U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–767 WASHINGTON : 2000

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT IMPACTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 24, 1998

Serial No. 105–110

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of August 17, 1998, announcing the hearing ......................................... 2

WITNESSES

Del Papa, Hon. Frankie Sue, Nevada Attorney General ...................................... 32

Evans, Hon. Jan, Assemblywoman, Nevada State Assembly .............................. 26

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada .... 22

Halterman, Lonnie, Sparks, NV ............................................................................. 53

Leeds, Thomas L., Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada .............................. 112

Miller, Hon. Robert J., Governor, State of Nevada; as presented by Charlotte

Crawford, Nevada Department of Human Resources ....................................... 22

Nevada Partners, Inc., Mujahid Ramadan ............................................................ 94

Nevada State Welfare Division:

Nikki Firpo ........................................................................................................ 89

Myla C. Florence ........................................................................................... 58, 117

Michael J. Willden ............................................................................................ 82

Washington, Hon. Maurice, Nevada State Senator .............................................. 24

Wilcox, Dorothy, Reno, NV ..................................................................................... 100

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Bryan, Hon. Richard H., a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada, statement . 19

Reid, Hon. Harry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada, statement ............ 16

(1)

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT

IMPACTS

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in the Nevada State Capitol, room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson

City, Nevada, Hon. E. Clay Shaw (Chairman of the Subcommittee)

presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

3

4

Chairman SHAW. I will call the meeting of the Subcommittee to

order.

It is a great privilege for me to be out here in Nevada with a

dedicated Member of our Subcommittee and a coauthor of the welfare reform legislation, Congressman Ensign.

I would like to also welcome our guests and witnesses who will

be testifying today.

More appropriately, thank you all, and especially Myla Florence,

Senator Washington, who we hope will be here later today,

Assemblywoman Evans, for welcoming the subcommittee here to

learn firsthand how welfare reform is working in the States.

Today’s witnesses will discuss how the historic 1996 welfare reform law has helped move former welfare beneficiaries to work.

We will also hear about the tougher child support enforcement

provisions we passed to help mothers and their children.

These and other changes have resulted in a virtual revolution in

the way poor families get help in welfare reform offices all around

this country. In fact, it is not quite right to call them welfare offices

anymore.

A recent United States General Accounting Office report found

that ‘‘States are moving away from a welfare system focused on entitlements to assistance. Welfare offices are generally being transformed into job placement centers, and in some instances, applicants are expected to engage in job search activities as soon as they

apply for assistance.’’

In Nevada, where welfare caseloads have dropped dramatically—

in my statement here it said 25 percent, but I found, on listening

to Channel 8 this morning, it is 40 percent.

Since the welfare law passed, record numbers of parents are now

finding work. What is more, as shown in the document prepared

for this hearing by the Congressional Research Service, fixed block

grants and declining caseloads have meant dramatically more resources.

[The information follows:]

5

6

Listen to this: Almost 50 percent more Federal support per family on welfare in Nevada today than in 1995. That is not because

we are throwing more money at the problem. It is because we are

solving the problem.

Contributing to this is special assistance we added for growing

States like Nevada.

Congressman Ensign was a pivotal figure in getting this additional money for the growing States, such as Nevada, in the final

legislation.

And I might also say, that during the period of time we were putting this together was a very controversial, very political process

that we were going through.

Congressman Ensign and Congressman Kemp got signatures of

100 members of the Republican side, testing our leadership, that

they did not want the money under the issue of welfare reform.

They wanted to separate it out from some other issues, such as

Medicaid, which had gotten extremely controversial, and because of

their action, I think that we were able to get a straight vote, and

eventually get a signature from the President.

After he had vetoed it two times, he came aboard, and we as a

team, in a bipartisan effort, passed welfare reform. I think it is tremendously important.

So contrary to those who predicted a race to the bottom in welfare, we are seeing a race to the top in terms of more Federal resources available to help especially parents with real difficulties

find and keep jobs.

Child support collections are following the same upward track,

helping trim the welfare rolls even more.

The story does not end there, and some families still on welfare

and many who left need continuing support for themselves and

their children.

That is why we provided generous child care, Medicare, and

earned income employment tax credit, all to encourage work instead of welfare.

So we seem to be headed in the right direction in Nevada and

elsewhere.

Still, the reasons we reformed welfare were to help those who

were trapped in the old failed system, and we are committed both

to understanding how reform is working and keeping our minds

open about further improvements.

That is the reason for this hearing and many others that we

have held and continue to hold in Washington and elsewhere.

So I certainly thank the good people of Nevada for welcoming us

for this hearing. I also thank the State and its legislature and its

governor for making our faith in them pay off.

We put our faith in the States, and States such as Nevada are

proving that we were absolutely correct in doing so.

I am going to ask Congressman Ensign if he would chair this

hearing, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who will

be before us today.

[The opening statement follows:]

7

8

Mr. ENSIGN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome you and my colleague on the Ways and Means

Committee on the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Congressman Christensen from Nebraska.

I want to welcome you both to Nevada, especially this wonderful

weather that we are having here in northern Nevada. I know you

are probably enjoying that as well.

This is, I think, a very exciting time. This is the two-year anniversary for the signing into law of the welfare reform bill.

A welfare reform bill, that I might add, was quite hot politically,

and was fought at practically every step of the way. There were

those people who demonized us as we set about to craft the most

significant policy change in 60 years.

While it was not always easy to press, it makes days like today

even more powerful, knowing these changes have helped lift people

out of the web of dependency and moving towards self-sufficiency.

Nevada has led many States in this regard.

And the State should be proud to boast of its successes today,

while remaining to continue to move people from welfare into work.

In 1995, Chairman Shaw and a handful of Congressmen sat

down and drafted a bill designed to eliminate the entitlement to

welfare and responsibly move individuals to work.

Do we remember what welfare was like before 1995?

Before reforms, almost no one on welfare worked. Lengthy stays

on welfare were common. Of the families on the rolls at any given

time, the average length of stay was 13 years.

Families could receive welfare benefits forever, as long as they

promised not to work, marry or save for their children’s future.

By 1994, a record five and a half percent of the American people,

5.1 million families, were on welfare.

Between 1965 and 1994, welfare spending totaled over $5 trillion

while actually more children were in poverty than before.

And even though prisoners were disqualified from SSI and Social

Security disability benefits, prisoners who did not self-report their

incarceration, continued to receive these benefits in jail.

