. Do you think it is because they want a big 

sample and want to show a large statistic, rather than trying to 

look at one area and say that it was successful? And then, you cannot really, statistically, extrapolate that everywhere—though you 

can find what you have identified extremely well—is this house 

and this house—— 

Mr. WOODSON. Exactly. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. Next-door to each other, dramatically different outcomes—had the same situation, same neighborhood, and same family dynamic, but this family worked and this 

family did not. 

Mr. WOODSON. Exactly. 

Senator LANKFORD. These kids succeeded and got out and these 

did not. What happened? 

Mr. WOODSON. Exactly. That is what we should be asking. It 

seems to me that the research community should make their protocols fit the reality of the people, rather than requiring the people 

to meet their criteria and protocols. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, let me ask you a question as well—and 

that deals with marriage penalty. We still have areas, in Federal 

tax law—in means testing and such—where there are marriage 

penalties. 

Interestingly enough, if you are a veteran and you have a service-related disability—with a veteran, there is actually a marriage 

bonus that is there. So, that incentivizes marriage in the veterans 

system. But, in other areas, Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) being one of those, there is a marriage penalty that is built 

into it. 

Are there other areas of the Federal tax code that you think 

would disincentivize marriage? I would hope there is nothing built 

in there that would disincentivize full-time work or disincentivize 

getting a high school education. 

So, when I look at those three factors, based on what you are 

identifying—let us just talk about the marriage penalty. Are there 

any areas in the marriage law, right now—or things that you have 

seen—that would disincentivize marriage—from the Federal code? 

Ms. GOLDEN. I think Congress fixed the major Earned Income 

Tax Credit issues, so I think that is something to take credit for. 

Mr. HASKINS. I do not think it is exactly fixed, but I think, in 

general, the negative effects of the tax code on marriage are vastly 

overstated. We have a very good research study based on—the only 

way to know is to do a national probability sample—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. HASKINS [continuing]. So, it is representative. If you do that, 

the EITC, for most couples, actually provides an incentive to 

marry, because, when they are—this is based on cohabitating couples below 200 percent of poverty. I can send you the reference. 

And, believe it or not, they, generally—about 70 percent of them 

have an incentive to marry, because their EITC goes up. And, the 

reason is that the way that EITC works—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. HASKINS [continuing]. Is it increases, throughout a range, up 

to about—— 
35 

Senator LANKFORD. Social Security Disability Insurance goes in 

the other direction. If you are on SSDI—— 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. And you go into marriage, then 

there is a penalty on that. You get a reduction. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, it disincentivizes marriage in the disability rules. 

Mr. HASKINS. There were lots of situations like that in the past. 

Well, we have some like that in work, as well, as this chart that 

the Chairman showed earlier shows. 

Senator LANKFORD. The cliff. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, but if you look at an actual sample of people— 

the Urban Institute has done this—there are not people that get 

all of these benefits—— 

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. HASKINS [continuing]. Especially males. So, you can make up 

cases and make it look like the tax code is really providing huge 

disincentives, Senator, for both work and for marriage, but when 

you actually look at a sample of people that have various characteristics and how much welfare they actually get, there is not that 

much disincentive. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, just to reinforce that, my written testimony 

has a long review of the research on work incentives. And, I think, 

actually, there are some actual mistakes in this chart—when we 

saw it before—which we can get back to you on. 

But, even separate from that, I think Ron’s point is the key 

point. When you look across low-income people, the Earned Income 

Tax Credit increases with work, particularly, in those States that 

have taken the Medicaid expansion. There is no longer the big disincentive that you lose your health insurance. So, there is support 

for work for the large majority of people that you find in a sample. 

Coming back to full-time work—particularly, for childcare, because childcare is something that you are going to need to work 

full-time in many families—either households with both parents or 

with a single parent. It is far too expensive to be able to do, even 

with a pretty steady job, at a low wage. And so, the need is just 

far greater than what is available. And so, someone can get to a 

place where their childcare subsidy is no longer available. 

And, the law is flexible enough to let States fix that, but it is a 

dollar problem. The dollars for childcare have been going down and 

we need more there. But, I think that is something that Congress 

could do to support incentives for work—but I think that is kind 

of the main gap to fill. 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, I would just only say this, if I can 

make one quick statement. I spoke to my mom earlier today, obviously, on her birthday, to wish her a happy birthday. And, she 

said, ‘‘What are you working on, today? ’’ I said, ‘‘Well, actually, we 

are working on terrorism and poverty, today.’’ [Laughter.] 

And, she said, ‘‘If you could fix both of those for me, that would 

be a good birthday.’’ [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. How old is your mom? 

Senator LANKFORD. I am not supposed to say. 
36 

Chairman JOHNSON. Oh, OK. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, let us just say that she is older than I 

am, so I will—— [Laughter.] 

I will leave it at that. But, we will pray she has a good day, in 

the days that we can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, there is a certain point where all of a 

sudden it becomes a moment—— 

Senator LANKFORD. We are not at the ‘‘badge of honor’’ level yet, 

but—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, good. 

Senator LANKFORD [continuing]. But, I will still protect the lady’s 

age. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, picking up on Senator Lankford’s line of 

questioning, we did get the charts—better late than never. 

I just want to go down the line. So, there again you have the line 

of demarcation—our ‘‘War on Poverty.’’ Well-intentioned—no doubt 

about it. I have often said that the definition of the Federal Government ought to be the law of negative unintended consequences. 

You look at those three metrics: poverty rates, the number of 

people in poverty, and out-of-wedlock birth rates. I mean, you cannot look at those three metrics and say that those are metrics of 

success. But, I would just kind of like to go down the line. What 

is the explanation for out-of-wedlock birth rates going from 8 percent to over 40 percent once we instituted these ‘‘War on Poverty’’ 

programs? Dr. Woodson. 

Mr. WOODSON. First of all, we have to understand that aberrant 

behavior was never associated with poverty. Prior to the 1960s, the 

black community was often used a moral barometer of the country. 

If you look at the 10 years of the Great Depression, when we had 

a 25 percent unemployment rate and a negative Gross National 

Product (GNP)—the black community’s actual marriage formation 

rate increased over that of whites during that decade. So, obviously, race relations and poverty are not related—or correlated— 

with aberrant behavior. 

But, all of that changed in the 1960s. And, I do not have time 

to walk you through it, but, what happened was, social planners 

began to detach work from income and promoted welfare as a right, 

rather than stop-gap insurance. And, with regard to black families, 

it was viewed as almost reparations that they were entitled to. 

Among the academic social planners, the definition of a nuclear 

family was interpreted as being racist. People were not encouraged 

to work or to marry. Welfare went up at a time when unemployment in New York was 4 percent among black males. But, yet, welfare dependency saw a spiral up as the government encouraged 

people to sign-up on the roles. The social planners at Columbia 

University—Frances Fox Piven, Richard Cloward, and the others, 

who oppose our free market system—said that, if they could promote the mindset of entitlements, that could force the Nation into 

income redistribution. 

This is documented in Fred Siegel’s book, ‘‘The Future Once Happened Here.’’ And, there are other writings that tell the story of 

what happened in the black community when we fell off of this 

cliff. In 1965, 85 percent of all black families had a man and a 

woman raising children. Yet, at a time when civil rights laws were 
37 

passed and the government spent all of this money on its antipoverty programs, the black family steadily declined. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Ochs, do you have any thoughts on that 

before I—have any theories on that? 

Mr. OCHS. It is a lack of fatherhood, from our perspective. And, 

when we interview our inmates and say, ‘‘What is the main thing 

you missed growing up? Why are you in prison? ’’—I think it is a 

lack of fatherhood. 

Back to your previous question, with regard to why are there not 

manufacturing companies, in 2009, we laid off approximately 25 

percent of our workforce due to the recession. Approximately 9 

months later, we started hiring them back. We were only able to 

hire back about 50 percent, because the ones that had gone on unemployment benefits—and whatever other thing—said, ‘‘It is not 

worth that extra few bucks.’’ And, they were averaging $16 or $17 

an hour. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, I heard the exact same story from a 

painting contractor from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, who, finally, got 

a couple of big jobs and went to hire all of his crew back. None of 

them would return. And, they were very honest and said, ‘‘Well, it 

does not pay until our unemployment benefits run out.’’ To add insult to injury, he lost those two jobs to those same workers, who 

did them for cash. Again, that is the reality. Those are the unintended consequences. Dr. Haskins. 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, the standard explanation for what has happened with the family is both cultural and economic. So, in terms 

of culture, our values have changed very dramatically. 

It used to be, in the old days, that—when I went to high school, 

if a young girl became pregnant, the parents often sent her away. 

It was shameful. And, there was much less premarital sex. There 

was much more early marriage. All of those things have changed 

very dramatically. Sex did not go out of style, but marriage did. 

Our marriage rates have plummeted, for every group of women, except for college-educated women. They still have very high marriage rates. 

So, there have been big changes in values. And then, if you—in 

culture—but there are also big—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me just say, could it be, though, because 

a single mom—a young woman can actually get benefits from the 

government and it is a little less necessary for her to have a husband? 

Mr. HASKINS. It could, but—— 

Mr. WOODSON. So, look—— 

Mr. HASKINS. Let me finish, Bob. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I mean, could that be a part of the problem? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, it could. But, then, it is hard to explain why 

it is that whites have had such dramatic increases in the past, say, 

15 years when, under the theory that Bob gives you, it should have 

happened a long time ago, because they could have gotten those 

benefits before—but they did not. 

And, now, more recently, whites are following the same path— 

so are Hispanics—as blacks did. And, they are, gradually, catching 

up, in terms of non-marital births and low marriage rates. 
38 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, so, for millennia, you had husband 

and wife and intact families. And then, all of a sudden—boom, we 

just have this breakdown of that, basically, foundational building 

block of a society. You are not seeing any correlation? It just kind 

of happened? The water changed or just—— 

Mr. HASKINS. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Things just happened or—— 

Mr. HASKINS. Wait. I am not saying that welfare does not play 

a role. There are incentives that are unfortunate and it does play 

a role. Why do we look for single explanations? This is a very complex issue. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, I am not—— 

Mr. HASKINS. There are lots of things that contribute to it. It is 

not just one—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I know, but there are a lot of programs that 

might have contributed to that. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. Sure. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Golden. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Sure. Let me give you a couple of points on that 

and then on one of the others. 

I think the other thing to headline is that everybody, including 

poor people, are having babies much later than they ever did. The 

teen birth rate is the lowest it has ever been. I think, sometimes, 

people get the picture that what we are seeing is people having babies young. We are not. Everybody is postponing childbearing a 

great deal. 

And so, then you get to the question of, do we want to have an 

economy where, really, a young woman and a young man cannot 

have stable enough economic lives to feel they can get married and 

have a family until they are in their late 20s or at 30—or do we 

want a world where getting married at 24 or 25 would work for 

people? 

So, I do think—and Ron makes this point—that the causality, 

about how the economy has changed, how that has affected people’s 

choices, and how the culture has changed—and I would add incarceration, because, when I talk to young women—I still remember 

conversations—people would say, ‘‘We cannot get married, because 

it means providing for somebody else.’’ 

And so, I do think that it is important to note that the solutions 

out there—I think the evidence—the research evidence about what 

has shown success, in terms of marriage rates, is about dramatic 

economic improvements and jobs—and I do think reforms in incarceration would be helpful—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. With incarceration, that is a chicken-andegg type of situation, because Mr. Ochs is talking about how the 

primary reason that you are hearing people give about why they 

are in prison—they kind of attribute it to the fact that they did not 

have a father in the home. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, I think, in general, poverty for young kids is 

a chicken-and-egg phenomenon. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am asking Mr. Ochs. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Sorry. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Was that, basically—— 

Mr. OCHS. Yes, definitely. And, I think part of the success—— 
39 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, the breakdown of the family could result 

in higher crime rates, which would lead to higher levels of incarceration. I mean, it really is a chicken-and-the-egg type of thing. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, researchers tried—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to talk about other unintended consequences. 

A little story from my own experience. We, as our business, used 

to employ people—what we called, in Wisconsin, Huber Law. But, 

people there are serving time. And, unlike moving our plant into 

the prison, we would bring the prisoners. And, oftentimes these 

were from the county jail. And, oftentimes, they were people who 

had served a longer sentence and this is what they were doing the 

last 6 months to a year—an incredibly successful program. 

From my standpoint, there were a number of lives that were 

turned around with that. But, then, social justice advocates—putting pressure on the big companies—that come in and audit a manufacturer, like myself, found out that we were actually employing 

people from prison labor. And, they felt that was some sort of 

forced servitude. And so, in order for us to maintain those contracts, we had to stop doing that. I mean, think of that. Again, a 

very negative unintended consequence from social justice advocates—did not really help people, whatsoever. 

Part-time work. How many different programs, Dr. Woodson, are 

there, in the Federal Government, which incentivize employers not 

to have full-time workers, because once—this gets back to over-regulation. Once you go above 20 hours a week, once you are— 

Obamacare side effect, correct? How many manufacturers now 

are—or businesses, in general, are not going above 50 employees, 

because of all of these government programs and regulations that 

prevent that? Does anybody want to speak to that? 

Mr. WOODSON. I do not have an answer for that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Ochs. 

Mr. OCHS. Now, we employ several hundred people, so we are 

above the 50. But, that has been a definite deterrent to going above 

50 people. And, you had asked the first question—I am sorry—related to—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am just talking about unintended consequences, right now. 

Mr. OCHS. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Part-time work—Huber Law. Do you have 

a program like that, in Kansas? 

Mr. OCHS. Yes, we call it work-release. And, that is still alive 

and well in Kansas. We started with work-release and then moved 

from the work release into the prison. 

Ms. GOLDEN. And, we have talked a lot, with employers, about 

scheduling because, as we talked about earlier, part-time work is 

a huge challenge for families. And, increasingly, with technology, 

it is not just part-time, but part-time with no notice about schedules or hours. And, I think what we hear from employers is not— 

and I think this is consistent with the research—not about regulation, but about choices that they have made, perhaps, without 

thinking through always—— 
40 

Chairman JOHNSON. Trust me—regulation is a big component 

here. I mean, trust me—I know, firsthand, and I talk to a lot of 

people. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Sure. And, we talk mostly to retail, health care, 

and those sectors. We have not talked as much with the manufacturing industry, because the part-time issues are very intense in 

the retail sector, for example. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Haskins, you talked about—give people 

money, they will be less poor. I think that is one of the debates, 

when you are talking about poverty rates—people in poverty—out 

of poverty. Do you tack on the transfer payments that they are getting, in terms of the assistance? All of a sudden they are out of poverty. I think the better definition would be out of poverty and out 

of dependency. 

From my standpoint, I thought the goal of the ‘‘War on Poverty’’ 

was to not just give people money, so they have—so, based on the 

total amount of take, not just that they are not at the poverty level 

anymore, but that you actually move them out of poverty. You 

make them independent. Can you just comment on that? 

I mean, by the way, is that not the better goal—to get people to 

become independent? 

Mr. HASKINS. Yes, it is a much better goal. Yes, I do not have 

any problem with the goal, but the problem is that we have so 

many people—OK, think that we have—half of our children, at 

some point, are going to be in a female-headed family, all right? 

Not at any point in time, but over time. 

So, would you rather have them on welfare or not have them 

have any public support? Or, would you rather have public programs that are now bipartisan, in the sense that they strongly emphasize work and then they subsidize work, because those mothers 

often have limited skills and limited work experience—and the 

most they can make is $10 an hour or so—but, because they get 

subsidies from the Earned Income Tax Credit—which they only get 

if they work—that it brings their income up and it allows them to 

escape poverty? 

I would rather have them earn enough so that they can completely escape poverty without public benefits, but we do not have 

enough jobs like that. So, I think this is a reasonable transitional 

thing. Hopefully, when they get older, they will develop skills and 

experience and they can get better jobs. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, let us talk about the minimum wage. 

There is a proposal out there for a $15 an hour minimum wage. 

President Obama is recommending $10.10. CBO, evaluating his 

proposal, thought it would cost somewhere between half a million 

and a million jobs. The study shows that $15 an hour would cost 

6.6 million jobs by the end of the decade. 