The average payment per prisoner receiving illegal taxpayerfunded benefits was $1700.

Drug addiction and alcoholism qualified for disabling conditions

for SSI and Social Security disability benefits, as well.

Despite sponsorship agreements from Americans who promised

to be responsible for noncitizens if they fell on hard times, by 1993,

well over one million noncitizens were receiving welfare payments.

Welfare and illegitimacy became synonymous.

Finally, Congress proposed to end welfare as we know it. In 1993

welfare was estimated to cost more than $30 billion.

Since the reforms, since welfare reform has started, welfare rolls

are now down 37 percent nationwide, and a little over 40 percent

in our State. The welfare culture has truly been transformed.

Now, welfare provides temporary help and requires work, breaking down the web of dependency before it is all-consuming.

Addicts and alcoholics no longer get disability checks, saving

somewhere around $6 billion.

Noncitizens must work or rely on families or sponsors for support, saving billions of dollars.

9

Thousands of prisoners are now being denied welfare, and just from prisoners, we are saving an estimated $3.5 billion over seven

years. Child support is at an all-time high, up $13.4 billion.

By taking the correct approach, the current welfare reform will save more than $40 billion by 2002. A little different than costing

$30 billion as was proposed before.

Some have argued the decline in the welfare rolls have been the

result of the economy, not Congressional action.

Since the inception of welfare in 1935, America has often had hot

economies, yet the welfare rolls seldom declined. More to the point,

consider the last two economic expansions.

The Reagan expansion of 1982 to 1990 was one of the greatest

in our history.

But even though we added 20 million jobs, the welfare rolls actually grew by 13 percent.

And let’s just look back at the State of Nevada. The early 1990s,

our economy was booming. We had mega resorts opening in this

State. We had northern Nevada diversifying its economy.

But yet, March, 1995, as you can see by the chart over here, was

the highest welfare rolls ever in the State of Nevada.

That was at the same time that we started all this welfare reform talk, and people knew that it was coming to an end.

And that is the reason you have seen such a drastic drop in the

welfare rolls in this State, as well as around the country.

There are two sets of winners here. First, there are those who

are no longer trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of dependency.

People are now planning for their future, and there are more

people who can now give their children an opportunity they once

thought was impossible. This is truly a gift.

The other group of winners here are the taxpayers.

The drain of welfare payments on the Federal and State budgets

has substantially decreased.

With the block grants in place, as welfare rolls decrease, there

are more resources available to work with the people who have

been dependent on welfare for the long-term, or to shift to other

areas, such as child care or health care transition.

I was very proud to have offered an amendment to the bill that

made Medicaid health care more available to those transitioning

from welfare to work.

That, along with the vast child care resources that were included, are critical to keeping former welfare recipients in the work

force.

Also, in terms of the block grant approach, Nevada’s funding will

increase each year, providing millions more to this State because

of the drastic effect of our population growth.

I spent a great deal of time trying to explain to other members

of Congress, whose States are not growing quite as fast as us, why

we needed this growth formula.

And with the combination of a few States like Texas, Florida,

where the chairman is from, and Washington State, we were able

to get this growth formula into the welfare reform bill.

And this year alone, that is added about $1 million to our welfare

budget for this State.

10

And lastly, as an indication of how small acts can change completely the larger picture, in the summer of 1996, when the President had vowed to veto the welfare reform bill, it was just a couple

of us that got together.

As Chairman Shaw and we went up against the leadership of the

Republican party, and we said, we do need to separate welfare reform from Medicaid.

And that act, going up against some very strong political forces,

was the act that, in fact, determined that welfare reform would be

signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is a long journey that we have been on.

I am so proud to have served on our subcommittee and the wonderful job that not only you, but your staff, including Dr. Ron Haskins,

who is with us today, has done on welfare reform.

It is not just about saving the taxpayers’ money, but it truly is

about changing lives for the people that were trapped into welfare.

[The opening statement follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. ENSIGN. And now, I want to ask Charlotte Crawford and Jan

Evans to come to the witness table, please.

Chairman SHAW. While the witnesses are getting seated, Mr. Ensign, Senator Reid was asked to participate, but declined doing so,

but submitted a statement, which I ask you now for unanimous

consent to be made part of the record in this hearing.

[The statement of Senator Reid follows:]

16

17

18

Mr. ENSIGN. Without objection.

Chairman SHAW. Senator Bryan——

Mr. ENSIGN. Without objection.

[The statement of Senator Bryan follows:]

19

20

21

22

Mr. ENSIGN. First thing I want to do is recognize the representative for Governor Miller.

Charlotte, I know you want to make a statement for the Governor.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. MILLER, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA; AS PRESENTED BY CHARLOTTE CRAWFORD, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Ms. CRAWFORD. Good morning.

I am Charlotte Crawford. I am the director of the Nevada Department of Human Resources that houses our welfare program.

On the part of Governor Miller, I want to extend you, Chairman

Shaw, and your committee members a warm welcome to Nevada.

Unfortunately, Governor Miller could not be with you this morning because he had an unavoidable conflict in his schedule.

Governor Miller has long been an advocate for better lives of all

families.

Governor Miller has been involved in multiple legislation in his

State to promote the betterment of families at the community level

and the State level.

He initiated the first phase of his welfare reform project in the

mid-1990s. In 1995, as the chart here shows you see that we started seeing the falling of our rolls.

As the immediate past chairman of the National Governors Association, and prior to that, the vice chair, he was actively involved

with your committee in crafting the welfare reform legislation.

He supported the legislation when it was separated out from

Medicaid, which was, indeed, a very controversial issue, especially

for fast-growing States like Nevada.

You recognized the need for child care, which was very important

to Governor Miller and to many of the governors.

You extended the type of supports which we believe enhanced

dramatically our ability to implement welfare reform in our State.

On behalf of Governor Miller, again, we are very proud to have

you in Nevada to see what we have accomplished with our welfare

reform change.

Thank you, and please have a nice stay.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you very much, Charlotte.

Now I want to recognize my colleague from the State of Nevada,

and it has been a pleasure serving with you, Jim, and we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

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

And first, I want to ask unanimous consent to have a written

copy of my remarks be entered into the record.

Mr. ENSIGN. Without objection.

Mr. GIBBONS. Secondly, I would like to welcome each of you to

the Second Congressional District of Nevada, a very large area of

Nevada, indeed. It covers 99.8 percent of the State, and has a majority of the population within it.

And so I think it is very important that we have this hearing

today, and I am glad to see the members, and especially the ChairVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:12 Aug 09, 2000 Jkt 064534 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63767 pfrm08 PsN: 63767
23

man, bringing this issue before us here in Carson City, which is

the capital of the State of Nevada.

As Congressman Ensign stated just briefly, it was two days ago

that we celebrated the second anniversary of the welfare reform act

as it was signed into law.

Although I was not a part of Congress at that time, I have been

able to see and watch this reform and the success of this reform

take place across America, and especially here in the State of Nevada, as well.

I believe strongly that more Americans today are waking up,

feeling a sense of pride, pride that they now have a job, pride that

they will get a paycheck at the end of the week or at the end of

the pay period.

And pride that they no longer rely on a handout, but, rather,

they rely on their own self-determination for their own future.

So today, our goal continues to be helping people move from poverty to prosperity by moving from welfare to work.

Because there was so much talk about reforming welfare, people

began to hear it on the radio, on television, in the news media.

And welfare recipients around the world—or excuse me, across

the Nation, began voluntarily to come into welfare offices asking

for job training opportunities.

That case happened here in Nevada, as well. And because Congress block granted the monies, States were given a greater degree

of flexibility.

They were given a set amount of money that allows them to have

more money per actual welfare family.

As a matter of fact, it is estimated that about 56 percent more

money will be available for those families remaining on welfare to

help with such important activities as child care, retraining, and

especially job placement.

Reforming welfare was important, not—and I want to emphasize

this—not because it let us get the poor off welfare so we didn’t

have to pay for it.

But rather, and, more importantly, it helped the poor become

prosperous.

Our goal in dealing with welfare reform is now to make sure that

every citizen has an opportunity to pursue happiness.

As stated in our Declaration of Independence, it says that we are

endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among

which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So we are trying to get that unalienable right to the welfare recipients so they can get in the habit of going to work, get in the

habit of saving on their paycheck and begin to acquire private

property, and to pursue happiness.

By enacting welfare reform, Congress took a substantial step forward in establishing a commonsense welfare policy.

This new welfare law enacted by Congress in ’96 was the first

step in, I believe, a very long process of reform, a process that continues today with your help.

As we look to new reform efforts, these efforts must be based on

what I think are three things.

Leveling the growth of welfare, which steps can be taken to help

legislators, policymakers, administrators, and the public underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:12 Aug 09, 2000 Jkt 064534 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63767 pfrm08 PsN: 63767
24

stand the vast size of the welfare system and attempt to secure its

future growth.

Secondly, reducing illegitimacy and restoring marriage and the

value of marriage.

Restoring this valuable part of our heritage and our culture, that

being marriage, must be the paramount social goal for policymakers.

The new welfare law, for the first time, makes reducing illegitimacy a formal national objective. Now, States must adopt effective

programs to deal with this very same issue.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, to reduce dependence and require

work and responsible behavior, the work and dependence reduction

standards of the new welfare law must be preserved and strengthened.

By applying these three goals, we can and we will continue and,

like I said, help move people from poverty to prosperity by moving

them from welfare to work.

Again, thank you, and welcome to Nevada.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Jim. Just as a reminder, and you did

a very good job, by the way, of staying under the 5-minute rule.

I appreciate that.

He is trained, because this is what we do in Washington.

For those witnesses today, we would like you to, if you could,

summarize your comments within 5 minutes.

And then we will at the end of each panel, have questions and

answers for that panel.

Your full statements will be made a part of the record.

I would like to recognize State Senator Maurice Washington, we

worked very closely with your office, had a great relationship working back and forth.

When you were working on welfare reform here in the State, and

we were working on it in Washington, one of the things we had to

do is make sure what we were doing was not going to mess up

what you are doing and vice versa.

So, really enjoyed working with you during that time, Maurice,

and look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAURICE WASHINGTON, NEVADA

STATE SENATOR

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Chairman. To the members of the

panel, it is a pleasure to be here this morning.

I would like to say, before I start on my comments, it was a tedious road, and it was a mind-set that when we first came into the

senate that we were going to work on this issue.

Was not a popular issue. It was an issue that most of constituency were quite aware of, and the rapidly growing rolls of the welfare recipients, for the most part, they were concerned that not

only was it being pushed upon them, but they were also concerned

about the children that were caught up in the welfare rolls and the

mothers and, per se, the fathers also.

And as a Nation, what kind of trend or what kind of policy were

we setting for future generations?

So we made a promise to them that we were going to endeavor

to work on this issue.

25

And I would like to say proudly in ’95 we introduced the bill,

with the help of the majority leader, Senator Raggio, and, of

course, your office also.

It was a task that we thought, that many had thought wouldn’t

be able to be accomplished, but we did accomplish it.

We set some meaningful provisions in the bill that we thought

would be helpful to those recipients that are on welfare and to

their families.

To begin with, I am very ecstatic and excited about the fact that

since March 1995, the welfare rolls have been reduced and have

been going down tremendously.

But there is an area of concern, and I know that you mentioned

it, and that concern is to make sure we don’t augment our cash assistance into other types of assistance, and that trend is very important.

I think the important thing is that we make sure that we are

setting a policy, a mind-set and a trend that self-sufficiency is important, not only for the individual, but for the Nation as a whole.

Congressman Gibbons already mentioned the fact that there are

certain areas of importance in welfare and reforming welfare that

need to definitely be taken a look at.

The first one, of course, I have written down is the illegitimacy

rate.

I know in our legislation and the legislation that was passed and

signed into law by President Clinton, illegitimacy was very important.

Teenage pregnancy, making sure we reduce the rolls of teenage

pregnancy, and, in turn, enhancing marriage, and the sanction and

the institution of marriage.

And the third thing—the second thing that I think is very important, as we continue to work on this welfare reform issue is the responsibility of the individual to either succeed or fail on their own

merits.

Not that we are looking for failure, but also that if there is a $6

an hour job going up to $10 an hour, that they have the opportunity to succeed or fail because of their efforts and because of

their initiatives.

And the last one, of course, is the family unit. I think the missing element in the welfare reform issue has always been the male

and how we deal with that male.

I know we have been going after them for child support, but I

have been finding out lately, especially in the past six months,

there are some issues that have arisen concerning the male.

Most times, the males are still young males, between the ages of

16 and 25. They have their own form of welfare, and we call it the

prison system.