That is a real problem. I know Andy Pudzer, the Chief Executive 

Officer (CEO) of Carl’s Jr., is writing an awful lot of articles talking 

about how that is actually affecting—where it has been put in 

place, how it is actually affecting, for example, fast-food restaurants. People are coming and they are saying, ‘‘You have to cut 

my hours, because my income is coming up to that point and I am 

losing benefits.’’ 
41 

I mean, is that not really the real-world result of that type of 

thing? 

Ms. GOLDEN. We have actually been writing on that question, because, in fact, you do need the minimum wage increase and the 

benefits for people. And, we have actually—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Does that not bother you—a study that it 

would cost 6.6 million jobs? So, if you have—— 

Ms. GOLDEN. I think it is not consistent with the—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. It does not bother you? 

Ms. GOLDEN. I think it is not consistent with the bulk of the research. I think, one of the things that the research suggests is that 

increases for some of the particular groups we have focused on 

today—low-wage mothers, poor families, etc.—and I think, on the 

question of benefits, we have actually been looking at that in a couple of places. And, typically, again, if you have more income, you 

are not going to need quite as much, in the way of your childcare 

subsidy. And so, the two things will work together and will help 

reduce the public investment, somewhat. But, people, depending on 

their circumstances, will still need help. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you know what the average profit, per 

employee, in a fast-food restaurant is? 

Ms. GOLDEN. In what jurisdiction? In general? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Just nationally. 

Ms. GOLDEN. I do not know the national number, no. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is $6,300, per employee. That means, if 

you take a 2,000-hour—over the course of a year—work week, that 

is a $3 increase. So, just increasing the minimum wage, in a fastfood restaurant, by $3, you wipe out the profitability. That does not 

work for business. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes, I think we find that businesses vary in their 

perspective on that—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. If you increase—— 

Ms. GOLDEN [continuing]. And, that ‘‘high road’’ employers think 

that the investment is worth it, in terms of less turnover and more 

success. But, I know there are many different perspectives on that 

subject. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. I just have a real concern when you 

start having the Federal Government get involved in any marketplace—again, the law of negative unintended consequences, which 

I think that chart proves as well. 

I think I have pretty well covered the points I wanted to make. 

I will just give everybody a chance to conclude. We will start with 

you, Dr. Golden. And, we will kind of walk down. Just give kind 

of a minute summary. 

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, thank you. 

First of all, I am extraordinarily pleased that the Committee is 

focusing on poverty. And, to hear the conversation—Mr. Ochs’ commitment on prison issues. There is just a lot to work on here. 

I think I would highlight the successes of the safety net—that, 

when you look at the actual effects, with the right numbers, you 

see poverty cut in half. And, I would highlight the 

multigenerational, positive effect that result when children get nutrition, health care, and income through the Earned Income Tax 
42 

Credit—when they are not going hungry. There is now a lot of rigorous research showing that that has effects down the road. 

And so, to me, the crucial things to do next are: to focus in on 

young children, to focus in on workforce training, development, and 

opportunities to move up, to fill some key gaps in the safety net, 

to improve job quality—not just wages, but also scheduling—and to 

make sure, in terms of post-secondary—what I think, actually, you 

were talking about—the need for credentials that employers can 

use, for example, in manufacturing. I actually would share that as 

an important goal—and something we should work on. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK, thank you. Dr. Haskins. 

Mr. HASKINS. Again, I agree. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

It is very important for Members to hear all sides of these arguments. 

I did not talk about prisons, but I am glad that came up. That 

is an extremely important topic. It is one of the biggest disadvantages that black males face. In fact, there is now a huge amount 

of research literature showing that black males respond much more 

poorly to living in a single-parent family than daughters do. So, 

black males have this disadvantage piled on disadvantage. And, 

helping them with prison, especially by keeping them out—if we 

can, giving them shorter sentences, and helping them when they 

get out—the very kind of thing Mr. Ochs just talked about—it is 

very important. 

I want to emphasize that I still think the very best thing that 

we have done to reduce poverty, especially amongst single moms, 

is to have strong work requirements, and then, to subsidize their 

income with the Earned Income Tax Credit, daycare assistance, 

and the system that we have already put in place. 

I do not think we have talked enough about birth control. We 

now have highly successful methods of birth control. If young 

women can avoid pregnancy—which they say they want to—and 

even if they have babies out of wedlock later, they will be older, 

they will be more skilled, and they may have a better job. There 

are all kinds of advantages. Birth control is going to be a big part 

of the solution, I think. 

And, finally, I want to emphasize, once again, we can learn a lot. 

We are learning a lot, now. We will learn a lot more in future 

years. We have priceless data, in various Federal systems and 

Agencies—and from the Census Bureau—that, if we could analyze 

that data—because we have better access and Congress has made 

it easier for researchers to study it—we will learn a lot and it will 

be helpful in reducing poverty. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, first of all, information, which we are 

trying to provide here, is powerful. Birth control—I am a cosponsor 

of the—over-the-counter prescriptions. I think those things are key. 

And, you are right. The impediments we have put in place for 

people that are formerly incarcerated is just—I know Dr. Woodson 

talked about a number of them. There are so many more. I mean, 

there are just so many more. We really need to address that. I am 

an original cosponsor of the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act 

of 2015, to ‘‘ban the box’’ as well. 

So, Mr. Ochs. 
43 

Mr. OCHS. Three things. If you want to end poverty, create jobs. 

And, if you want to create jobs, incentivize small businesses to do 

that. So, I would encourage you to lower taxes. Our effective tax 

rate is north of 40 percent. If you gave me another 10 percent or 

15 percent, we would roll that back into growing the business and 

creating more jobs. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You figure you are paying your fair share. 

Mr. OCHS. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. OCHS. And, reduce the amount of regulation. It is stifling. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is. Dr. Woodson. 

Mr. WOODSON. I think we need to look to a new source of information and new experts. With all due respect to my colleagues 

from the left and the right, who come together in academic institutions and define themselves as being the premier poverty experts, 

that is a misnomer. I think the real experts are the people who are 

in those communities that are the anomalies and who demonstrate 

that they are in poverty, but not of poverty. 

So, we need to recognize a new group of experts, who are solely 

focusing on studying capacity and studying people who are achieving against the odds. They are the source of new information that 

can help us find a way out of poverty. We must provide recognition 

and support for the real poverty experts—and those who live in the 

same cultural and geographic zip code as those experiencing the 

problem—and empower them to achieve it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Dr. Woodson. And, by the 

way, we will be giving our other witnesses your book. And, I think 

they will see some of those wonderful examples—— 

Mr. WOODSON. I doubt it. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Of wonderful people helping 

change people’s lives, one person at a time. 

So, again, I want to thank all of the witnesses. I enjoyed the 

hearing. I hope you did as well. 

This hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until July 7 

at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 
46 

!thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss these important issues, and !look forward to 

your testimony. 
47 

Hearing Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

"Renewing Communities and Providing Opportunities Through Innovative Solutions to 

Poverty" 

Wednesday, June 22,2016 

As prepared for delivery: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today to consider ways to improve our federal, 

state and local efforts to address economic insecurity and instability and to lower the rate of 

poverty in our country. I also want to thank our witnesses, who have dedicated their lives to 

establishing and implementing programs to lift individuals, families and children out of poverty. 

We have a moral obligation to help the most vulnerable among us and to ensure all Americans 

have the opportunity to succeed economically. Federal and state programs and initiatives such as 

Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) and federal housing assistance have given millions of Americans the ability to access 

basic health care, put healthy food on their tables, afford stable homes and find good jobs. 

Without these fundamental safety net programs, economists and public policy experts have 

found that 40 to 50 percent more Americans would be living in poverty. 

As Speaker Ryan recently noted, there is clearly an important role for the federal government to 

play in reducing poverty. Yet despite the etTectiveness of these programs and others, more than 

45 million Americans continue to live in economic hardship. More than six percent of 

Americans, including over seven million children, live in deep poverty. They're getting by with a 

household income ofless than half the federal poverty level, which is $12,000 for a family of 

four. And more than 1.5 million families live on $2 or less a day. 

This is a problem facing families in all of our states. As we say in the Navy, we need all hands 

on deck to address the growing rates of deep and severe poverty across our country. In addition 

to state and federal programs, community-based organizations can also play important roles in 

providing additional support to those in need. These organizations are often well-positioned to 

see and respond to the needs in their communities and to provide additional assistance that helps 

to reinforce assistance from government programs. 

However. programs such as Medicaid, SNAP and the earned income tax credit that can quickly 

lift up those who suffer during an economic downturn, are irreplaceable, fundamental lifelines 

for those Americans living with severe economic hardship. These federal. state and local efforts 

are important parts of the solution. We also need to find better ways to provide job training and 

access to education. and to ensure people are paid living wages and that good jobs are available. 

I want to close by thanking the witnesses again for their dedication and work to lower the rates of 

poverty in your communities and across our country. I look forward to hearing your 

recommendations on what we can do to improve the programs created to help our most 

vulnerable individuals. families and children. 
48 

Testimony before the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs 

A NEW AND EFFECTIVE PARADIGM FOR THE NATION'S 

ANTIPOVERTY STRATEGY 

By Robert L. Woodson, Sr. 

Founder and President of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise 
49 

A NEW AND EFFECTIVE PARADIGM FOR THE NATION'S ANTIPOVERTY STRATEGY 

The facts are incontestable: After the expenditure of $20 trillion in a 50-year "war on poverty" 

the numbers of impoverished Americans have barely budged. The obvious failure of the strategy 

that has dominated our nation's antipoverty agenda is testament of a critical need to reassess the 

fundamental assumptions that have guided policies and the qualifications of those who are 

considered "experts." Reform is vital-not only to stop the waste of an annual expenditure of $1 

trillion on an ineffective strategy but, more importantly, for the sake of millions of Americans 

and generations of families who are spending years in demeaning dependency. 

To develop an effective approach, the problem must be correctly defined. 

The failure to develop an effective agenda is rooted in a misdiagnosis of the problem of poverty. 

Even among those who have the best intentions, policymakers on the Left and Right are 

deadlocked in debates about solutions but are talking about entirely different cohorts of the poor. 

All people are not poor for the same reason and our remedies must be as diverse as the cohorts of 

the population in poverty. Through my experience with the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise 

and the nearly 2,500 community groups working in low-income neighborhoods that it has 

served, I have come to understand that there are four basic categories of the poor. 

There is one cohort whose poverty is the result of an unexpected setback, such as the death of a 

breadwinner or a job loss. For these people, the welfare system can function as it was originally 

intended-providing temporary support until recipients can find their footing again. A second 

cohort is comprised of those who have remained dependent on the system because the 

disincentives to marriage and work that are embedded in its regulations make it a rational choice 

to avoid those stepping stones to self-sufficiency. In sum, they've "done the math" and realized 

it's not worth the loss of benefits to take first steps toward upward mobility. The third group is 

comprised of the disabled, who will always be in need of some support. The fourth cohort is 

made up of those who are in poverty because of the choices they make and the chances they 

lake-for example, those who are living with the consequences of alcoholism and addiction. 

With regard to "category four," giving no-strings attached to those whose poverty is due to the 

chances they take and the choice they make simply enables them to continue their self: 

destructive lifestyles-in essence, injuring with the helping hand. For this group, a fundamental 

revitalization in vision, character, and values is a prerequisite for them to reclaim their lives and 

escape from dependence. Until that is achieved, no amount of cash payments or benefits can 

engender a change in their circumstances. 

The good news is that agents that can engender such fundamental transformation are even now at 

work in disadvantaged and devastated communities throughout the nation. That life salvaging 

work is the forte of the hundreds of community leaders and grassroots neighborhood healers that 
50 

I have had the privilege to know and support throughout the last 40 years. Their success in 

empowering those who once seemed beyond hope to reclaim their lives and move up from 

dependency is due to common traits they share, wherever they live and whatever issue they 

address: they share the same geographic and cultural zip-codes with the people they serve; they 

have a firsthand understanding of the challenges they face; they are available 24-7 for those who 

need them; and they are committed for the long-haul. 

Nothing short of a paradigm shift is needed to develop an antipoverty agenda that can effectively 

move the poor to a pathway of upward mobility and an escape from dependence to selfsufficiency. And, it's among those who suffer the most entrenched and debilitating poverty, the 

"category four" poor, where authentic reform of the nation's antipoverty agenda will have the 

most powerful and striking impact. 

Recognize and build-on capacity 

To date, the anti-poverty agenda has been built on what I call "failure studies." Typically, 

researchers go into low-income neighborhoods to tally the youths who have dropped out of 

school, births outside of marriage, and incidence of gang activity and crime. In contrast, my 

organization. the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, goes into those communities to talk to the 

parents of families that are intact, the youths who have not been involved in substance abuse or 

crime, and the kids who have graduated from high-school to learn how they accomplished what 

they did in spite of the odds they faced. We go into corner stores, barbershops, and beauty 

salons and ask the people who they would turn to in times of crisis. Invariably, they point to 

some person within the community that they can trust and rely on. 

The testimonies of those who have been empowered to reclaim their lives through the work of 

these grassroots mentors are awe-inspiring. Men and women who had virtually lost their lives to 

drugs and alcohol have emerged as responsible employees, spouses, and parents. Fatherless 

youths who were raised on the streets and were drawn to the lures of gang violence and drug 

trafficking have become agents of peace and renewal in their communities. Men released from 

prison-with the mark of a felon and no prospects for a job--have risen to become successful 

businessmen and entrepreneurs who provide employment to others in the community. 

These agents of change and renewal have the potential to make a substantive and sustainable 

impact on the most entrenched poverty in this country and should be incorporated in the nation's 

antipoverty agenda. Tapping their transformative power will require the risk of innovative 

thinking. 

I would like to share ten lessons I have learned through decades of my efforts to support the 

healing agents of America's low-income communities. 
51 

I. If you keep doing what you're doing you'll keep getting what you've got. When 

government programs fail to etTectively address poverty, the conclusion is typically either 

a) It is due to a failure on the part of recipients, orb) it was underfunded and more 

resources should be invested in the same programs. As Einstein declared, "Insanity is 

doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 

2. Good intentions are not enough. Too often the disadvantaged are victims of"injury by 

the helping hand. Regardless of how well-funded they arc, government programs 

designed by experts and parachuted in to low-income communities will not have 

substantial or sustainable effect. 

3. Not all poverty is the same and our solutions should be as diverse as the populations 

in poverty. 

4. For poverty rooted in self-destructive behavior, substantial and sustainable results 

entail a restoration of values and vision, and this can, uniquely, be engendered by 

healing agents that live within their communities and are committed to their uplift. 

5. Effective antidotes to the most entrenched and devastating type of poverty exist in 

virtually every low-income community. The residents will identify these neighborhood 

healers as the persons they would turn to in a time of crisis. 

6. Low-income neighborhoods should be approached with the goal of identifying and 

building on their capacity. 

7. People must be agents of change in their own transformation. Those who live in 

neighborhoods suffering a problem should be involved in the design and 

implementation of its solution. 

8. We must be willing to recognize brand of "experts" that should be trusted and 

supported: Those whose authority comes not from diplomas and certificates on their 

walls, but from the testimonies of the men, women, and youths whose lives they have 

touched and changed. 

9. The rules of the market economy should extend to our social economy. Social 

entrepreneurship should be rewarded on the basis of its outcome and impact--evidenced 

by how many have been empowered to rise from dependency. 
52 

I 0. Substantial and Sustainable community revitalization and individual renewal must 

come from the bottom up and the inside out. 

--Robert L. Woodson, Sr. is the founder and president of the 

Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. 
53 

Peter LOchs 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Tuesday, June 21,2016, 10 a.m. 

"Renewing Communities and Providing Opportunities Through Innovative Solutions to 

Poverty." 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on innovative 

solutions to poverty. I am the founder and President of Capital III, a social impact 

investment company. At the age of 40 I came to the realization that I had become 

successful but not significant. I had created economic wealth for myself but as a 

Christian I had definitely not "loved my neighbor as myself'. I believe poverty extends 

beyond the lack of adequate food, clothing, shelter and some walking around cash, things 

I would describe as economic capital. But poverty also includes a lack of the skills, 

education, self-governance, ambition and quality relationships. Attributes I would call 

social capital. And the third form of poverty occurs when a person does not live by a 

moral code that differentiates between right and wrong. I call this spiritual poverty. So 

with this newfound ambition to be a triple bottom line company, we changed the mission 

and focus of our business to include the creation of social and spiritual capital. 