We are going after those males for child support, and coming to

find out that they have very poor job skills themselves.

They don’t understand the responsibility of marriage or raising

children, and so there is another factor in dealing with the family

unit.

In the family unit, of course, we set the values and the morals

of the family, we set work ethics, and we set the traditions that

this country has so well been founded upon.

26

And I think those are areas that are important as we continue

this road of success in welfare reform, and we are going to address

those issues and look at them very intently, Mr. Chair.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, State Senator.

Honorable Jan Evans, Assemblywoman, we welcome you here

and look forward to your testimony.

Myla Florence spoke highly of your involvement in the welfare

reform bill, so we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAN EVANS, NEVADA STATE

ASSEMBLYWOMAN

Ms. EVANS. Chairman Shaw, and committee members, as chair

of the Assembly’s Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Services, I thank you for taking time to listen to Nevada’s experience

and concerns regarding welfare reform.

It is especially important to discuss welfare reform in Nevada because our legislature enacted welfare reform prior to Federal legislation.

In 1993, my subcommittee asked our welfare division to convene

a statewide task force that would include a broad spectrum of citizens and community-based organizations, with the goal to design

a plan that would bring about fundamental change in the State’s

welfare system.

Under the capable leadership of Myla Florence, our State Welfare Director, work was completed in time for Governor Miller to

examine the proposal and include many of the changes in the executive budget presented to the 1995 Legislature.

Ultimately, it was adopted with an effective date of January

1996.

If you compare the Nevada plan with subsequent Federal legislation, you will find many similarities.

One of the key elements was the requirement for a work first

strategy that included 10 up-front job searches per week.

You will see there is a notable caseload decline in Nevada, and

as you mentioned, our caseloads have dropped over 40 percent.

Governor Miller also recognized the importance of the child care

component and increased the budget in ’97.

Even with the additional $11 million that the State of Nevada

added to the Federal child care dollars, we still see a shortfall of

available money for families at risk of going on welfare, as well as

for those already in the welfare system.

Another pivotal issue concerning the availability of jobs, paying

a livable wage. In our booming southern Nevada economy, this is

not an immediate problem, albeit we know it could change.

A very different story is true in northern and rural Nevada.

Wages are lower, the average being $6.30 an hour, compared to

$9.25 per hour in southern Nevada.

This makes it difficult for a single parent to get a livable wage

job and support a family.

I would like to see a greater effort on the part of the Congress

to reach out to the private sector and encourage their participation

in putting people to work.

Additionally, affordable housing is a problem statewide.

27

I would like to emphasize in all this, the results of a recent research conducted by the Food Bank of Northern Nevada.

They have come out with a troubling report showing that over

24 percent of those receiving foodstuffs are employed, and 55 percent of those who are employed full-time are still unable to make

ends meet.

Thus, we ask ourselves, what will happen to those single-parent

households dropped from the assistance programs? Will they simply become part of a growing underclass, cut off from Federal and

State assistance?

Do we expect community nonprofit agencies, the cities and counties to pick up the tab?

We must also ask whether we have solved the problems of welfare or merely established a system of cost shifting to local entities.

I urge you to study the food bank report.

Chairman Ensign, if your committee needs copies, we can make

these available.

Mr. ENSIGN. We would like that.

Ms. EVANS. Finally, there is a concern about dealing with those

persons who are the hardest to serve, those with multiple impediments to employability. That question will hit Nevada when the

two-year limit begins.

We all know that over 50 percent of clients get off welfare well

before the two-year limit, but what about clients with greater obstacles, obstacles that impede getting off the system entirely?

We must face the reality that a percentage will require some

type of assistance for a long period.

We applaud the efforts of Congress to make the changes in the

welfare system. However, your request that we tell you about the

impact of welfare reform in Nevada is premature. The numbers

don’t tell the entire story.

We have just begun this uncertain journey, and we do not have

the data to support the program’s ultimate goals.

We hope that Congress will keep an open mind and work with

the States in continuing efforts to find the best approach to assisting low-income families.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

28

29

30

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to thank the panel for their testimony.

I have a couple questions before I turn it over to the Chairman

for his questions.

First of all, I want to, Assemblywoman Evans, I want to just talk

to you briefly. You mentioned affordable housing. That is something that I actually have been very involved with in several different areas.

I don’t know how aware you are or familiar you are with the lowincome housing tax credit and the way that that fits into the whole

welfare reform.

To date, public housing, as we know, has pretty much been a disaster in this country.

The crime rates in public housing, I mean, we have just housed

the poor in units where they grow up with a certain mentality that

just fosters, all kinds of bad behavior.

Whereas, the low-income housing tax credit gets people in decent

neighborhoods, in mixed income-type places, where they have mentors. They have other role models around them.

And I have a bill in Congress, actually, to dramatically increase

the low-income housing tax credit, because in States like Nevada

that are growing so rapidly have a shortage of affordable housing.

That is one of the areas that, because the old formula never indexed the tax credit for inflation, we were very much in a shortage

situation, and especially in the sunbelt, and no place more than we

are here in the State of Nevada.

So I don’t know if you have worked with low-income housing tax

credits or some of the Federal home funds or any of those types of

programs.

But it is something that I am trying to, from the Federal level,

to get that much more funding for our State, as well as I know

there is some things you can do with the State level.

You want to comment on that?

Ms. EVANS. Well, I thank you for that. The more that can be

done the better.

I think we—I think we see that as something that is going to

help, perhaps, over a longer period of time.

But what we know is that in the short run, there simply are not

enough units available that people can—and the waiting lists, that

is what we have to look at are the present-day waiting lists, and

what is the quickest, most effective, cost-effective way of providing

housing for people before these other things can kick in.

Because even tax credits and so forth, you have to be at a certain

stage in terms of having a stable work and income so that you can

get ready for that.

We need units right now across the State. It just is not there.

So I think you are moving in the right direction.

I think that I would also like to see more effort in engaging the

private sector, because public/private partnerships we know work.

In fact, the most effective program for TANF in getting people

trained and in jobs is in southern Nevada today. If you have not

visited the job training site that the culinary union has put together, and works with the casinos, I mean, you have to have—like

I said, you have to have someplace for these folks to go. You can’t

train them for nothing. They have to have someplace.

31

They have worked out a beautiful system, a model program that

was just recently demonstrated to members of the National Conference of State Legislators.

We had our annual program in Las Vegas. People from all over

the country came and were just dazzled by what is happening.

That is one program. It is a model program. And we salute that

because it really does help train people for real jobs, and when they

complete that training, they go to a real job, and that is what we

want.

So, you know, it is sort of an organic whole. Trying to make all

of the pieces fit.

So what you are suggesting for the low-income tax credit for

housing, great. Keep going in that direction.

But as I said, you will see a greater need to engage and be creative. The private sector is creative. I know. I have passed legislation myself on public/private partnerships for things. And I think

we are not tapping them as a resource.

Mr. ENSIGN. Before I go to our Senator Washington, I want to

invite—our attorney general to join us.

And if you would like to come up and join the panel, although

I know you are supposed to be on a different panel.

If you would like to come up and make your statement now, we—

that is one of the traditions we have is allowing elected officials to

come as part of the first panel.

We have this five-minute rule. So if you could summarize your

opening statement to around five minutes, and then we will continue with the questioning.

Chairman SHAW. Before we do that, if I might inject this, because I am very impressed with the testimony that we have received.

But I don’t want anybody to leave here thinking that we are

turning our backs on the poor in what we are spending, and I

would particularly like to direct this to Assemblywoman Evans as

to what we are spending.

This last year, we spent over $50 billion on the earned income

tax credit, Medicare, child care, employer credit, food stamps, plus

another $29 billion on housing.

Plus, I think it is important to note, and I think that this really

brings about the creativity of the State legislature and what they

can do, because now you have got over 40 percent more to spend

on the families that are on TANF.

This is tremendously important. I think it is important to realize

that what this Congress has done is joined together in a partnership with the States in putting together the legislation that has

really done so much to get people off of welfare.

You brought up the fact that the State of Nevada was one of the

early, early States involved, as the representative of the Governor

did.

And I think it is very important to realize that the first act that

I did as Chairman of this subcommittee, was get together with Mr.

Ensign and the other members of our subcommittee and meet with

the governors.

We said, what can we do to make this legislation work?

32

So the days have ended in Washington, hopefully, they are over

forever, where we sent down directives.

We are in partnership with the States, and I think we have certainly been vindicated by placement of our faith in the States, because you have done a wonderful job in working together.

But I just wanted to be sure that the record was very clear that

we are not, we are not cutting back. What we are doing is putting

the money where people can learn to work their way out of these

terrible situations that had been put in place and left in place for

60 years, and have actually even saved people from a corrupt system which paid them not to work, to have kids, and not to get married.

That is the worst thing you can possibly do. If you subsidize

something, you are going to get more of it, and we certainly did.

We got more people having kids out of wedlock and living in poverty and growing up in a life of poverty, and, thank the Good Lord,

we have turned that around.

Thank you, and I apologize for interrupting.

Mr. ENSIGN. That is okay.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANKIE SUE DEL PAPA,

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEVADA

Ms. DEL PAPA. Chairman Shaw, members of the subcommittee,

I am Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada’s Attorney General.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office provides legal assistance

to the Nevada State Welfare Reform Division, as well as representation on child support cases handled by regional Welfare Child

Support Program area offices in Las Vegas, Reno and Elko.

My office assisted in the reviewing, drafting and passage of State

legislation that incorporated the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 into Nevada’s Revised Statutes.

This piece of State legislation consisted of two separate bills that

affected 95 chapters of the Nevada Revised Statutes, and was the

result of many hours of efforts by my office on many fronts.

I am here today to share with you firsthand some of the efforts

of my office and the State of Nevada to increase the collection efforts in the area of child support enforcement.

The District Attorney’s offices across our State, the Child Support Enforcement Unit of the Nevada State Welfare Division, as

well as the Office of the Attorney General are all committed to ensuring that every child is financially able to participate in the opportunities available to him and/or her, to assist in ensuring that

each child has the opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship

with their parents.

You will see the chart. Basically, we have chronicled for you the

Nevada Attorney General’s Office involvement.

Although primary responsibility for child support enforcement

rests with the individual District Attorney’s offices, who have done

a fantastic job throughout the State of Nevada with very limited

resources, the Nevada Attorney General’s office has always been involved in some extent of the actual child support and Child Support Program.

33

Our office has, and will, continue to participate in negotiations

for the release of liens on real property in the State of Nevada and

out of State.

However, my office has taken a more active role in the Nevada

Child Support Program in recent years. Our office took over representation of the Child Support Program in two smaller counties

in this State.

Those particular counties, the majority of the day-to-day casework is being handled by the caseworkers out of the Nevada Welfare Child Support Program Offices.

However, when there is a special legal issue, or they need an attorney to be involved, raising specific questions, our office represents the case in court.

Our office is also working on assistance cases where there is an

issue of paternity.

This office is taking over these duties to assist the Child Support

Program in shortening the time frame to secure orders establishing

paternity and support obligations for those children on welfare.

This represents approximately 175 cases a month for the Reno

and Las Vegas Attorney General offices.

Our office was also assisting the welfare division in the Reno and

Las Vegas offices in recovering birthing costs paid out as medical

benefits under the welfare program.

Our office has initiated and worked with the Child Support Enforcement Program.

The first, of course, is the most wanted poster, which features information and photographs about deadbeat parents. The poster

highlights 10 notable deadbeat parents whose whereabouts are unknown.

This is the fifth poster in what has become a very successful

campaign to help locate men and women wanted in Nevada for failure to pay child support.

The first poster was released in May of 1996 and has been released to coincide with Mother’s Day.

The office worked with the Child Support Enforcement Program,

developed the criteria for the creation and submission of names to

local District Attorneys, and especially the response by the media

and citizens of this State achieved results beyond our expectations.

The most wanted poster has resulted in at least two criminal

convictions and located 19 out of the 28 deadbeat parents.

The resulting collections received as a direct result of this project

is in excess of $50,000. These were noncustodial parents who had

dropped out of sight and owed at least $10,000 in back child support.

By the way, the most wanted poster is on our web site, the Attorney General’s web site, which is one of the most frequently visited

web sites in the State.

Likewise, our office wanted to promote positive aspects of the

Child Support Program.

In order to accomplish this, prior to Father’s Day, we sent out

letters to the District Attorney’s offices and asked them to submit

names of committed noncustodial parents.