In 2005 our business was growing rapidly and we simply could not hire enough 

manufacturing labor. Our solution was to move a portion of our manufacturing 

operation inside of a state prison in Hutchinson, Kansas. 

If I am honest with you, I did it mainly for economic reasons. But within just a few 

months I realized that these men were actually not much different than me. With this 

revelation, came the vision to help these men understand how they could create 

economic, social, and spiritual capital for themselves. 

So let me start with Economic Capital. 

If you are an inmate and work for the State of Kansas, you will make $.50 per 

day. On the other hand, if you work for us, you will make $8-15 per hour. 

In addition to the inmate winning, the State of Kansas wins by taking 25% of the 

inmate's gross wage for room and board. This year alone, inmates will pay over 

$1 million to the State of Kansas. 

The third entity to benefit is our company, because we get a hard working, 

competent and steady work force. 

And the last party to benefit is society in general because restitution, child 

support and other types of payments are deducted from the inmate's salary. 

From an economic perspective, this arrangement is a win, win, win. 
54 

Let's talk about the creation of Social Capital. 

Inmates learn a trade or skill. This includes welding, metal fabrication, sewing, 

electronics and training in computer aided design software. 

Family relationships are greatly improved because they can now afford the 17 

cents per minute it costs to make a telephone call. Many of our employees spend 

30-45 minutes per night on the phone to family, most of the time helping their 

children to homework. And the highlight of the year is the family picnic where 

an inmate can show off the products that he has so proudly made. 

Disciplinary actions in the prison are down because you cannot work for us if you 

have had a Disciplinary Action. 

We also sponsor and teach classes on personal improvement skills such as 

fathering, finances, and interpersonal relationships. 

Recidivism is down. While not a scientific study, of the 14 inmates who have 

been released and then come to work for our company outside of the prison, 2 

have been re-incarcerated. This is a 14% recidivism rate compared to over 60% 

for most states. And because an inmate is released having a skill, $5-10,000 in 

the bank, and has been coached in living by a moral code, the chance for reincarceration has been greatly reduced. 

I cannot overstate the importance that self-esteem and confidence play in the 

rehabilitation of an inmate. And this happens because they have a job and are 

valued and respected by their employer. I am usually in the prison 2-3 times per 

month and it is an amazing thing to see a new inmate who comes to work with 

low self-esteem, begin to smile and come to life after several friendly encounters 

with the "boss man". 

Let me finish with Spiritual Capital. 

The most requested thing from inmates is for us to encourage them on a regular 

basis with a message of hope and inspiration. 

Additionally our company is leading the efforts to raise $800,000 from the private 

sector to build a spiritual life center in the prison. This has generated significant 

excitement on the part of all faith groups because it will be the one place in the 

prison that will afford them some respite from the harsh reality of their 

incarceration. 

We also sponsor a seminary program inside the prison and 8 inmates will be 

graduating next month from this rigorous 3-year program. Not only have they 

provided unbelievable leadership and encouragement to their fellow inmates, they 

have become an integral part of the mental health counseling staff that had been 

basically eliminated due to budgetary constraints. 43% of inmates in this prison 

suffer from some type of mental illness. While we are in no way prescriptive 

about a person's faith journey, we have found spiritual capital to be the one 

element of hope that many inmates cling to when their economic and social 

freedom have been taken away. 
55 

In closing I would encourage you to consider 3 initiatives as it relates to poverty in a 

prison setting. 

I. First, I would encourage you to initiate reforms in the criminal justice system. 

Based on personally knowing many of the nonviolent offenders working for us, I 

believe there arc better ways to rehabilitate than to lock up a person in a basically 

negative environment. 

2. Second, a viable, affordable, successful solution to the problem of incarceration is 

a partnership between government, business, and the faith-based community. 

3. And lastly, economic poverty cannot be truly eliminated without us helping the 

poor understand they have great potential and ability to create social and spiritual 

capital for themselves. 
56 

Testimony of Ron Haskins 

Brookings Institution and Annie E. Casey Foundation 

Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

June 21,2016 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee: 

Thanks for inviting me to testify at this hearing on renewing communities, reducing 

poverty, and increasing economic mobility. l consider it a privilege to testify before a Senate 

Committee, especially a committee holding a hearing on such important topics. 

l have been asked to provide background information on federal spending on poverty 

programs, on trends in poverty and economic mobility and the effectiveness of these programs in 

relieving poverty, on the role of local communities in fighting poverty and creating economic 

opportunity, and on the role of the evidence-based policy movement in strengthening programs 

to fight poverty and increase economic opportunity. 

Federal Spending 

Figure 1, based on spending data from the Office of Management and Budget, traces 

federal spending on the ten largest means-tested programs between 1962 and 2013 in dollars 

adjusted for inflation. These ten programs capture about 80 percent of spending on all meanstested programs. Sometimes the word ·'welfare" is applied to these programs because in order to 

qualify for the benefit, recipients must have earnings and resources below a specified level which 

varies substantially from program to program. After more than half a century of steady growih, 

spending on these programs has slowed in recent years, in part because most of the additional 

spending on means-tested programs enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 to light the Great Recession has ended. Over the entire period from 1962 to 2013, 

spending grew from around $17.5 billion to $608.8 billion. 

Figure 2, compiled by the Congressional Research Service, shows means-tested spending 

in 2013 divided into eight categories of programs detined by their major purpose. The categories 

are health care, cash, nutrition, education. housing and development, social services, 

employment and training, and energy. The spending in Figure 2 is for all means-tested programs, 

not just the ten largest. Perhaps the most important point illustrated by the figure is the extent to 

w·hich means-tested spending is dominated by health care. In 2013, health services for poor and 

low-income individuals cost $344.0 billion or 46 percent of total spending of $743.7 billion on 

means-tested programs. It is worth emphasizing that this $344 billion does not include Medicare 

spending. Spending on cash benefits was also substantial, at $150.3 billion, but still only about 

45 percent as much as spending on health. 
57 

Figure1: Means-Tested Spending, 1962-2013 

700 

"' c 600 

~ 

e 500 

!!! 400 .!!! 

0 

c 300 M 

.... 

0 

"' 200 

'" .. 

0::: 100 

() 

Year 

Notes· Thrs senes mc!udes 10 spendmg sources MedJca1d, SNAP. EITC, CTC where cred1texceeds tax flabtflty, SSi, 

AFOC!TANF. Housmg Assrstance. Med1care Part D Low Income Subsu:fy, ESEA Tr/le 1 Grants fo Local Educat1onal 

Agene~es, and Federal Pel/ Grants Includes ARRA spendmg 

Sources. Most spendmg sources from OMB, F1scal Year 2013 Budge( Tables B 5, 11 3, 12 3 T;tfe 1 and ESEA spending 

from Department of Euduca!ion Budget H1story Table Medrcare data from CMS, 2011 Mecl!care Trustees Report, Table 

IV 811, number tor 20111s esttmaled 2012 & 2013 spendmg from Congressronal Research Serv1ce. Federal Benefits and 

Serv1ces for People w1th Low Income FY200B~FY2013. Table 3. Spendmg tor the 10 Largest Programs for People wtth Low 

Income FY 2008-FY 2013 AI! figures adjusted to constant dOllars usmg OMB total deflator from h1stoncal table 10 1 B .R 00 KINGS 

!!! 

.!!! 

0 

c 

0 

"' " 

~ iii 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

10C 

50 

Figure 2: Federal spending on Low-Income 

Programs by Major Category, FY 2013 

344 

6 3 

0 

Category 

Notes: Spending figures include ARRA spending 

Source: Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low 

Energy 

Assistance 

Income: FY2008-FY2013, Table I. Federal Spending by Major Category on Benefits and Servic BRQQflf N' 1. GS es for People with Low Income, FY 2008-FY 2013 '\ • 

2 
58 

3 

It would be misleading to talk about federal spending on means-tested programs without 

pointing out how federal spending programs are being squeezed by the rise in the share of federal 

outlays going to the Big Three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Figure 3, based on superb work conducted by a team of researchers at the Urban Institute, shows 

total federal spending for selected years since 2000 as well as projected spending in 2025. The 

bar graphs represent federal spending in selected years; the sections within each bar graph divide 

spending into six non-overlapping categories: all spending on children, most of it on meanstested programs; the Big Three entitlements combined; defense; interest on the debt; and a catchall category that captures all other outlays. I emphasize two stark conclusions from Figure 3. 

First. the rise of spending on the Big Three is relentless. In 2000, 38 percent of federal spending 

went to the Big Three; by 2014,just 14 years later, 44 percent was devoted to them, an increase 

of about 15 percent in the proportion of federal spending devoted to the Big Three. Second, 

given that federal revenue has been fairly stable at around 17 percent or 18 percent of GOP in 

non-recessionary years, the increase in Big Three spending means there is enormous pressure to 

reduce other spending. Thus, it is no surprise that if projections to 2025 are correct, spending on 

the categories of defense, children, and all other outlays will decline as a share of federal 

spending while spending on the Big Three and on interest will increase substantially. Thus, the 

rapid rise of spending on means-tested programs, including those that support children, that we 

see in Figure I has already come to an end and is likely to moderate or even shrink in the years 

ahead. It is difficult to believe that spending more on the elderly and less on children will be 

good for the nation's future prospects. 

Poverty and Economic Mobility 

A question that arises when contemplating this federal spending, especially the portions 

devoted to means-tested programs and children, is whether the spending has an impact on 

poverty. One view on this issue is shown in Figure 4 which presents poverty rates under the 

official federal poverty measure among all children, among single-mother households with 

children, and among the elderly. Single-mother households are especially important in 

understanding poverty because the poverty rate among these households is about five times the 

poverty rate among married-couple households. Another reason for emphasizing mother-headed 

households is that the share of all children living in married-couple households has been 

declining for four decades while the share living in mother-headed households has been 

increasing, which has the effect of continually putting upward pressure on the share of children 

in poverty. 

Figure 4 yields three interesting generalizations about poverty trends: the nation 

continues to make good progress in reducing poverty among the elderly; the poverty rate among 

children is more than twice the poverty rate among the elderly; and the poverty rate among 

mother-headed households, despite substantial progress during the 1990s, was and continues to 

be much higher than the rate for other groups. 
59 

4 

Share of Federal Spent on Children and Other Items, Selected 

2000-2025 

Rates for Children in Households, All 

and the Elderly, 

60 '"'"'Single-Mother households with 

Children 

50 -All Children 

0 

1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 

Note: Data on elderly poverty rates unavailable 

Source' Census Bureau, Poverty DrvJSJOn, 

1960-1%5 

rahles 2 and3. 

Year 
60 

5 

No poverty measure is perfect, but the official federal measure is flawed by the fact that 

most benefits provided by government, including most cash and in-kind benefits and all benefits 

provided through the tax code, arc ignored. If the members of this Committee wish to understand 

the impact of government spending on poverty, we must include the government benefits as 

income. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has produced a chart showing the dramatic 

reduction in poverty among both children and people of all ages when these benefits are included 

as income (Figure 5). For people of all ages, counting all government benefits as income reduces 

poverty from 29.1 percent to 16.0 percent, a reduction of 45 percent. In the case of children, the 

reduction is from 29.8 percent to 18.0 percent, a reduction of 40 percent. Clearly, government 

benefits reduce poverty a lot more than implied by the official poverty measure. 

Figure 6, taken from a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, captures 

an even more interesting and important feature of the system of benefits that support work 

provided by government. By the time Congress and President Clinton enacted welfare reform in 

1996, Congress had already created a set of programs that provided generous benefits to lowincome working families with children. These programs have been expanded many times over 

the years. The most important of these work support programs are the Earned Income Tax Credit 

(E!TC), the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), food stamps, and funds for child care 

(including Head Start). Since 1996, several of these programs have been expanded and an 

important new program- the ACTC- was created. The effect of these programs taken together 

is to increase the incentive to work for most low-income workers and to greatly increase the 

income and reduce the poverty rate of low-income working families. 

The Biblical injunction that the poor will always be with us may be correct, but no one 

has yet specified the share of a given population that will be poor. Figure 6 shows the impacts of 

federal benefits and the work support system in reducing poverty among single-mother families. 

The benefits are added in stepwise fashion so that we can trace the impact of the various 

programs and combinations of programs on the poverty rate. The most important point of the 

figure is that federal benefits greatly reduce the poverty rate among mother-headed families; in 

2013, for example, they reduced the poverty rate by halt~ from 48 percent to 24 percent. Another 

interesting point from the figure is that the system became even more effective in reducing 

poverty after the mid-1990s and the passage of welfare reform. The likely reason for this 

improved effectiveness of government programs in reducing poverty among low-income 

working families is that more and more single mothers worked and earned money that, when 

combined with work-support benefits, helped the mothers and their children to escape poverty. 

Perhaps the most important feature of the current system of work requirements in welfare and the 

nation's generous work support system is that year-after-year this system is effective in reducing 

poverty. In most years, the benefits reduce poverty by around half, almost certainly making the 

combination of work requirements to encourage low-income single mothers to work and the 

benefits provided by the work support system the most effective anti-poverty strategy for ablebodied adults the nation has achieved. 
61 

0 

Figure 5: Impact of Government Programs on Poverty Rates for 

People of All Ages and Children, 2012 

29.1 29.8 

Age Group 

Source.· Aloe Sherman, Sharon Parrott, and Dani/o TnSi. "Chart Book: The War on Poverty 

at 50. Section 3. "Januarv 7. 2014. Center on Budaet and Policv Priorities. BROOK! 

20% 

10% 

0% 

,...._Earned Income Only 

-11-Pius Cash benefits outside the tax system (UI, child support, 

SSI, AFDC, TANF, GA) i.e. "the official poverty rate" 

-a-Plus Food Stamps/SNAP 

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Year 

6 

Source: Thomas Gabe, Congressional Research Service, Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Chlldren: 1987-2013. 
62 

7 

Despite the nation's progress against poverty, a more fundamental criterion for evaluating 

the success of our social programs and our educational system is whether kids from poor families 

have an equal chance of getting ahead. In 1931, the American writer James Truslow Adams said 

that the American Dream meant that ''life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, 

with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.'' But as a nation we are very far 

from providing equality of opportunity. Figure 7 shows the relationship between the family 

income of children when they grow up and that of their parents. Reading from left to right, the 

first bar graph shows how children from parents in the lowest fifth of income (below about 

$21,000 in today' s dollars) fared as adults; the bar graph on the far right shows how children 

from parents in the highest fifth of income (above about $112,000); the other bar graphs show 

the middle three fifths respectively. 1 For example, the bar graph on the left shows that 43 percent 

of adult children from parents in the bottom fifth themselves wind up in the bottom fifth but only 

4 percent wind up in the top tifth. If America presented equal economic opportunity for all 

children regardless of their parents' income, both figures would be close to 20 percent. Clearly, 

the income of parents has a dramatic impact on the income of their children the precise 

opposite of equality of economic opportunity. This lack of economic opportunity for kids from 

poor families has not changed in several decades2 

Figure 7: Income Quintile of Children 

When they Grow Up Relative to Their Parents' Income Quintile 

Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, "Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations" 

(Washington: July 2012). 
63 

8 

Role of Communities 

It makes great sense for the Committee to focus attention on the role of local 

communities in fighting poverty and increasing economic mobility. Bob Woodson, a witness in 

today's hearing, is one of the most experienced and distinguished voices in mobilizing local 

communities to develop and implement their own solutions to poverty and lousy economic 

mobility. Bob's career has been based on the assumption that local communities know more 

about how to solve their problems than people from outside their communities. Listening to Bob 

will make all of us wiser about bow to work with local communities. 

The well-known Stanford scholar Raj Chetty and his colleagues have used earnings data 

from tax records to study the variability in economic mobility across communities in the U.S.3 

Chetty and his colleagues found major differences across communities in the rate at which poor 

children moved up the economic ladder. In addition, the research team found several factors that 

are correlated with higher economic opportunity across areas. One of the major predictors of 

greater mobility was the share of families in the respective communities that are female-headed 

families- families with higher concentrations of single-parent families have less mobility from 

the bottom. Another factor related to upward mobility was low levels of racial and income 

segregation. 