The noncustodial parents who were recognized showed involvement in their child’s life which not only reflected a financial comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:12 Aug 09, 2000 Jkt 064534 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63767 pfrm08 PsN: 63767
34

mitment, but also a physical commitment as well by maintaining

a relationship with their children.

We also—as you can see, we do the brochures, how to collect

child support. We have Spanish language copies of everything, basically. The way we do most consumer education information, everything is produced in Spanish, as well.

Because of the welfare reform act requirement that tied payment

of child support to the ability to obtain or maintain a professional,

occupational or recreational license or certificate, I knew there

would be questions with reference to that issue.

We formed a task force. We have tried to address ongoing public

education in that regard. We provide an interface with a number

of other entities.

Our office also perceived a lack of understanding among the private bar as to how the welfare requirements would affect private

businesses and employers.

A deputy has coordinated with the Nevada State Bar Association,

putting together continuing legal education classes on the legal developments of welfare reform.

In all, the new tools and changes made by welfare reform, I

think, have dramatically increased the ability to collect child support for the children of our State.

For instance, in Washoe County alone, there were 651 wage

withholding hits in the last 30 days thanks to the new-hire reporting information being captured.

However, various District Attorneys have expressed their concern

about certain welfare reform requirements. One concern is that

some of these tools would not be effectively implemented because

of their cost in dollars and caseworker time, ultimately making the

effectiveness of these new tools depend on the resources made

available to the Child Support Program.

Second, the District Attorneys have expressed concern about the

central disbursement unit requirements imposed on State child

support programs.

The District Attorneys feel that this disrupts some State systems

which had already been very efficiently and properly processing

payments, potentially replacing them with an unknown central disbursement unit which will, in a State of our size, extend the mailing times for checks to be delivered.

They understand the necessity of keeping track of payments in

a central location, but according to the District Attorneys, this information can be shared without the disbursing of the checks being

centralized.

There are other State initiatives—I haven’t seen a red stop going

up, but I am probably reaching my time.

Obviously, this is something that attorneys general around the

country are concerned with.

Indiana, Rhode Island, Maine, Delaware and Iowa have all been

at the forefront, and I have left those initiatives in my testimony

to share with you as to what those other States are doing.

Finally, I look forward to working with Congress and the Federal

Office of Child Support Enforcement to make any changes that

could possibly improve the effectiveness of our Child Support Program.

35

Your willingness to have these hearings, I think, is a step in that

direction.

Obviously, this is an issue that is very important to all of us. We

know the impacts on the families that are not able to collect the

child support.

And so anything we can do, we are committed to enhancing the

State’s ability in cooperating and coordinating with our State’s District Attorney’s offices to enhance their ability to collect child support.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you. Excellent testimony. Your full statement

will be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. ENSIGN. We were talking earlier about affordable housing.

And, Senator Washington, you wanted to make a comment about

that?

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chair, yes, I did.

I think the affordable housing tax credit that you just alluded to,

we have kind of been following it and just watching the progress

of it, initially, and the reason being, is because it relates to a couple of our situations that I found myself in.

After I finished school, my wife and I were in subsidized housing,

and the State of Nevada at that time had low-interest loans that

they were providing for first-time home buyers, which were actually kind of subsidized by the State.

We took advantage of that situation and bought a home for ourselves, and after that, we sold a home, but we were able to move

up the progression due to the fact that we had an opportunity to

purchase a home, based on the availability of these loans.

And the reason I want to speak to it is because there are a number of initiatives and great ideas that are being put forth, I know

at the northern part of this State by Dave Morton, who runs the

Reno Housing Authority, creating opportunities for individuals to

purchase homes or move into homes for the first time.

I think that the housing tax credit will give that opportunity to

those individuals for ownership, and ownership is the most important thing, and it is one of the main planks of the constitution, to

be able to own property, because it gives you a sense of pride, a

sense of belonging, a sense of self-worth, a sense of self-sufficiency.

And that tax credit will help those that are trying to become selfsufficient to own property for themselves.

Not only for themselves, but for their children and their children

to look at their parents to say, something definitely positive is happening in our family.

So I think it is a positive move. I think it is only one plank, and

there are many other things that are going on, but it will definitely

have an impact.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you. I want to make a couple of comments

on a few of the things that I have heard.

First thing was that—Jan, you made some comments about, and

so did you, Maurice, about the people that are very difficult now

to get off.

You know, we get through those, the, quote, easy ones or easier

people that have a little more motivation to get off.

I have a story about, I am in the Big Brother, Big Sister program

and I am a Big Brother.

And Rhonda Butler, who is the mother of the child that I am a

Big Brother to, was on welfare down in California for a long time,

was one of those, quote, difficult ones to get off.

And it was, with welfare reform and the whole aspect of welfare

reform just being mentioned, just being talked about, that started,

I think, people looking at, the time limit coming.

Looks like Congress is now serious about this. Looks like the

State is serious about doing welfare reform, and it gave people like

Rhonda the motivation to take a look at what she was doing.

46

All of the men that she knew were either in prison or on drugs.

The women she knew were all on welfare. She had just been

caught up in the same dependency cycle.

And she saw the future for her four small boys and decides to

move to the State of Nevada and get a job. The reason I bring her

up as an example, she is one of those, quote, difficult ones to place.

But knowing that there is a time limit, knowing that they cannot

be on this for a lifetime was the key.

We talk about job training. That is very important. Life skills,

and we will have some testimony later today about some of those

types of things.

Those are all important, but there is nothing more important

than the actual job itself.

And, you know, we talk about that their having a job out there.

You mentioned that, we have to make sure those jobs are out here.

If you look at the Sunday papers, every single Sunday, southern,

northern Nevada, I don’t care where it is, there is job after job

after job, people having to advertise to get these jobs filled now.

And if people want to get a job, if they have the motivation, they

can get out there and get the job.

But without the time limit, without us saying, we are not going

to pick you up for the rest of your life, without that, ending entitlements, nothing, none of this would be happening.

I read some statements in the press, and some people make

these statements: We don’t know whether this is a success or not,

just because we decreased the, welfare rolls by 40 percent.

We don’t know what is happening to these people. We don’t know

if it is a success yet.

That is just, in my opinion, is pure, utter nonsense.

We have story after story after story from these people. Yes, they

may be getting some extra help from someplace else.

But the fact is, their lives are being changed in a positive direction because they are getting into the work force.