An important conclusion the Committee could draw from the Chetty et al. results is that 

rather than trying to characterize the opportunity for economic advancement for American 

children as a whole, it makes more sense to focus attention on the large differences in economic 

mobility across communities. The factors associated with greater or lesser mobility offer a way 

to begin thinking about changes that might improve mobility. We may be one nation, but 

conditions vary greatly from community to community and the solutions to poverty and low 

mobility are likely to need tailoring to local conditions. Chetty and his coauthors make clear in 

their reports that the correlations they find between community characteristics and mobility are 

not causal. Even so, these correlations may provide valuable insights for people trying to figure 

out community changes that might have at least some chance of improving poverty and mobility. 

The Chetty et al. study received a great deal of media attention, which included their 

identification of the ten communities with the lowest rate of movement from the bottom fifth of 

income to the top fifth. Communities that were near the bottom on this measure included 

Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio (although Cincinnati was not in the bottom ten). 

Members of this Committee might find it interesting to learn that both of these communities with 

low economic mobility have formed citizen groups composed of a broad representation of 

leaders from education, business, elected officials, and nonprofit organizations that focus on 

helping low-income individuals and families. Tip O'Neil used to say that all politics is local. 

That may or may not be true, but policy implementation is always primarily local. Thus, to have 

the nation's communities focused on how to reduce poverty and increase economic mobility is 

an exceptionally useful thing. There is good reason to think that solutions developed by local 

communities such as Charlotte and Cincinnati will be more effective than national or even state 

solutions rigidly imposed from outside the community. 45 
64 

9 

One concrete federal proposal the Congress could consider is the proposal to give 

communities more control over federal dollars so they could use federal resources in a manner 

best suited to solve local problems. On an abstract level, this is a worthy proposal. However, 

many Democrats have expressed concern that states and localities given flexibility might usc the 

money for purposes not anticipated by the elected federal officials who designed our current 

poverty programs and attached spending stipulations. The misuse of federal resources by state 

and local officials has been one of the most frequent criticisms of the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families block grant, the main component of the 1996 welfare reform law that is now in 

its 201

h anniversary year- receiving a great deal of attention. 

I think we face a policy situation in which both sides make a strong case. A possible 

compromise Congress could consider would be to allow for broad waivers in programs such as 

food stamps, housing, and Medicaid. These waivers would permit states and localities to try new 

uses of the federal resources if they can present strong proposals showing there is reason to 

believe their use of the money could achieve the objectives of the original programs but do so in 

a way that is better suited to state and local traditions, ideas, and resources. The Secretary of the 

federal agency with jurisdiction over the respective programs (food stamps, housing, Medicaid) 

would be the judge of whether the proposals from states and localities are promising and should 

be approved. 

Evidence-Based Policvmaking 

The final topic I have been asked to discuss is evidence-based policymaking. As signaled 

by the bipartisan passage of the Ryan-Murray Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission this 

year, over the last three or four years a bipartisan agreement that evidence can improve social 

programs has emerged. I regard this agreement as one of the most important developments in 

social policy in recent decades. There are at least three reasons the time is propitious for a major 

effort to base the nation's federal, state, and local policy on evidence- especially evidence of 

whether spcciJic social programs are having the impacts they were designed to produce. 

First, we now have scores of social intervention programs with rigorous evidence of 

success. These successful programs are spread across every area of social policy including 

promoting school readiness, increasing high school graduation rates, using employment and 

training to help young people qualify for better jobs, reducing poverty, avoiding unwed births, 

helping parents improve their child reading skills, reducing or mitigating the effects of child 

abuse and neglect, and many others. If federal grant programs spend most of their funds on 

evidence-based model programs and implement them well, we would make much greater 

progress against the nation's social programs, especially now that we have many effective 

programs and the number of such programs is increasing every year. 

Second, as suggested by the creation of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission 

by Congress, there are major recent developments in use of existing data sets for policy analysis. 

These developments include use of state and city data sets, data sets maintained by universities 

and private agencies, and of course data sets maintained by federal agencies. These various data 

sets contain a huge amount of information that could be used to improve the understanding of 

social problems and even to test the efficacy of previous policies. 
65 

10 

Most analysts believe that random-assignment designs are the gold standard of program 

evaluation. Because many of the city, state, and federal data sets have data on an entire universe 

of particular groups of people (such as K-12 students, prisoners, college students, taxpayers, 

recipients of public benefits, and so forth), often over a period of years, data from these data sets 

can serve as outcome measures to test the efficacy of social intervention programs that enroll 

people whose data are in these data sets. In addition, the Evidence-Based Commission is charged 

with examining the data sets now maintained by the Census Bureau, as well as the data sets 

maintained by other federal agencies, to determine ways of improving coordination of these data 

sets and improving access by researchers while maintaining the privacy of individuals. It is 

entirely possible that within the next decade we could see whole new vistas of policy analysis 

opened by the use of these existing data sets. The study based on tax return data by Raj Chetty 

and his colleagues referred to above provides a small taste of the types of sweeping analyses that 

will be possible in the near future 6 

Third, even now there are more and more local social intervention programs, often 

supported by federal and state dollars supplemented by private sector funds, that are being 

carefully implemented and evaluated. Over the next several years, due to the growing ability of 

program operators at the local level to employ high-quality evaluations to find out if their 

programs work and to use the results of the evaluations to improve their programs, it is 

reasonable to expect that we will have a growing number of effective social programs to attack 

leading social problems. Consider the examples of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) 

program and the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) 

created by federal legislation in 2009. Based on thorough reviews of the literature, conducted by 

the Department of Health and Human Services and the Mathematica Policy Research company, 

in 20 I 0 HHS concluded that there were 28 TPP programs and 7 home visiting model programs 

that met the HHS criteria for high-quality evidence showing that the programs produced 

significant impacts on important measures of teen sexual activity or teen pregnancy for the TPP 

program and maternal behavior or child outcome for the MIECHV program. By 2016, the 

literature reviews revealed that 44 programs (not just 28) now meet the TPP criteria and 19 home 

visiting programs (not just 7) meet the criteria. Although perhaps not increasing as dramatically 

as evidence-based teen pregnancy and home visiting programs capable of producing substantial 

impacts, there is now a constant stream of programs being shown by rigorous evidence to 

produce impacts in reducing social problems. Producing successful social intervention programs 

is the most fundamental and important step in evidence-based policymaking. We are making 

progress. 

Conclusion 

If Congress can ensure the continuation of adequate funds for social programs and find 

the proper balance between the control of social spending across the local, state, and federal 

levels, the modest success fighting poverty and increasing economic mobility the nation has 

achieved so far is likely to increase substantially because of the expanding capacity of evidencebased policy to improve the nation's social programs. 
66 

The views expressed in this statement are my own and do not necessarily reflect/hose of staff 

members, officers, or trustees of'the Brookings Institution. 

1 The figures come from Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of All 

Households: 1967 to 2013. Available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html. 

11 

2 Haskins & Sawhill, Creating an Opportunity Society 3 Chetty et al., "Where Is the Land of Opportunity: The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility 

in the U.S.'' 4 Foundation for the Carolinas Raises 1 Billion in the Past Two years," March 23, 2016, The 

Charlotte Observer. Available at: 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article67856097.html#1 

5

"Exclusive: United way Unveils 100 Million Plan to Reduce Poverty," March 6, 2015, WCPO 

Cincinnati. Available at: http://www. wcpo.com/lifestvle/unitcd-wav-unveils-1 00-million-plan-

!o-reduce-poverty-get-tristate-moving-in-right-direction 

6 For an excellent overview of these possibilities, see Julia Lane, 2016, "Big Data for Public 

Policy: The Quadruple Helix," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(3): 708-715; 

&722-724; and Ron S. Jarmin & Amy B. O'Hara, 2016, ''Big Data and the Transformation of 

Public Policy Analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(3): 715-721; & 725-

727. 
67 

Testimony on Renewing Communities and Providing Opportunities through 

Innovative Solutions to Poverty 

Presented to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Testimony of Olivia Golden 

Executive Director, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

CLASP is a national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty organization advancing policy solutions at the 

federal, state, and local levels that work for low-income people. The organization advocates for 

public policies and programs that reduce poverty, improve the lives of poor people, and create 

ladders to economic security for all. For more information, visit IJ.!.£12~C!!0~~~'21:!:. 

@CLASP_DC. 

June 22,2016 
68 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the 

opportunity to testify on innovative solutions for fighting poverty and addressing community needs. 

I am the executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), an anti-poverty 

organization that promotes effective federal and state policies for low-income families and individuals. In 

addition, I bring to this testimony experience administering human services programs in New York State, 

Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and, at the federal level, as Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families, as well as experience studying their effectiveness as a researcher at the Urban Institute. 

I would like to make four major points in this testimony: 

First, there is strong evidence to show that the nation's core economic security programs are highly 

effective: they sharply reduce poverty, improve nutrition and health care for millions of children, families, 

and individuals, and promote work. A recent success story is the historic expansion of health insurance, 

which reduced the number of individuals lacking health insurance by 8.8 million in just one year, from 

2013 to 2014, the largest decline on record. Moreover, a growing body of rigorous research shows that 

these supports have positive effects on children's health, work trajectory, and income many years later. 

Research also indicates overwhelmingly that these programs taken as a whole support work, especially 

for low-income parents, helping them to stabilize their lives, raise their children, and move up while they 

are working often long hours for low wages. 

Second, changes in the economy-which have fostered low-wage jobs that are also unstable, lack 

adequate hours, and require volatile, last-minute job schedules-mean that high employment rates do not 

translate into low poverty rates. These changes have affected a wide range of working Americans but 

their greatest impact has been on low-wage workers. ln addition, remaining gaps in the safety net-for 

example, the 19 states that have not expanded Medicaid and the more than 85 percent of eligible children 

who do not receive child care assistance because of capped dollars-also lead to economic distress and 

lost opportunities for workers to be productive and children to thrive. The nation's most vulnerable 

groups include America's next generation of children and young adults (particularly babies, toddlers, and 

their parents). While the safety net makes an important difference in their lives, too many are left behind 

by inadequate funding or program rules that do not reflect the realities oftoday's economy. 

Third, community-based innovations are most effective when they build on the foundation of a strong 

safety net. Research demonstrates that families who are highly vulnerable and face multiple challengesan important subset of the larger group of low-income people who need help from the safety net-are 

especially likely to need health and mental health services, as well as financial support meeting basic 

needs such as food and shelter while they are addressing deeper and more long-term challenges. Services 

such as case management complement but do not substitute for help with these basic needs. Therefore, a 

priority in supporting community innovation should be expanding Medicaid expansion in all states and 

ensuring continued support for a strong Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other 

economic supports nationwide. 

Finally, I will address next steps that Congress should take to reduce poverty and expand opportunity. 

Congress should avoid bad ideas that demonstrably don't work-such as block grants, misguided 

requirements, and cuts in key programs-and should seize opportunities that build on research and 

experience. These include expanded access to child care for all low-income parents, investment in 

effective workforce development programs and career opportunities, financial access to postsecondary 

education and completion for today's low-income students, crucial fixes to the work support system for 

adults and families, and basic standards for fairness at work, including raising the minimum wage. Many 

1 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
69 

of these solutions would also benefit middle-income Americans who struggle with some of the same 

problems that hold back parents, workers, and students living in poverty-such as the high cost of child 

care and of postsecondary education, the need to develop new skills, and the lack of paid leave and fair, 

predictable work schedules. 

America's Economic Security Programs Reduce Poverty, Help Children Thrive, and 

Support Work 

The key benefits oftoday's federal economic security programs, according to a large and growing body 

of research, are substantial reductions in poverty, improvements in the ability of low-income families and 

individuals to meet basic needs such as health and nutrition, and lifelong enhancements to children's 

health and economic success. While there are many ways to define the core group of economic security 

programs, in summarizing this research, I will focus on three groups of means-tested programs that are 

often identified as part of the national safety net. The largest and most widely available elements of the 

safety net for low-income individuals and families are Medicaid (and the closely related Children's 

Health Insurance Program or CHIP), SNAP, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and refundable 

Child Tax Credit (CTC). Another group of income- and work-support programs, including cash assistance 

from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (T ANF) block grant, housing subsidies, and child 

care subsidies, provide important supports to those who are able to receive them, but capped spending 

limits their reach. A third group of programs, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 

which received a bipartisan Congressional reauthorization in 2014, and the Higher Education Act do not 

provide direct income support, but help workers obtain the skills they need to advance in the labor 

market. 

Economic Security Programs Reduce Poverty 

The first important success of these programs is that they sharply reduce the poverty rate. Because the 

official federal poverty rate doesn't count the income that families get from these programs, assessing the 

reduction in poverty requires estimating an alternative poverty rate. In 2014, the Census Bureau's analysis 

of this Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) shows that refundable tax credits, such as the ElTC and 

CTC, reduced overall poverty (as measured by the SPM) by 3.1 percentage points and child poverty by a 

remarkable 7.1 percentage points. Similarly, SNAP benefits reduced overall poverty by 1.5 percentage 

points and child poverty by 2.8 percent.' Researchers at Columbia University who used similar methods 

to analyze the effect of these key programs over time found that in the most recent year available to them, 

2012, government tax and transfer policies reduced the share of people who are poor by almost half, from 

29 percent to 16 percent. By contrast, in 1967, tax and transfer programs reduced poverty by just l 

percentage point, from 27 percent to 26 percent 2 

Economic Security Programs Improve Low-Income Families' Lives and Children's 

Long-term Prospects 

A second success is that the federal safety net programs have dramatically changed the lives of lowincome families, both poor and near-poor, through large improvements in access to health care and 

nutrition. To take the example of health care, over the past decade, children's health insurance coverage 

increased dramatically as a result of bipartisan improvements to the safety net, particularly Medicaid and 

CHIP. In 2013, the Census Bureau found that only 7.3 percent of children under age 18, or 5.4 million 

children, were uninsured, a reduction of over 2 million uninsured children since 2000. 3 Then in 2014, as a 

result of the Affordable Care Act, adults' health insurance coverage soared to historic levels, with the 

2 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202} 906.8000 • f (202} 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
70 

share of Americans lacking insurance coverage down to 10.4 percent in 2014 from 13.3 percent in 2013. 

Young adults and low-income workers particularly benefitted, with adults ages 18 to 34 comprising over 

40 percent of the 8.8 million newly insured Americans. The uninsured rate for Americans living below 

the poverty line fell from 23.5 percent to 19.3 percent, and the rate for working adults living in poverty 

fell by almost a quarter, from 42.7 to 33.4 percent.' 

Children's and mothers' access to health insurance during pregnancy and in the first months of life is 

linked to significant reductions in infant mortality, childhood deaths, and the incidence of low 

birthweight.5 The Kaiser Family Foundation's recent review of the research finds, for example, that 

coverage through both Medicaid and private insurance is associated with improvements in health care 

access and utilization. 6 Research also demonstrates that Medicaid coverage improves access to care and 

overall health, and reduces mortality rates? A rigorous study in Oregon found that in the first one to two 

years of coverage, people who gained Medicaid increased overall health care utilization, reported better 

health, reduced financial strain, and sharply reduced depression compared to the control group. 8 

Even more striking is the evidence that addressing health and nutrition needs in the early years of life has 

important effects on children's long-term development. Recent rigorous studies of both SNAP and public 

health insurance have demonstrated the positive effects of access as a child to these safety net programs 

on life outcomes into adulthood. For example, a paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research 

finds that having access to SNAP in early childhood improves adult outcomes including health and 

economic self-sufficiency: Expanding health insurance coverage for low-income children has large 

effects on high school completion, college attendance, and college completion. 10 Expanded Medicaid 

coverage for pregnant women and infants has been shown to contribute to higher rates of 

intergenerational upward mobility. 11 

A growing body of research also demonstrates effects of other components of the safety net, including the 

EITC and the CTC, on children's success years later. Children whose families receive larger EITCs tend 

to have improved test scores, higher high-school graduation rates and higher college attendance rates. 

These academic benefits extend to children of all ages and racial and ethnic background-with an even 

larger effect for minority children on high school diploma or GED achievement." 

Economic Security Programs Support Work 

The recent House Republican Task Force Report on poverty repeats the outdated claim that safety net 

programs make low-income people less likely to work. This is simply not true; the overwhelming 

empirical evidence is that the safety net as a whole supports work, particularly for low-income parents. 

What typically holds people back from working is not too much support for work but too little-such as 

the absence of help with child care or the instability associated with not being able to afford a stable 

residence. 

One example may make this clearer before I go into the research evidence: Child care subsidies 

overwhelmingly have a pro-work effect, enabling mothers to work and work more steadily. But because 

funding for child care assistance is so limited, a mother who goes to work could find herself unable to get 

access to help in a particular state even though her earnings are far, far below what it would take for her to 

pay for the full cost of child care-which ranges from $5,500 to $16,549 for an infant in center-based care 

depending on the state. 13 There are important next steps Congress could take---in particular, major 

increases in investment to build on the recent bipartisan reauthorization of the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant (CCDBG)-to fix this obstacle. 

3 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.288S • www.clasp.org 
71 

Now let me turn to the evidence that strong safety net programs support work. 

First, the majority of people who get help from these core programs are in fact working-but earning too 

little to make ends meet. That's not surprising, since we've already seen that most poor children live in 

families with workers-their problem isn't reluctance to work but low wages, insecure jobs, or too few 

hours. Some programs, such as the EITC and CTC, are directed specifically to families with workersand they create an incentive to work more because they increase as earnings increase up to specified 

limits. But in other programs as well, participants have significant work attachment. For example, among 

all SNAP households with at least one working-age adult not receiving disability benefits, more than half 

have a member who works while receiving SNAP-and more than 80 percent work either in the year 

prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for SNAP households with children. 14 

Second, many rigorous studies analyzing the effects of the safety net programs on families' actual level of 

work find that when low-income working parents can get and keep the full package of work support 

programs, they are better able to stabilize their lives, keep a job, move up, and help their children thrive. 

For example, research on child care subsidies has consistently found that they play a key role in 

improving parents' employment outcomes, including stability of employment and earnings. Studies of 

parents leaving welfare for work have concluded that families accessing various work supports, including 

health insurance, SNAP, and child care, were more likely to be stably employed and less likely to return 

to welfare." Studies of the EITC show that its effects in increasing labor force participation are of far 

greater magnitude than its effects in reducing the hours of employment for those who are already 

working.'6 Empirical studies of the effects of the safety net as a whole confirm that, in practice, income 

support programs' work disincentives are so small as to have "almost no effect" on their anti-poverty 

effectiveness." 

Third, work effort among poor and near-poor mothers-the group eligible for the widest range of safety 

net benefits-has gone up, not down. In 1975, fewer than half of all mothers were in the labor force, and 

only about a third of mothers with a child under age 3, compared in 2012 to more than 70 percent of all 

mothers and 60 percent of mothers with a child under age 3." While married mothers were working more 

in the I 980s and early 1990s, since then, single mothers have closed the gap, with about three-quarters of 

single mothers in the labor force in 2014 compared to 68 percent of married mothers. 19 Given the 

practical and financial challenges involved in working in a low-wage job while caring for a young child, 

this work effort is remarkable. 

Finally, over the past decade, Congress has taken several steps to remove remaining barriers to work in 

the core economic security programs: 

The Affordable Care Act enabled states that expand Medicaid to remove a major potential 

disincentive to work. In the 31 states and DC that have expanded Medicaid, parents no longer 

have to fear that taking a job will eliminate their access to crucial health coverage. 

The bipartisan reauthorization ofCCDBG in 2014 allows a parent to keep child care assistance 

when her income rises. However, while helpful, this is only a partial fix: spending caps at the 

federal level still leave the vast majority of eligible families without the child care assistance they 

need in the first place. 

In the Omnibus Appropriations Act of December 20 I 5, Congress made permanent the increases 

in the EITC and the CTC provided temporarily through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was an enonnous win for low-income families, and it 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • I (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

4 
72 

strengthened work incentives by ensuring that families would start to receive the workencouraging benefits of the CTC at lower income levels. 

Perhaps because it starts from an inaccurate assessment oftoday's safety net, the House Republican Task 

Force proposal does not build on these steps or address any of the real concerns that low-wage workers 

may face-such as the lack of sufficient funding for child care assistance, or the health insurance 

coverage gap faced by low-income parents in states that have not expanded Medicaid. Instead, it doubles 

down on strategies that are not supported by the evidence, such as work mandates-for example, in 

housing assistance programs--even though work requirements without strong public investment in jobs 

and training typically serve only to cut poor individuals off from help they need, rather than helping them 

get jobs.20 It treats the provisions governing work in TANF as a model, even though they fly in the face 

of research evidence about what helps families succeed at work. For example, TANF's work participation 

rate requirement limits the type of countable, work-related activities," sharply restricting participation in 

post-secondary education despite the extensive body of evidence that effective skills training leading to 

postsecondary credentials that employers recognize as having value in the labor market is "the most 

important determinant of differences in workers' lifetime earnings and incomes."" 

Low Wages, Unstable Jobs and Budget Cuts Leave Far Too Many American Families 

Struggling to Make Ends Meet 

In spite of the support of the safety net, changes in the availability of secure, decent-paying jobs and the 

nature of low-wage work have created an enormous headwind for many Americans struggling for 

economic security. For example, a minimum wage job today has about 20 percent less value than when 

President Reagan took office, leaving a full-time minimum wage worker in a family of three well below 

the federal poverty line;23 the many low-wage workers who can't get ti.dl-time work earn even less. 

Budget cuts and gaps in the core economic security programs compound the problem. 

Unfortunately, many of those most vulnerable are children-particularly babies and toddlers-and young 

adults, who have the highest poverty rates among all Americans. More than one in five (21.1 percent) 

children and almost one in five ( 19.8 percent) young adults live in households with incomes below the 

federal poverty line ($19,073 for a family of three). Even families with incomes somewhat above this 

threshold often struggle to cover basic needs-and nearly 4 in 10 children are in families with incomes 

under twice the poverty level. 

Most of these poor children live in families where adults work, often long hours. Nearly 70 percent of 

poor children, or more than 10 million children, live in families with at least one worker and one-third 

live in families with at least one worker employed full-time, full-year. Among poor Hispanic/Latino 

children, the largest single group of poor children, 41.6 percent lived with at least one full-time, full-year 

worker and 76 percent lived in families with at least one worker. 

For these families, low wages, erratic schedules, inadequate or volatile hours, and rigid job demands all 

play a role in obstructing family economic security." Much of this is driven by the nature of jobs in 

today's low-wage labor market. For example, a city study found that almost 60 percent of the retail 

workforce is hired in part-time, temporary or holiday positions, and only 17 percent of workers surveyed 

have a set schedule." The lack of paid leave can result not only in the loss of wages but also in the loss of 

jobs. An Oxfam study found that one in seven low-wage workers reported losing a job in the past four 

years because they were sick or needed to care for a family member. 26 

5 1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
73 

While single parents face the greatest obstacles to economic security, and children living in single-parent 

families are much more likely to be poor, millions of children in two-parent families are also poor. More 

than 5 million children with married parents were poor in 2014, or more than 1 in 10 (11 percent) of all 

children in married-couple families. More than one in five (21 percent) Hispanic/Latina children in 

married-couple families is poor. 

Particularly vulnerable are children and young adults of color, whose circumstances have great 

importance to America's future: they are expected to make up over 50 percent of the nation's population 

of children by 2020.27 (Children under age 5 have already reached this milestone.)" Poverty rates for 

Black children and young adults are 37.1 percent and 29 percent respectively and for Hispanic!Latino 

children and young adults, 31.9 percent and 22.4 percent. 

These high rates of child poverty endanger not only the wellbeing of individual children but the future 

skills and capacity of America's labor force and the nation's economic future. Children who are born poor 

and are persistently poor are far more likely than their peers to fail to finish high school, become parents 

as teens, and experience poverty as adults. 29 And parents' low-wage work has the potential to compound 

children's developmental risk, because unstable work schedules make it difficult to secure stable child 

care and because parents' own stress affects children's development In addition, fully 40 percent of lowincome parents have no access to paid time off (no sick days or medical leave, no parental leave, no 

vacation), making it difficult to care for newborn or sick children.30 

Federal and state budget cuts and the sharp deterioration of block grant programs such as T ANF have 

compounded the problem. As a result of federal caps and state budget challenges, child care assistance 

spending is at a 12-year low and the number of children receiving CCDBG-funded assistance has reached 

a 16-year low, with nearly 364,000 fewer children receiving assistance in 2014 than in 2006. 31 Other 

programs have experienced even sharper cuts-since 2000, federal workforce development funding has 

been reduced by more than 40 percent in constant dollars. The TANF block grant, which has received no 

increase in funding since enactment in 1996 except for a temporary boost under ARRA, has lost one third 

of its value-combined with bad state choices, this has resulted in just 17 percent of poor children 

nationwide (and fewer than l 0 percent in 17 states) receiving cash assistance. 

Recent academic research has painted a powerful picture of the consequences for families and individuals 

of the changing low-wage labor market coupled with these gaps in the safety net Kathryn Edin's and 

Luke Shaefer's $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America provides national estimates of the 

staggering number of families living below this line--1.5 million households, with roughly 3 million 

children-along with powerful vignettes, showing the terrible consequences for parents and children of 

short-term jobs with no help in between. Matthew Desmond's Evicted shows how housing instability is 

both a cause and consequence of poverty, with families with children particularly at risk. Yet as both 

books indicate, there are practical next steps that communities and the nation can and should take to 

change this picture. 

Innovative Community-Based Solutions are Most Effective When They Build on the 

Foundation of a Strong Safety Net 

As a researcher, a federal, state, and local program administrator, and now in the provision of technical 

assistance around the country at CLASP, I have seen the intersection of local innovation and the national 

safety net framework from many angles. Both research evidence and my own experience demonstrate 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

6 
74 

that community innovators and the solutions they put into place are most effective when they can build on 

a strong safety net. Four lessons stand out about these connections. 

l. Families who are highly vulnerable and face multiple challenges (an important subset of the 

larger group of low-income people who need help from the safety net) are especially likely to 

need health and mental health services, as well as financial support meeting basic needs such as 

food and shelter while they are addressing deeper and more long-term challenges. Services such 

as case management complement but do not substitute for these basic needs. Therefore, a priority in 

supporting community innovation should be expanding Medicaid expansion in all states and ensuring 

continued support for a strong SNAP program and other economic supports nationwide. 

While the nature oftoday's low-wage work means that the broad range of poor and low-income workers 

and families need the assistance provided by SNAP, Medicaid, child care and housing benefits, and the 

refundable tax credits, some workers and families do need more intensive services. Estimates of the share 

of families that are most deeply vulnerable, with multiple co-occurring challenges such as health and 

mental health problems, very low education and skills, and homelessness, range from one in ten to 

perhaps one in four among the broader group of struggling low-income families, depending on what is 

counted.32 Pregnant women and families with infants under one year old are disproportionately 

represented among the most vulnerable and most deeply poor families --including families experiencing 

homclessness33- as well as among the broader group of poor and low-income families. 

Researchers have identified a number of features of programs that are successful for highly vulnerable 

individuals and families that face multiple challenges. These include: 

services that are intensive, high quality, and available over a long time (including approaches 

such as career pathways that allow individuals to enter and exit based on opportunities or crises 

in their lives); 

access to income support that meets basic needs and stabilizes their lives while they are receiving 

other help (including "earn while you learn" strategies such as subsidized jobs); 

access to health and mental health treatment; 

• two-generational approaches that target both children's and parents' needs; and 

a well-trained case manager who can provide help in the context of a trusting relationship, but 

only if they have small enough cascloads to build individualized relationships with clients, and 

adequate funding for concrete benefits and supportive services that families need.34 

The last point is important: case management is only supported by the research as a complement to -not 

instead of -high quality services and assistance to meet families' basic needs. Access to high quality 

health and mental health treatment, stable housing, adequate food, and quality child care provide the 

foundation upon which families can build in order to achieve economic security. Proposals to divert core 

benefits--as in the recent House Republican Task Force proposal to replace Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) benefits for children with undefined services," or the previous "Opportunity Grant" 

proposal that would have allowed states to divert SNAP for other purposes -- have no research support 

and would risk damage to highly vulnerable people. 

For example, when I led the District of Columbia's child welfare agency in the years before the 

Affordable Care Act, we knew that a major need of the deeply vulnerable families entering the child 

welfare system was mental health and substance abuse treatment. I still remember how tragic I found it 

when a child would enter our care because her mother had an untreated behavioral health problem such as 

7 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
75 

depression or substance abuse- particularly since the mother had often been trying her hardest for many 

years to protect her children from the effects of those problems without any help or support. We all 

realized that if we had been able to get treatment to the parent much earlier, the child might have been 

spared both the trauma of maltreatment and the trauma of removal from her family. But in the absence of 

health care for those families, we could only try small-scale innovations to help a very few families. 

Today, however, not only the District but also the 31 states that have taken the Medicaid expansion under 

the Affordable Care Act have an extraordinary opportunity to meet the crucial health and mental health 

needs of many vulnerable families- not only those who have reached a crisis that has brought them into 

the child welfare system. Studies of deeply vulnerable mothers-particularly those who are 

"disconnected" from both work and income support programs-and of youth and young adults of color 

have all highlighted unmet physical and mental health needs as a major challenge these individuals face, 

which in the absence of high quality treatment can often be so severe as to have major effects on work, 

school, and parenting. 36 One key example is maternal depression, which disproportionately affects poor 

mothers and, left untreated, risks damaging consequences both for mothers' work and school success and 

for their young children's cognitive development, health, and safety-yet is highly treatable when 

mothers have access to medical and mental health care. 37 

In our work on maternal depression at CLASP, informed by the experience in the District I've just 

described, we are partnering with states and community innovators to identify the best strategies for 

taking full advantage of Medicaid coverage for mental health screening and treatment. Building on the 

strong health care safety net in states that have expanded Medicaid, local innovators, such as our advisory 

board member for this project, Megan Smith of New Haven 's MOMS program, can be assured of solid 

financing for core services and can build from that foundation to develop the best approach for families at 

a much larger scale than would otherwise be possible. Our recent paper, Seizing New Policy 

Opportunities to Help Low-Income ,\Jot hers with Depression. highlights promising links between this and 

other innovative programs and strong Medicaid policies to identity and treat maternal depression. One 

conclusion is clear: states that have not yet expanded Medicaid should do so as soon as possible-and all 

states should work on improving the service delivery strategies that translate insurance coverage into 

services. 

2. Strong state administration of the core safety net programs-- to prevent unnecessary 

administrative and policy burdens that hamper families' ability to get and keep supports and to 

move up at work-- is important both to families and to community innovators. 

Administering safety net programs effectively and responsively is crucial both for highly vulnerable 

families and for the broader group of! ow-income working families who cannot afford to take time off 

work to stand in line or make repeated phone calls to a public agency. Effective and responsive 

administration is also very important for community innovators, because if public programs are highly 

burdensome and families are unable to maintain their eligibility in a streamlined way, local innovators 

may find themselves spending a great deal of case management energy simply managing or working 

around the system rather than helping the family. And when local innovators depend on funding from the 

public programs to support crucial services-for example, child care or mental health treatmentburdensome and bureaucratic administrative structures that keep families "churning" on and off the 

program take a financial toll as well. 

Strong state administration is also important for supporting work. Poorly administered programs can 

make it hard for low-income families to succeed at work-for example, parents in low-wage jobs will 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 905.8000 • f (202} 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

8 
76 

likely lose pay and even possibly lose their jobs if they have to wait in line to renew a Medicaid card or 

get food assistance for their family. But well-administered programs help families get and keep the full 

package of supports they need to stabilize their lives and move up on the job. Examples of promising state 

initiatives aimed at more effective service delivery for poor families include those undertaken under Work 

Support Strategies (WSS), a foundation-funded initiative led by CLASP and its national partners the 

Urban Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to help a bipartisan group of six states 

integrate and streamline service delivery of core economic and work support programs so that lowincome working families get and keep the full package that they are eligible for. 

Governor C.L. ("Butch") Otter of Idaho explained in a 2013 commentary that Idaho's commitment to 

streamlining access to SNAP, Medicaid, and child care subsidies comes from its goal of "helping families 

enter and succeed in the workforce." To achieve this goal, Idaho has sought to "identify gaps in the 

services available to low-income working Idahoans and reduce the impediments to receiving those 

services for which they are eligible ... "

38 Through WSS, Idaho, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode 

Island, and South Carolina seized the opportunities available under current federal law and policy to 

innovate, streamline, and integrate the major safety net programs (including Medicaid/CHIP, SNAP, and 

child care assistance) into a coherent package for families, in order to support their stability and success at 

work and at the same time improve efficiency and program integrity. 