And as a person who grew up with a deadbeat dad, who grew

up with a mom that was a single parent in Reno with three children that made less money even in those days than if she would

have been on welfare, the work ethic she taught me, that has

stayed with me today, is the same kind of work ethic now that welfare parents are going to be teaching their children.

And if we don’t think that is a positive success story, I don’t

know what is in this country.

And that is why I don’t think that after two years of this thing

passing, for us to be evaluating and be saying that it is too early,

I just have trouble, I guess, understanding that statement.

So if any of you would like to comment on what I just said, it

is fine.

But I will turn it over to Chairman Shaw.

Ms. EVANS. Thank you for that.

However, I am not talking about people who are motivated, and

clearly with a ticking clock hanging over one’s head, or if you are

unmotivated, that would clearly get you moving.

But I am talking about those individuals with learning disabilities, various types of physical handicaps and so forth that need—

47

there are multiple reasons why some people are what we call the

hard-core unemployed.

That is the group I am referring to, not the bulk. As they said,

we know that the majority of people either have some skills that

they can just polish up, or they are teachable. They can learn a

skill.

But there is, nevertheless—we talked to folks who are doing this

on a daily basis. There is a percentage out there that we have to

make some provision for where there is, as I said, some kind of an

extended time, helping them with job mentors, a variety of approaches to this.

That there are folks that are going to need some additional time

and attention. Those are the ones I was referring, those with multiple problems and obstacles.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chair, if I might add, in the ’95 provision

of the welfare reform bill and the ’97, there are provisions in the

current statute that will exempt those type of people from the time

limits, so those people are taken care of: The mentally ill, those

that have physical handicaps. So we are not talking about those

people.

The people that you are talking about are the ones that are incorrigible, unmotivated and hard-core, that have been on the rolls

for an extended period of time.

Oregon has a program that they have been doing for quite a

while, and it is kind of what they call a sink and swim.

You either get out and get a job, and you either swim, or you

sink. And sometimes I think what we have done is we have developed this job training mentality. Say we are going to train you for

certain jobs.

When, in essence, some people, all they need is the motivation,

or sometimes we should say to them, you just have to get out and

get a job. You are either going to sink, or you are going to swim.

And Oregon has been very successful at this program, and I

know State welfare has looked at this program extensively, and

they have come in and provided information on it.

Can it work? I think it can. Because now you are dealing with

the fact that there is a determinate time line that you have to go

to work, and assistance, cash assistance, is going to be cut off. That

is the motivator.

Whether you have got a $6 an hour job, or whether you have got

a $10 an hour job, and whether you can continue to further your

own education, the motivation is yours. Not the State’s, not anybody else’s, but it is yours.

Mr. ENSIGN. Chairman Shaw.

Chairman SHAW. I am glad, Senator Washington, that you

brought that up because the welfare reform bill was very careful

to leave, I think it is about a 20 percent recognition by the States,

that there is going to be a certain amount of people that just are

not going to be employable, plus we have got—for the disability

people, we have got SSI, which is another type of support.

So we have tried awfully hard not to leave anybody behind. And

I might say, that despite some of the abuse that we took in the

Congress, those of us who were working, being called mean-spirited.

48

I heard that word over and over and, again, how mean-spirited.

But we weren’t. We were viewing what we were doing as a rescue

mission, and we have been proven correct. That is simply what we

have done.

I would like to, in just a couple minutes—I see the time is getting—is moving along very quickly here.

So, most interesting panel, and most interesting discussion.

But I do want to point out to you, Senator Washington, something that you brought attention to, which is something that we

are recognizing as one of our next challenges in Washington.

That is the question of the fatherhood initiative program that we

have filed, which I think both Congressmen Christensen and Ensign are cosponsors of in the Ways and Means Committee.

We are recognizing that one of the problems in the growth of illegitimacy is, quite frankly, we just don’t have enough qualified

males that females really want to marry.

And that, I mean, I don’t want to hear any women saying that.

But as a man, I can say that.

And there is a real problem out there, and there is a huge problem.

And one of the problems is that these males are growing up in

a family where there was no male for them to be able to use as

a role model.

And we have found a few successful programs around the country, just as we were finding successful programs among the States

in welfare reform. We were finding some programs that are out

there.

And we are hopeful to be able to allocate sufficient funds for the

States, or allow the States to use some of their existing fundings

to get into the fatherhood programs to teach these males exactly

the importance of a job, and really what it is to be a father.

And not only the financial responsibilities, but also the spiritual

responsibilities of providing love and caring and being able themselves to at least start being a model for these kids.

And, hopefully, we can stop the problem that we have out there.

And I think that the whole image of the male has been tremendously diminished, even if you look on television as what is up

there right now.

The joke of every family program now is the male. It is the father, who is always a bungling idiot, that everything he does goes

wrong.

So I think what we need to do, and we need to really show that

being a father and being a partner is a tremendous responsibility,

and carries with it not only the need that they earn the respect,

but also that they have something to work with.

In doing that, we have put together in the legislation that the

majority of this effects, 75 percent of it would be required by the

State to be contracted out to organizations, some of them faithbased organizations. Some of them not.

But we have got to do something. We just can’t sit here and let

the thing just get worse and worse.

Ms. DEL PAPA. Mr. Chairman, let me just take what you have

said one step further.

49

Nevada, unfortunately, has one of the highest teen pregnancy

rates in the country.

One of the challenges that we have seen, and this is documented

obviously in the book called Fatherless America, some of which obviously you have alluded to and are familiar with.

However, one of the challenges that we have to face is 70 percent

of the over-20 males are engaged with adolescent females, who are,

in fact, under 20.

So you have got the phenomena of an older man being involved

with a younger woman. You have also got—but, again, there is no

one solution that is going to fit every circumstance, and you have

got to have a broad base of programs.

I, for one, would like to see us consider, as a country, what we

have done for the domestic violence task force, requiring a State action plan, and, indeed, letting the States go forward and do those

programs that are appropriate for them.

Because what is going to work in Washington DC or Carson City

is not going to be the same thing that is going to work in Las

Vegas or Pahrump or some other small town. You have really got

to get back to the sense of the community.

But another side thing that I will tell you, you are probably already aware of it, that juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy occurs between three to six p.m.

I mean, those are the most vulnerable times for the family.

Those are the most vulnerable times for the communities. Where

is everybody from three to six p.m.?

And if you don’t have—if you don’t have activities, if you don’t

have alternatives—and, again, I see a lot of these things very much

interrelated.