By the end of the WSS period most states were providing faster service and improving access to both 

SNAP and Medicaid/CHIP to families eligible for both programs, and some had made progress in 

reducing the incidence of families temporarily losing work supports due to procedural issues ("churn"). 

Four states tracked the percentage of applications processed the same day as the client applied for service, 

and all of them saw improvements-in some cases nearly tripling. This required caseworkers to review 

applications when submitted and when possible, to verifY income and other infonnation on the spot. Four 

of the five states where the Urban Institute was able to measure joint participation in SNAP and 

Medicaid/CHIP -the share of those eligible for both programs who actually received both-made 

substantial progress toward the goal ofincreasingjoint participation between 201I and 2013.39 

3. Because families with infants and young children have particular vulnerability yet experience 

major gaps in the safety net, filling these gaps should be a high priority as part of building a 

foundation that can support community innovation. 

Across the country, large numbers of young children are affected by one or more risk factors that have 

been linked to academic failure and poor health.4

° Chief among them is family economic hardship, which 

is consistently associated with negative outcomes in these two domains 41 Many low-income children also 

experience other risk factors, including living with a teen mother, in a household without English 

speakers, or with parents who lack a high school diploma. Children affected by several adverse 

circumstances-three or more risk factors-are the most likely to experience school failure and other 

negative outcomes, including maladaptive behavior.42 Toxic stress, much studied in recent years, is the 

consequence of too many family disadvantages during the early years- and holds back children's health, 

learning, and success. 43 Yet as indicated above, families with infants and very young children are in fact 

over-represented among those who experience the deepest challenges, such as homelessness. 

As community leaders seek to address these challenges, they face a number of challenges and gaps in the 

national safety net. First, the labor market challenges described earlier are hardest to navigate for a parent 

of an infant-a low-wage job with an uncertain schedule and no paid days off at all for illness or to care 

for a newborn is likely to lead to a parent who is fired or quits and/or to a baby with unstable and 

9 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
77 

constantly changing care arrangements. So steps proposed in the next section to ensure baseline worker 

protections including paid family leave, paid sick days, and fair scheduling would be especially helpful 

for these vulnerable families. 

Second, gaps in two major public safety net programs are particularly problematic for families with 

infants. High quality infant child care is extremely expensive, and Early Head Start -which provides 

very high quality, comprehensive care for poor babies and toddlers and their families-serves only 5% of 

eligible young children. Investments in both CCDBG and Early Head Start provide a crucial foundation 

for community-based innovations. In addition, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ought 

to be a core support for families with infants, providing financial support during the first year of life as 

families get back on their feet. Too often, however, states go beyond what federal law requires in ways 

that have the effect of denying families with infants the help they need. This creates unnecessary hardship 

for the most vulnerable families, and means that community programs must spend much of their energy 

fighting to get their clients the basic necessities rather than providing innovative services. A recent 

CLASP paper on TANF and the First Year of Life provides practical solutions and examples of promising 

state policies and local programs." I am pleased to report that just this month, California has repealed its 

"maximum family grant" or family cap, which denied aid to children if they were born while their parents 

received welfare. 

Finally, a promising approach with growing research support is "two-generational" strategies that aim to 

help young children and their parents together. Head Start and Early Head Start represent longstanding 

versions of this strategy, and home visiting programs offer additional opportunities. The Affordable Care 

Act offers important policy opportunities as well. A number of states and cities are utilizing and 

experimenting with such approaches. Most of these initiatives are relatively small and focus on service 

delivery, but there are also important large scale policy opportunities.45 

4. States and the federal government should pay particular attention to systemic disparities that 

can weaken the safety net for families of color and those living in high-poverty communities. 

Targeted place-based innovations in these communities will succeed best when they build on 

strong foundations- instead of having to push back at obsolete policy or operational barriers 

that keep families from meeting core needs. 

Some communities face particularly high rates of poverty and lack of economic opportunity, and these 

challenges must be addressed at the national, state, and community level. When state and federal policy 

and funding choices, or capped federal budgets, disadvantage communities of color and high-poverty 

communities, that once again places extra obstacles in the way of community innovators. For example, a 

recent CLASP paper on disparities by race/ethnicity and state in child care and Head Start funding found 

a very low rate of access for Latino children (8 percent of those eligible). Both state policy decisions and 

shrinking federal funding likely play a role-but in either case, lack of access poses a major barrier for 

innovators addressing needs in these communities. 

In addition to a strong safety net supported by public investment at the federal and state levels, these 

communities also need a special focus from many public systems and private partners, including the 

secondary and postsecondary education systems, business and industry, community providers, workers, 

parents, youth, and philanthropy, to put in place a comprehensive, community-wide approach. Carefully 

designed strategies to help these systems align eligibility requirements, performance measures, and 

reporting requirements, as under the Performance Partnership Pilots for disconnected youth, can be a 

10 1200 18th Street NW o Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 o p (202)906.8000 • f (202)842.288S o www.clasp.org 
78 

helpful element of a comprehensive community strategy. However, it is critical that these efforts be 

carefully designed to ensure that the most vulnerable populations are appropriately served. 46 

Next Steps for Reducing Poverty and Expanding Opportunity 

To reduce poverty and help vulnerable Americans work, raise children, and succeed, Congress should pay 

attention to the evidence about what works, avoid bad ideas even if they sound good, and commit to 

selected bold next steps where we know investment will pay off. 

Avoid bad ideas 

Given the strong evidence about the safety net's importance to family wellbeing, children's long-term 

outcomes, and stable and sustainable work, the worst thing that Congress could do is ignore the research 

and undermine success. That means avoiding bad ideas, including turning core safety net programs into 

block grants, imposing misguided work requirements that threaten access to food, health care, and other 

essential benefits, or cutting the federal budget for low-income work supports. 

Block Grants Have a History of Failure 

All the available experience with block grants suggests that they don't work for core safety net programs. 

The history of block grants shows that, since there is no direct link between spending and need, their 

Congressional appropriations shrink drastically over time-as with the reductions in TANF and CCDBG 

cited earlier47-and they cannot respond to economic downturns. For example, during the recent Great 

Recession, SNAP and Medicaid, which are not block grants, provided greater support to states, 

communities, and families as economic need rose. From 2007 to 2011, SNAP caseloads and federal 

support to states went up in response to the recession-driven increase in need, leveling off and then 

beginning to decline as the economy has recovered. By contrast, block grants like T ANF do not increase 

federal assistance in a recession, leaving states caught between a rising number of families seeking help 

and declining state tax revenues. National T ANF cash assistance caseloads responded only modestly to 

the deep recession and in six states caseloads continued to decline from 2007 to 2009 in the face of 

sharply rising need-leaving families and states without resources just when they needed help most. 

Block grant proponents sometimes argue that flexibility can compensate for inadequate funding, but the 

evidence suggests that just isn't true. Taking advantage of flexibility to get rid of extra bureaucratic steps 

can save modest administrative costs, but it doesn't come close to filling the gaps in seriously 

underfunded programs. For example, CCDBG is highly flexible, but as a result of capped federal funding, 

the number of children served has hit the lowest number in more than a decade. 

Increased flexibility also risks diverting funds from programs' core mission. For example, the most recent 

available data show that states spent just over a quarter ofTANF and state maintenance of effort funds on 

cash assistance, and another quarter on work activities and child care. The remaining funds went to a 

variety of state services and supports for low-income families, in some cases supplanting previous state 

spending." It does not make sense to allow states to trade off intensive services or case management for 

the most vulnerable families against core health or nutritional supports to other needy families-or to 

force states into these trade-offs as a result of shrinking federal budget investments. 

Finally, block grants are ill-suited to supporting core national goals-such as ensuring that every 

American starts life healthy and well-nourished-but instead contribute to disparate life chances based on 

where a child is born. This is true not only because states may make different choices about their level of 

commitment to needy families but also because capped federal funding short-changes states with a 

11 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202)906.8000 • f (202)842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
79 

growing number of poor children and families over time, as in the South and Southwest. Compounding 

the damage, this capped funding may have a disproportionate effect on Black and Hispanic/Latino 

children who are particularly likely to live in these states. For example, as mentioned before, CLASP's 

analysis of CCDBG shows that only 8 percent of eligible Hispanic/Latino children get help compared to 

about 13 percent of eligible children overall, with large differences across states--some likely due to state 

policy choices and some to capped federal funding.'9 

Misguided Requirements Block Access Instead of Supporting Work 

Given the large share of low-income families who are already employed yet still need help making ends 

meet, along with the many barriers to steady work in the low-wage labor market, the best evidence 

suggests that so-called "work requirements" are not effective strategies for increasing work hours and 

earnings. What many low-income families-already working long hours in low-wage jobs while also 

raising children-need the most is easy, straightforward access to health insurance and assistance paying 

for food and child care. In these cases, the best way for states to promote work is a commitment to 

streamlined access-as in Louisiana, expanding Medicaid this summer and becoming the first state to 

take advantage of a new federal option for states to use information in SNAP files to easily enroll people 

in Medicaid. 

In fact, work requirements are too often counter-productive. For example, untreated physical and mental 

health conditions are a major barrier to work-so getting health insurance and treatment is an important 

step on the way to stable work. Imposing a work requirement as a condition of health insurance places 

applicants in a harsh "catch-22"--those who can't meet the requirement without treatment are exactly the 

ones who get cut off. Similarly, hungry people are less likely to succeed in school or work. 

The evidence from TANF highlights that mandatory work programs are too often a barrier to access 

rather than a springboard to economic security, in part because good programs require substantial state 

and federal investment. While there are exceptions in individual communities, employment programs tied 

to T ANF often have little to offer in the way of effective services. Both the requirements (sometimes 

driven by the federal participation rate, other times by state choices) and the programs offered are likely 

to reflect outdated perspectives about what works, in contrast to the more current, evidence-driven 

approaches included in Congress's bipartisan reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) with its emphasis on career pathways, effective programs to help participants 

earn industry-recognized postsecondary credentials, and "earn while you learn" subsidized job strategies. 

In other cases, punitive provisions described as "work requirements" in fact have nothing to do with 

work, as in the SNAP time limits for so-called "able-bodied adults without dependents." These 

individuals are already required to accept suitable job offers, so the so-called work requirement is really a 

time limit. After three months receiving SNAP assistance, these individuals must actually be working or 

in approved training a full 20 hours per week or else be cut off-yet states are not required to offer them 

an opportunity to participate in an employment program. Federal law allows for an exemption from this 

requirement in areas of high unemployment, but an increasing number of states have turned down the 

waivers for which they are eligible. Given today's low-wage labor market, this means that people who are 

actively searching for employment and those who are working but not meeting the required 20 hours per 

week will be forced off of SNAP-raising the likelihood that they will skip meals, struggle with food 

insecurity, and find it hard to sustain stable work. 

Thus, strategies to encourage work across benefit programs should focus on making effective work and 

training opportunities available, drawing on the lessons of WIOA and of successful local and state 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202} 906.8000 • f (202} 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

12 
80 

initiatives. They should never disqualify individuals from benefits when no appropriate training or work 

experience has been offered to them; and they should never be a condition for children's access to 

benefits or for anyone's--children's or adults'-access to health insurance. 

Cuts Harm Low- and Moderate-Income Americans 

Struggling families also face damage from past and threatened budget cuts. From FY 2010 through FY 

2016, out of the 164 programs tracked by the Coalition on Human Needs, 139 sustained cuts in funding, 

accounting for inflation; only 25 grew. Nearly half(67) were cut by 15 percent or more, and nearly onethird (54) were cut by 25 percent or more. 5° These cuts have limited low-income families' access to 

housing, to youth services, to education and training, and other core programs. Alarmingly, the budget 

resolution proposed by the House of Representatives would increase these cuts, harming low- and 

moderate-income people, and would cut discretionary spending far more deeply than envisioned even 

with sequestration. Non-defense discretionary spending would drop from $518.5 billion in FY 2017 down 

to $472 billion in the next year; it then would stay absolutely flat for the next nine years, eroding with 

inflation year by year, leading to a total cut of $887 billion as compared to current policy through 2026. 

Take Bold Next Steps, Supported by the Evidence 

As we've seen, reducing poverty and promoting opportunity for America's families requires tackling the 

economic headwinds facing workers, building on emerging insights and successes, and filling remaining 

gaps in the safety net. Congress should consider five bold next steps. 

1. Help parents work and children thrive by ensuring access to high-quality child care and 

early education programs. 

High-quality child care and early education programs arc central to parents' work and to children's wellbeing, development, and opportunities to escape poverty as adults-yet few low-income parents can 

afford such programs without help. As a consequence of capped federal funding, the number of children 

receiving child care subsidies under CCDBG is the lowest it has been since 1998; Head Start serves less 

than half of eligible preschoolers and fewer than 5 percent of poor babies and toddlers. 

Increased funding for child care should be an urgent priority as part of an agenda to reduce poverty, 

promote opportunity, and strengthen the American economy more broadly. A virtually unanimous 

bipartisan majority in the Congress voted for CCDBG reauthorization in 2014, including improvements to 

support quality and allow parents to move up at work. Yet, as Congress recognized in last year's budget 

deal, making these improvements will require resources. We strongly recommend that Congress commit 

to an increase of$1.2 billion in CCDBG in 2017 to ensure that states can implement the law without 

further reducing the number of children served. 

But reducing poverty and increasing opportunity requires a bolder next step--not just avoiding cuts but 

reaching the five of six eligible children who are currently unable to get help because of funding limits. 

Guaranteeing child care assistance for all low-income parents with young children, as proposed by 

President Obama in the 2017 budget, would go a long way to expand economic opportunity for families. 

2. Ensure access to high-quality workforce development programs and career 

opportunities to all low-income and low-skilled workers, both youth and adults. 

WIOA, enacted by the Congress in 2014 with bipartisan support, includes improvements in workforce 

development programs to give low-income workers access to good jobs and careers. Steps forward 

include a focus on demand-driven training, including postsecondary education leading to employment; 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

13 
81 

requirements to develop career pathways that allow participants to link training, credentials, and work 

experience in individualized ways, building skills over time; and a strengthened priority for serving lowincome, lower-skilled individuals, including recipients of public assistance benefits and out-of-school 

youth. 

But valuable as they are, these provisions will not achieve their full intended effect on low-wage and lowskilled workers' success on the job without adequate funding, at the levels authorized in the law. Given 

the 40 percent reduction in federal funding for workforce development noted earlier, even greater 

investments would be required to truly enhance opportunity for low-income workers. 

A number of other investments would make a big difference for low-skilled and low-income workers. 

These include strengthening dropout recovery strategies and advancing career and technical education 

programs that align with WIOA by bridging high school and postsecondary levels and targeting special 

attention to low-income students. And given the high levels of economic distress among youth and young 

adults, Congress should make substantial investments in youth employment, including but not limited to 

summer employment, with the jobs carefully linked to learning and career development. 

3. Tear down financial barriers to postsecondary success for today's low-income students. 

Postsecondary credentials are crucial for economic success in today's labor market. Yet far too many 

students fail to complete the education they need because of financial barriers. One key reason is that 

policies are not aligned with the reality of who today's students are: half of all college students-and far 

more among students of color and students in two-year colleges-are financially independent of their 

parents, and one quarter of students are parents themselves. These students' college completion is 

threatened by their deep levels of unmet financial need, which are higher among students of color. 51 

Unmet need, driven both by spiraling costs of college tuition and fees and by the costs of transportation, 

books, supplies, food, and housing, often leads students to drop out, borrow more, decrease their course 

load, or increase their work hours to levels inconsistent with staying in school. 

Congress should reform the Higher Education Act to make financial aid responsive to today's students 

and address the needs and attendance patterns of nontraditional and low-income students. Crucial policy 

reforms include reinstating year-round eligibility for Pell grants (which has received hi-partisan support) 

and ensuring that student aid is available for working students, including those attending less than halftime; connecting financial aid with other programs, benefits, and sources of student assistance;52 and 

funding new federal-state partnerships providing two years of tuition- and fee-free community college 

through "first-dollar" scholarships that are accessible to nontraditional students53 

4. Fix gaps in the safety net and support work for the neediest Americans. 

As noted earlier, despite the broad-brush successes of the safety net, its gaps take a serious toll on the 

neediest Americans. Congress should consider two timely steps to support work and meet basic needs. 

Support work by building on the successes of the E!TC and CTC. The most immediate step would be to 

expand the EITC for childless workers and young adults. Under current law, individuals without 

dependent children can only receive a very small credit-a maximum of about $500-and begin to lose 

the benefit even before their earnings reach the poverty threshold. Younger and older workers are at a 

further disadvantage because, under current law, the EITC is only accessible to eligible individuals 

without dependent children if the workers are between ages 25 and 65. 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

14 
82 

Broadening the age range would be particularly valuable for young adult workers, many of whom begin 

careers in low-wage jobs-both helping them make ends meet and encouraging workforce participation. 

A White House report estimates that 3.3 million working youth under age 25 would be newly eligible for 

the EITC under the president's proposal, accounting for over 24 percent of all workers who would benefit 

from this expansion. 54 

There is bipartisan support for expanding the EITC for workers without qualifying children and making it 

available to younger workers starting at age 21. All of the proposals increase the maximum credit rate for 

childless workers, doubling it from the current level. I urge you to move this proposal without delay. 

In addition, Congress should make the CTC fully refundable so that the lowest-income workers can 

benefit. The CTC exists because we recognize that raising children is costly at all income levels; it does 

not make sense for parents who are unable to find consistent work to be shut out. 

Strengthen TANF as both a safety net and a work program. Last summer, the House Ways and Means 

Committee released a discussion draft of a bill to reauthorize TANF, which has been operating under 

short-term extensions since 2010. We are pleased that the discussion draft bill made critical changes to 

improve the TANF work participation rate (WPR), as CLASP has long advocated. The bill would give 

states greater flexibility to serve individuals with barriers to employment and other disabilities, and would 

count more education and training activities toward the WPR to support TANF recipients in obtaining the 

skills and credentials needed to sustain employment. These changes would both reflect ways in which our 

changing economy increasingly requires higher levels of education for family-sustainingjobs, and would 

remove barriers that prevent states from aligning TANF work programs with the workforce programs 

under WIOA. However, the draft bill did not provide states with additional federal resources, and did not 

hold them accountable for TANF's effectiveness as a safety net. President Obama's FY 2017 budget 

proposal includes some important recommendations in this area. 55 We would welcome the opportunity to 

build upon the comments we have already submitted regarding the discussion draft56 and to share our 

thoughts on how to strengthen TANF as both a safety net for the most vulnerable families and a work 

program. 

5. Establish minimum standards for wages and key aspects of job quality, so jobs support 

rather than destabilize families. 

As we've seen, many Americans work hard yet carmot make ends meet because of inadequate wages or 

hours, unpredictable schedules that do not allow them to keep the family budget on an even keel or secure 

stable child care, and the lack of any paid leave to care for an infant, a sick child or family member or to 

recover from their own illness. While some employers ensure all their workers have these basic elements 

of stable work, far too many do not. For example, about 40 percent of all workers do not have paid sick 

days; many more do not have paid family and medical leave. Further, the lack of minimum standards in 

jobs aggravates the nation's inequalities57, including racial inequalities." That's why it's crucial to pass 

public policies. Currently, states and localities across the country are enacting such statutes (for example, 

New York state just became the fourth to provide paid family and medical leave), and over 30 

jurisdictions including 5 states now have a statute that ensures workers can earn paid sick days. There are 

now models and research that can inform Congressional action. 

No serious effort to reduce poverty and promote opportunity can sidestep the importance of decent, 

stable, family-supportingjobs. Congress should pass legislation to upgrade the minimum wage and to 

create new national policies for paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, and fair scheduling. 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p {202) 906.8000 • f {202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

15 
83 

Congress should take up consideration of the Raise the Wage Act, the FAMILY Act, the Healthy 

Families Act, and the Schedules that Work Act. 

Conclusion 

America's core economic security programs reduce poverty, improve the lives of low-income families, 

promote children's long-term success, and support work. Yet changes in the economy that have fostered 

low-wage, insecure jobs, as well as budget cuts and remaining gaps in the safety net, have left far too 

many people struggling to make ends meet. 

But the good news is that rigorous research as well as recent experience offer considerable evidence about 

what works and what needs to be fixed. Learning from that evidence, Congress should avoid bad ideas 

that demonstrably don't work-such as block grants, misguided requirements, and cuts in key programsand should seize opportunities that build on success. Thank you and !look forward to your questions. 

16 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202} 906.8000 • f (202} 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 
84 

1 Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). An In-Depth Look at 2014 Census Data and Policy Solutions to 

Address Poverty, September 17, 2014, http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-IiAn·lnDepth· 

Look-at-2014-Census-Data.pdC 

'Christopher Wimer, Liana Fox and lrv Garfinkel, Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty 

Measure. Columbia Population Research Center (CPR C), Columbia University School of Social Work, December 

2013, 

http://socialwork.columbia.edu/sites/default!Jiles/file manager/pdt:s/News/Anchored%20SPM.December7.pdf. 3 Data from the Current Population Survey, "Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected 

Characteristics for Children Under 18'', U.S. Census Bureau, accessed June 22,2015. 4 CLASP, An In-Depth Look at 2014 Census Data. 5 Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, The impact of Medicaid and SCHIP on Low-income 

Children's Health, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009, 

https:/ /kaiserfamilyfoundation.fi les. wordprcss.com/20 13/0 I /7645-02.pdf. 6 Samantha Artiga et al., Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to and Utilization of Care among Insured Adults, 

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, August 2015, http://ktf.org/disparitics-policy/issue-bricflracial-and-cthnicdisparities-in·access-to-and-utilization-ot:care-among-insured-adults/. 

7 Stan Dorn and John Holahan. "The Benefits Of Medicaid Expansion: A Reply To Heritage's Misleading Use Of 

Our Work" Health Affairs Blog. May 2013, http://healthat1airs.org/blog/2013/05/03/the-benetits-otcmedicaidexpansion-a-reply-to-heritagcs-misleading-use-of-our-work/. 

8 Katherine Baicker et al., "The Oregon Experiment- Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes", Oregon Health 

Study Group, New England Journal ofMedicine, 368, May 2, 2013, 

http://www .ncjm.org/doi/full/ I 0.1 056/nejmsal212321 #t~articleresults. 9 Hilary W. Haynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond, Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access 

to the Safety Net, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2012, 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w 18535. 10 Sarah Cohodes, Samuel Kleiner, Michael f. Lovenheim, et al., The Effect of Child flealth Insurance Access on 

Schooling: Evidence from Public Insurance Expansions, Working Paper No. 20178, National Bureau of Economic 

Research, May 2014, http://www.nber.org/papers/w20178. 11 Rourke L. O'Brien and Cassandra L. Robertson, Medicaid and Intergenerational &anomie lvfobility, Institute for 

Research on Poverty, April 2015, http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp 142815.pdf. 12 Chuck Marr et al., EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children's 

Development, Research Finds, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October I, 2015, 

http://www .cbpp.org/rcsearch/f edcral-tax/eitc-and-child -tax -credit -promote-work -reduce-povertv -and·supportchildrens. 

13 Parents and the High Cost of Child Care: 20I4 Report, Child Care Aware of America, 2014, 

http://www .usa. chi ldcarca ware.org/advocacy /reports-research/costo fcarel. 14 Dottie Rosenbaum, The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Household<, Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities, January 29,2013, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa~view&id~3894. 

15 Gregory Mills, Jessica F. Compton, Olivia Golden, Assessing the Evidence about Work Support Benefits and LowIncome Families: Rationale for a Demonstration and Evaluation, Urban Institute and Ford Foundation, February 

2011, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF /412303-Work-Support-Bcnefits.pdf. 16 Nada Eissa and Hilary W. Hoynes, "Behavioral Responses to Taxes: Lessons from the EITC and Labor Supply." 

Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, edited by James M. Poterba, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. 17 Yonatan Ben-Shalom, Robert A. Moftitt, and John Karl Scholz, "An Assessment of the Effectiveness of AntiPoverty Programs in the United States," prepared for the 2012 Oxford Handbookqfthe Economics of Poverty, 

Chapter 22. A version of this study is available at http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publicationsldps/pdt:s/dpl392ll.pdf. 

""Women in the Labor Force: A Databook," Report 1049, Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2014, 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2013.pdf 

19 "Employment Characteristics of Families Summary --2014,'' Bureau of Labor Statistics, April23, 2015, 

http://www. b ls.gov /news.rclcase/famee.nrO .htm. 20 LaDonna Pavetti, Work Requirements Don 'I Cut Pol·erty, Evidence Shows, Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, June 20 16, http:/ /v.'\V\V. cbpp .org/research/ povertv -and-inequality /work -reg u iremcnts -dont-cut -povertyevidence-shows. 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202)906.8000 • f (202)842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

17 
85 

21 Elizabeth Lower-Basch, TANF 101: Work Participation Rate, CLASP, June 20I6, 

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-pubiications/publication-Irr ANF -I 01-Work-Participation-Rate.pd[ 22 U,S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, What Works in Job Training: A Synthesis of the Evidence, July 20I4, 

http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/jdt/jdt.pdf. 

23 The White House, "Raise the Wage," https://www.\vhitehousc.gov/raise-the-wage. 24 CLASP, An In-Depth Look at 2014 Census Data. 25 Stephanie Luce and Naoki Fujita, Discounted Jobs: How Retailers Sell Workers Short, City University of New 

York (CUNY) Murphy Institute and Retail Action Project, 2012 

http:i/retailactionproject.org/wp-contcnt/uploads/2012/01/RAP Executive Summarv and Cover.pdf. 26 Liz Ben-Ishai, Wages Lost Jobs at Risk: The Serious Consequences of Lack ofPaid Leave, CLASP, February 13, 

20 I5. http://www .clasp.org/resources-and-pub licationsipub lication-I/2 0 l 5-02-03-FMLA-Anniversary-B riel~ 3 .pdf. 27 Sandra L. Colby and Jennifer M. Ortman, Projections of the Size and Composition of 

the US Population: 2014 to 2060, U.S. Census Bureau, March 2015, 

https:/ /www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/20 I5/dcmo/p25-l l 43 .pdL 28 Janie Boschma, "Toddlers Might Be Taking Over Your State," National Journal, June 26, 20I5, 

http://w\vw.nationaljournal.com/next-america/early~childhood/toddlers-might-he-taking-ovcr-your-state. 

29 Caroline Ratcliffe and Signc-Mary McKernan, Child Poverty and Its Lasting Consequence: Summary, Urban 

Institute, September 20 I2, http://www.urban.org/lJploadedPDF/412658-Child-Poverty-and-lts-LastingConsequence-Summary.pd[ 

30 Harold Leibovitz, "Two in Five Low-Wage Working Parents Receive No Paid Leave'' Urban Institute, April 

2004, http://www.urban.org/publications/90070 I.html. 31 Hannah Matthews and Christina Walker, Child Care Spending and Participation 2014, CLASP, March 2016, 

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publicationsipublication-1/CC-Spending-and-Partic ipation-20 14-l.pdf. 32 Olivia Golden et.al, Economic Security for Extremely Vulnerable Families. 33 Calculated from AHAR HMIS 20I2: https://www.onccpd.info/resourcc/3297/2012-ahar-volume-2-estimates-ot~ 

homelcssness-in-the-us/ and Census: 2012 Population Estimates: PEPSYASEXN- Annual Estimates of the 

Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States: April I, 2010 to July I, 2012, Accessed 

through American Fact Finder2 l1/12/20I3 34 Olivia Golden et.al, Economic Security for Extreme~v Vulnerable Families. 35Kathlecn Romig, "GOP Poverty Plan Would Hurt Some of Most Vulnerable Children," Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities, June IS, 20 I6, http://www.cbpp.org/blog/gop-poverty-plan-would-hurt-some-o!~most-vulncrablechildren. 

36 Olivia Golden et.al, Economic Security for Extremely Vulnerable Families. 37 Stephanie Schmit, Hannah Matthews, Olivia Golden, Thriving Children, SuccessfUl Parents: A Two-Generation 

Approach to Policy. July 20I4, http://www.clasp.ore/resources-and-publications/publication-lrrwo-Gcn-Brie!~ 

FINAL.pdt: 

38 New Perspectives on Transforming States' Health and Human Sen·;ces: Practical Commentaries on the First 

Year of the Work Support Strategies Initiative, Work Support Strategies: Stream lining Access, Strengthening 

Families, Editt!d by Olivia Golden, Urban Institute, June 2013, http:/lwv.'w.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412833-NewPcr.spcctives·on-Trans forming-States-Health -and -1-Iuman~Servkes.pd f 39 Heather Hahn, Findingsfi·om the Work Support Strategies Evaluation: Streamlining Access, Strengthening 

Families, Urban Institute, June 2016. (Forthcoming), http://www.urban.org/research/publication/tindings~work~ 

support-strategies-evaluation-streamlining~access-strengthcning-familics. 

40 Ratcliffe and McKernan, Child Poverty and its Lasting Consequences; Lawrence Aber, Pamela Morris and Cybele 

Raver, "Children, Families and Poverty: Definitions, Trends, Emerging Science and Implications for Policy," 

Society for Research in Child Development 26 (20I2), http://www.clasp.org/documcnts/SRCD-Sociai-PolicyReport-20 I2.pdf. 41 Kevin Fiscella and Harriet Kitzman, "Disparities in Academic Achievement and Health: The Intersection of Child 

Education and Health Policy," Pediatrics, 123 (2009). 42 Leslie Morrison Gutman, Arnold J. Sameroft: and Robert Cole, "Academic Growth Curve Trajectories from Ist 

Grade to 12th Grade: Effects of Multiple Social Risk Factors and Preschool Child Factors,'' Dev~lopmental 

Psychology 39 {2003). 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

18 
86 

43 Jack P. Shonkoff, AndrewS. Garner, eta!. 'The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress,'' 

Pediatrics 129 (2012). 44 Elizabeth Lower-Basch and Stephanie Schmidt, TANF and the First Year of Life: Making a Difference at a 

Pivotal Moment, CLASP, October 2015, http://www.clasp.org/rcsources-and-publications/tanf-and-thc-first-year-of46 Linda Harris and Kisha Bird, Comments to U.S. Department of Education Request for Information on Strategies 

for Improving Outcomes for Disconnect Youth, CLASP, July 2012, http://www.clasp.org/rcsources-andpublications/files/C LASPCommentstoUSDOE-20 120V AEOO 14.Final-2.pdf. 47 lbid. 48 Elizabeth Lower-Basch, TANF IOI: Block Grant, CLASP, August 2015, http://www.clasp.org/resources-andpublications/publication-lfr ANF -I 0 1-Biock-Grant.pdL 49 Stephanie Schmit and Christina Walker, Disparate Access: Head Start and CCDBG Data by Race and Ethnicity, 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). February 2016, http://w"w.clasp.org/resources-andpuhl icationslpubl icat ion-1/Disparate-Access. pdf. 5

° Coalition on Human Needs, Despite Gaines in FYI 6 From Lifling Sequester Caps, Most Human Needs Programs 

Have Lost Ground Since 20IO, February 2016, htlp:/lwww.chn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Despite-Gains-inFY 16-Most-Programs-Lost-Ground-Since-20 I 0-chart -and-cover -page-02-22-20 16 .pdf. 51 Lauren Walizer, Reform the HEA to Address the Unmet Needs of Low-Income and Nontraditional Students, 

CLASP, August 14,2015, http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-puhlicationslpublication-IICLASP-HEARecommendations-Fil\A1,.pdt'. 

52 Amy Ellen Duke Benfield, Bolstering Nontraditional Student Success: A Comprehensive Student Aid System 

U.sing Financial Aid, Public Benefits, and Refundable Tax Credits, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), 

December 20 15, http;/ /www. clasp.org/resources-and-publ icatio ns/bolsterin g-non-traditi onal-studcnt -success 53 Lauren Walizer, Making a Place for Non-Traditional Students in Free, Reduced Price College Programs, 

CLASP, May 2015, http://www. clasp.org/rcsources-and-publications/publication-1 /Making-a-Piacc-fc>r-NonTraditionai-Students-in-Free-Reduced-Priced-Collegc-Programs.pdf. 

54 54 Executive Office of the President and U.S. Treasury Department, The President's Proposal to Expand the 

Earned Income Tax Credit, March 2014, http://www.whitchouse.gov/sitcs/default!tilesldocs/eitc report O.pd( 55 Eliz.abeth Lower-Basch, "Obama Budget Calls for Strengthening TANF," CLASP, February 10.2016, 

http://www.clasp.org/issues/temporary-assistancelin-focus/obama-budget-calls-for-strengthening-tanf. 

56 Elizabeth Lower-Basch. "Comments on Discussion Draft ofTANF Reauthorization Bill,'' CLASP, 

http:/ lww w.clasr.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1 IC LASP -TAN F-Reauthorization-Comm ents-July-1 7-

2015.pdf. 

57 Liz Ben-lshai, Access to Paid Leave: An Overlooked Aspect of Economic and Social Insecurity, CLASP, April 14, 

20 14 http://www. clasp.org/resources-and-publ icationslpu b I ication- 1/2 0 14-04-09-1 neg uitics-and-Paid-LeaveBrief FI>.:AL.pdf 58 Zoe Ziliak Michel and Liz Ben-Ishai, Good Jobs for All: Racial Inequities in Job Quality, CLASP, March 31, 

2016 http:llwww.clasp.org/rcsources-and-publicationslpublication-1/Race-and-Job-Qualitv-Bricf~3 30ar.docxFINAL.pdf. 

1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036 • p (202) 906.8000 • f (202) 842.2885 • www.clasp.org 

19 
AMERICANS IN POVERTY 

$19 trillion 

War on Poverty 

-

29 million Americans in poverty 

-c15% poverty rate 

0---------------------------------

.... .... 

1960 1966 

Department of Health and Human Services, Census Bureau 
BIRTHS TO UNWED MontERS ~ 41

G) 400k ~ E 

'C ~ $19 trillion 47 :s ,g 30% War on Poverty ! I MIW

cu ~ :5 

Ill 

.c 

1:: 

:s 20% 

iii 

0 15

t ~ 10% ~ 0----------------------------------

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2013 

Department of Health and Human Services, Census Bureau 
80,000 

75,000 70,000 

65,000 

VI 60,000 QJ 

Ill) 

n:l 55,000 

s 50,000 

+ 

VI 45,000 

.... 

lt= 40,000 QJ 

s::: 

QJ 35,000 

al 

QJ 30,000 

... 

25,000 

QJ 20,000 s 15,000 Chi!dcare 

10,000 Cash 

5,000 ;m Negative Income Tax 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;, 0 0 0 0 0 :;, 0 0 0 0 0 .,- .n o' .,- 0 0 .n 0 .n 0 .,- 0 o' .n 0 .n 0 .. ... N N "' M ,. ,. "' "' "' "' .... .... .. .. "' "' 

Wages 
90 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Robert Woodson 

From Senator Kelly Ayotte 

"Renewing Communities and Providing Opportunities Through Innovative 

Solutions to Poverty." 

June 22, 2016 

1. Mr, Woodson, in your testimony you state, "Social entrepreneurship should be 

rewarded on the basis of its outcome and impacL," Can you identify examples 

of programs or mechanisms that incorporate programmatic performance 

reviews or analyses that produce useful metrics on effectiveness or efficiency? 

I would caution against the limitations of the confines of typical sociological 

research that requires a rigid, social scientific, "double blind" study approach. 

The transformative impact of neighborhood-based, faith-inspired outreach dwarfs 

that of conventional programs designed by "professionals" and can be measured 

in terms of the substantial and sustainable restoration they have engendered in 

hundreds oflives they've touched and the community revitalization they have 

brought about. These include men and women who were once considered 

hopelessly lost to drug and alcohol addiction, who have emerged as loving 

parents, caring spouses, and responsible employees, as well as youths who once 

terrorized their neighborhoods with gang violence who have turned their lives 

around through the personal outreach of a committed individual and became peer 

mentors and ambassadors for peace in their communities. 

Scholars at Baylor University tracked the changes in incidence of violence and 

suspensions at seven Milwaukee schools that were participants in a CNE 

Violence-Free Zone initiative that involved the collaboration of the school 

administration and staff, representatives of the police department, and two 

community organizations. On the basis of data released by the police department, 

the study found that there was an 11% decrease in violent incidents and a 21% 

decrease in non-violent incidents in the VFZ schools, while both had increased by 

15% in other schools in the area. Likewise, suspensions in the VFZ schools 

dropped by 29 %, twice the rate of the decrease in the other Milwaukee schools. 

The study even documented impact in the communities surrounding the VFZ 

schools, where auto thefts decreased by 25%. 

The success can also be measured monetarily in reduction of expenditure of 

public funds that is necessary. One of the community groups participating in the 

Milwaukee VFZ initiative, the Running Rebels, also created a "diversion" 

program in which they provided monitoring and supervision for young offenders 

as an alternative to serving sentences in the adult prison system. At the 1Oth 

anniversary of the program's launch, the Running Rebels held a press conference 

in which they presented county officials with a mock check for $64 million, 
91 

representing the estimated cost savings to county taxpayers because they were 

able to help these young people stay in their communities, instead of in state 

corrections facilities at taxpayer expense. 

These monetary savings were in addition to the priceless value of lives that had 

not been lost to violence through these innovative community initiatives and the 

outreach of committed neighborhood leaders. 

2. Are these performance review best practices being effectively shared? 

The documented success of community-based initiatives that have transformed 

lives and communities from the inside out and the bottom up have generated little 

notice in the media and virtually none in academic journals. There is a critical 

need for scholars, analysts, and the media to share the findings of the evaluations 

that have been conducted and, more importantly, to study and document the 

impact that this new category of"experts" is uniquely qualified to generate, 

adding to the documentation that currently exists. 

3. Do duplicative government programs hinder progress or create confusion in this 

space, particularly given how federal solutions too often tend to be one-size-fitsall? 

As I outlined in my testimony, not all poverty is the same. Some poverty is rooted 

in a temporary setback; some poverty sustained by a system that disincentives the 

basic stepping stones to self-sufficiency, work and marriage; some people are 

poor because of a disability, and some are rooted in destructive and selfdestructive behavior. Programs that provide stop-gap assistance in the case of a 

temporary set-back cannot be effective and can actually be harmful and enabling 

when applied to the poor in the last of these categories. For them, a revitalization 

of vision and values is a prerequisite before opportunities for upward mobility can 

make a difference. 

The critical issue is not duplication but the pressing urgency to acknowledge and 

embrace an essentially different anti-poverty paradigm and different tier of 

"experts" to reach and uplift that category of the poor. 
92 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. Robert Woodson 

From Senator Joni Ernst 

"Renewing Communities and Providing Opportunities Through Innovative 

Solutions to Poverty" 

June 22, 2016 

Community engagement 

• You have been and supporter of empowering community 

leaders to cmnbat the effects of poverty. In your opinion, 1n what ways does 

the federal top down to poverty l1rnit the 

cornrnun1ties'~ 

The government's failed, wasteful, counterproductive antipoverty agenda is 

flawed in many respects: 

• The massive system and the bureaucracy it sustains is rewarded at the federal 

and state levels for the numbers of dependents on its rolls rather than the 

number of people it has empowered to escape dependency and rise from 

poverty. The system is self-perpetuating and incorporates (intentionally or 

not) disincentives for dependents to take the first stepping stones toward selfsufficiency: work and marriage. 

• The cash benefits and services the established system provides cannot 

penetrate the most deeply embedded and devastating form of poverty-that 

which is linked to destructive and self-destructive behavior such as drug and 

alcohol addiction. Community leaders within disadvantaged neighborhoods 

who have a first-hand understanding of the problem, are available 24-7, and 

are committed for the long-term have proven to be uniquely effective in 

addressing this form of poverty and eliciting the trust and response of those 

they serve. These neighborhood healers should be recognized as a special 

brand of experts and should be incorporated into our nation's antipoverty 

agenda. It is only after the transformation of vision and values that they 

engender that economic and job opportunities can serve as an avenue to selfdetermination. 

• Credentials are not equal to qualification to serve. The credentials of these 

grassroots leaders are the testimonies of those whose lives have changed 

though their outreach. At the least, policy should not pose obstacles to their 

efforts and bureaucratic restrictions and requirements should not be imposed if 

they are not related to their outreach. 
93 

\:kcting local needs 

• In your testimony you discussed steps your organization takes to identify strengths 

found within communities as a starting point to combatting poverty rather than 

simply identifying areas of concern. One clear example to me as I look at my own 

<>tate, is the unique ability of our farmers and ranchers to be leading producers of 

commodities such as corn, pork, and eggs, notwithstanding other market forces, 

many folks in Iowa-far too many of them children-still go to sleep hungry. In your 

opinion, what steps can or should be taken to replicate your approach to maximize 

the impact of our social safety net. 

A first step could be to identify "areas of concern" for a community. But the second step 

should not be to tally failures or dysfunction, such as numbers of high-school drop-outs 

or youths involved with crime or violence but to go into those communities and look for 

islands of success and to learn from those who were able to defy the odds and predictions 

of data analysts, such as youths who have resisted or redirected their lives from the lures 

of violence and crime and young people who have graduated high-school and even gone 

on to higher education. If statistics say that 70 percent of youths are involved with drugs 

we should be studying what and who was present in the lives of the other 30 percent that 

enabled them to be "disease resistant," and to see if those elements can be made available 

to others. That same capacity-focus could be applied in addressing the problems of any 

community. 
94 

BROOKINGS 

August 8, 2016 

Ms. Laura Kilbride 

Chief Clerk 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 

Dear Ms. Kilbride: 

This letter responds to a question posed to me by Senator Joni Ernst. Here is the question: 

Many of the programs in services today are uniquely suited to optimally serve folks in regions of 

our country that are densely populated. In your opinion, what steps can or should Congress take 

to reduce the burdens placed on program managers in rural America to better serve beneficiaries? 

A major feature of rural areas that poses barriers to receiving benefits from federal and 

federal/state social programs is the greater distance most beneficiaries are from the site of 

services and the associated problem of generally poor public transportation serving rural areas as 

compared with metro and suburban areas. The distance and transportation barrier presents a 

serious difficulty for managers of social service programs in rural areas. 

Thus, it is fortunate that many of the benefits in the nation's safety net are provided in the form 

of cash or vouchers. Roughly speaking, to qualify for safety net benefits, individuals must have 

low income and little wealth in the form of assets or savings. These benefits are available to all 

citizens and many noncitizens regardless of where they live. The main, but not the only, 

programs are SNAP and other nutrition programs; Medicaid, the Child Health Insurance 

Program, and other health programs; Supplemental Security Income; housing; Head Start and 

child care through the Child Care and Development Block Grant; and an array of programs made 

available through the tax code, especially the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the 

Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC). 

The programs administered through the tax code, such as the EITC and the ADTC (as well as a 

program that reimburses some parents for part of their child care costs called the Dependent Care 

Tax Credit) are obtained by filing a tax return. Here there would seem to be little comparative 

disadvantage for rural areas as compared with metro and suburban areas except that tax return 

filers may need professional assistance which may be more difficult to reach in rural areas. 

The other programs provide cash or in-kind benefits that are initiated after recipients have 

submitted an application to a state or local social service agency. Applying for these benefits 
95 

often requires a visit to a social services office, which as a rule places an additional burden on 

families applying in rural areas where the distances to the social service office are greater on 

average than in metro and suburban areas. 

2 

The problems of distance and poor transportation in initiating and maintaining these benefits can 

be minimized by the programs that provide their benefit in the form of cash or vouchers. In a 

perfect world, families who think they might be eligible for any of these benefits could inquire 

online and get clear and straightforward information on eligibility. In addition, since some of the 

eligibility requirements are complex and confusing, states should have a call-in number where 

questions about benefits, eligibility, and application are answered promptly and courteously. 

Equally important, states (or counties) would have computer systems that allow online 

submission of application and documents required to support eligibility so that potential 

recipients would not have to travel to the social services office. The state computer application 

systems would also guide applicants to other means-tested programs for which they might be 

eligible and have coordinated application forms and procedures that allow families to apply for 

several programs with one application. 

Much to their credit, many states have reformed and streamlined or enhanced their data systems 

in recent years to provide some or all of these services to families eligible for social services, 

especially means-tested, programs. In a fascinating project started in 2011, six states (Colorado, 

Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina), with support from the Ford 

Foundation and four other foundations, went through a multi-year process of reforming and 

updating the computer technology and processes by which they operated their means-tested 

programs. 1 Under this project, called the Work Support Strategies program, states focused their 

reforms systems enhancements on Medicaid, SNAP, and child care. Participating states aimed to 

use technology to share information more easily between departments, track service delivery, 

and reduce the necessity of family visits to county or state offices. 

More specifically, the reforms included: 2 

• New and Updated Eligibility Systems. The computer systems states used to determine 

eligibility tor benefits, maintain records, and perform various management tasks were 

modernized, a formidable and expensive undertaking because it required replacing 

the major computer capabilities of the states' existing management systems (often 

called "legacy" systems). 

• Online Applications and Customer Portals. These reforms enabled states to prescreen 

applicants for eligibility and help applicants apply for benefits, find information on 

their benefit status and usc, report status changes, submit documents, and get 

assistance through online chat. 

• Lobby Management Systems. These systems support and manage the flow of clients 

within state and local department offices, assign cases to particular managers, deal 

with client queues, and allocate resources efficiently. 
96 

• Additional Technology to Streamline and Integrate Customer and Worker 

Experiences. Additional capability of the new systems included electronic data 

verification, document imaging, call centers, and improved access to data for use by 

decision makers. 

As the Urban Institute report shows, these improvements in state and local data and information 

systems greatly improve efficiency, save money, and significantly improve customer service. 

The changes are perfectly suited to the need for rural areas, not just to use resources efficiently, 

but to compensate for the barriers imposed on their programs and families by physical distance 

and transportation issues. 

3 

A survey conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published earlier this 

year shows that progress in creating effective data and information systems has not been 

confined to states participating in the Work Support Strategies program.3 The CBPP study shows 

that all but six states (Alaska, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, and 

Tennessee) now have the technology to facilitate online applications, and many states make 

many other services available online. For example, every state except Hawaii provides a manual 

of their programs online and all but nine states (District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee) have a computer 

system that allows online calculation of program eligibility so applicants can determine whether 

they are eligible for any of several benefit programs. A few states have benefit calculators that 

apply only to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but most states allow for 

benefit calculation for more than one program. The CBPP study reviews the online availability 

of several additional functions that are useful to applicants and the general public (including 

researchers). 

Although there has been significant improvement in the capacity of state data and information 

systems to allow potential recipients to minimize the difficulty oflearning about and applying for 

available government programs, especially programs for the poor, much remains to be done. The 

private sector, as shown by the Work Support Strategies programs, has shown the significance it 

places on the importance of increasing computer system capability by investing considerable 

sums of money to help states develop their capacity and to demonstrate how information system 

capacity can be efficiently expanded. Similarly, both the state and federal governments invest 

tens of millions of dollars in increasing the capacity of their data systems each year. 

If Congress wants to speed the pace and increase the scope of improving and expanding their 

data systems, Congress could offer states an increased federal matching rate in funding these 

expansions. Typically, the federal government and states split funding, often on a 50/50 basis, for 

administrative expenses of running social programs. But there have been several instances in 

which the federal government determined that improved data system capability would provide 

numerous benefits to states and to families applying for or receiving benefits that they provided 

states with up to increased matching of 90 percent federal to acquire and conduct the technology 
97 

Æ 

4 

necessary to increase specific program capabilities. Such enhanced matching has been provided 

to states to improve the data systems and capabilities in their child support enforcement program 

and their child protection program.4 It would make sense for Congress to expand such enhanced 

funding to ensure continued improvement in program administration in rural areas. 

Respectfully, 

/~/( ~~~' I 

Ron Haskins 

Cabot Family Chair and Co-Director 

Center on Children and Families 

Brookings Institution 

Washington, DC 

1 Pamela Loprest, Naeve Gearing, and David Kassabian. March 2016. States' Use of Technology 

to Improve Delivery of Benefits. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 2 See Loprest, Gearing, and Kassabian, 2016, pp. vi-vii. 3 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. March 2016. "Online Services for Key Low-Income 

Benefit Programs," Washington, DC: Author. 4 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. Green Book: Background 

Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Washington, DC: Author, 1996, Sections 9 and 12.