That is why so much of our time in the Attorney General’s Office

was put on domestic violence prevention, trying to do whatever to

assist our clients.

With reference to teenage pregnancy, it will take a concerted effort, and I would, for one, would like to see, and you can’t just do

it with abstinence-based messages. I think abstinence-based messages are very important for the nine- to 13-year-old group.

But once they get beyond 13, you have got to have alternatives.

You have got to have access to other programs and other organizations.

But it is quite complicated. One of the things I would like to see

us do is address that issue the way we have addressed domestic

violence prevention.

Chairman SHAW. I think the legislation that we have been drafting would allow you to become very much involved in that, in putting these various programs together.

And before I surrender the microphone to Mr. Christensen, I

would like to compliment you. I mean, I really know I am in the

Wild West when I see wanted posters.

I think that is a great idea. I don’t know if other States are doing

that. But——

Ms. DEL PAPA. They are.

Chairman SHAW. But that is the first one I have seen, and it certainly, I think, is quite appropriate.

50

Ms. DEL PAPA. Again, you are looking for innovative ways, because how can you reach the public if you don’t have access to the

media?

And these are the types of things. I mean, in our State, we have

enjoyed good cooperative efforts with Nevada’s media, but you do

have to have ideas, and you have to have programs that can capture the imagination as well.

Otherwise, you can’t have access, because, again, like even thinking in terms of adolescents in our State, in the age group from 9

to 18 years old, 220,000 adolescents in that age group.

How do you reach them if you don’t have some sort of media

component or some sort of public education campaign?

So no matter what you do, you have got to be very cognizant of

that. This program, as I had said, has been very effective. We have

even had two criminal convictions, which are virtually unheard of,

almost.

And we have had 18, I think, out of the 24 people captured, and

a large amount of money raised. But, again, part of it is it helps

raise public awareness, which is something we are always concerned about doing in any of these programs, and at the same time

recognize the upbeat.

Because you don’t always want to be ragging on the deadbeat

parents. You also want to do some things as far as recognizing

those people that are fulfilling their obligations.

Mr. WASHINGTON. If I can just interject one thing.

I think what is important is, whether at the State level or at the

Federal level, we implement policies also that enhance and encourage the family unit to stay together.

And what we are trying, what you are trying, or what I am gathering what you are trying to say is that we want to encourage the

sanctity of marriage.

The importance of marriage and the responsibility of a male and

a female, and raising their family and raising those children and

what that encompasses.

And I would just add to the Attorney General, I think they are

doing a great job on the child support end of it, and I applaud them

for it, but here is my concern.

My concern is if the—between the hours of three to five, if their

parents are not at home, or something else is going on, or illegitimacy is increased at that hour or juvenile delinquency, let’s ask

the question: Why is it that—why is it at that hour that there is

nobody at home?

Well, I think there is a tremendous tax burden on people, also,

because now in two-parent households, for instance, my household,

my wife and I have to both work.

Now, it is not to say that we excuse or neglect our responsibility

in raising of our children.

But you have got to understand when you have got two-parent

households that we are both working, trying to keep the ends meeting. Because if the tax burden is too high upon them, something

is going to give way.

And the old adage, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the

world, somebody is rocking that cradle, and nine times out of ten,

it isn’t the mother or father that is at home.

51

So we have got to look at other means by which we can support

the family unit, so the family unit can set those morals and those

values and those traditions that are inherited in families.

I am afraid, Chairman, it is not the village that raises the child.

It is the family that raises the child.

And any time you destroy the family unit with welfare or any

other subsidies, or any other give-away programs or entitlement

programs, you are going to make a detriment to this country and

to the very fabric that holds this country together.

Whether it is a village, whether it is a community, or whether

it is this Nation as a whole, I think the policies have to be so that

they encourage the family, the male, the female and those children

that they have spawned, to help them raise those children in a safe

environment.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. I will yield to Mr. Christensen, who

I think probably will want to say something about the marriage

penalty tax.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yeah, I know we are running late. Just going

to make a few comments. Then I want to really applaud this panel.

It has been an impressive panel.

Madam Attorney General, what States are using this 10 most

wanted?

Ms. DEL PAPA. Probably are about seven or eight. I think it originated—we stole the idea. I believe it was from Rhode Island.

There is a tremendous amount of collaboration that goes on between the Nation’s attorney generals. Everything we do, we share.

Likewise, they share with us.

Many of the programs in the other States were in my testimony.

I—due to time constraints, I didn’t—these are some of the highlights of what other States are doing.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. If possible, I would like to get your home

page. I saw you had a copy of a page. I could always pull it up,

but if you have got it right there, I would like it.

If a foundation or private organization were to take on this 10

most wanted idea, if a State, like, say, Nebraska, it was not doing

it, what kind of liability have you seen in this kind of public display of the 10 most wanted?

Do you know of any?

Ms. DEL PAPA. I am not aware of any liability.

Again, we have worked very closely with the agencies, and I

mean, there is a threshold of $10,000 you have to be in arrears

there. I think the highest amount that was in arrears was over

$80,000.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Where have you found the most, the most successful places, where you have posted these posters to see the best

returns?

Ms. DEL PAPA. For instance, I was in a—there is a wide distributive network for them. We also do a press conference when they are

issued. It is that initial press conference that really helps call attention to it.

You are always looking for ways to try to——

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Grocery stores?

52

Ms. DEL PAPA. We haven’t gone to many in the private sector

stores. Mainly in the DA offices and State facilities, but it is interesting.

The number of—as I said, these were people who were previously

unlocatable, and yet you can see of the worst, you know, top 24

cases, we have managed to get—I think capture 18 of them, and

also two criminal convictions out of this.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I applaud your work. I am going to take it

back to the attorney general in Nebraska. I think this is a phenomenal program. If they don’t do it, I have a foundation that

would like to do it.

So I applaud your efforts. Excellent testimony.

Senator Washington, I like what you say. That is awesome.

We need to get those words out around this country because

those are the words that are making a difference in people’s lives.

My fatherhood initiative, that we are talking about some of the

programs, boy, continue to talk about that, because that is what is

going to make a difference.

You know, as Chairman Shaw talked about the marriage penalty, we are on the verge of, hopefully, getting that through this

year. Basically you are penalized about $1400 for a married couple filing jointly versus living together.

And if that isn’t a backwards approach to encouraging marriage,

hopefully, we will get that done.

Jan, Assemblywoman Evans, I want to just tell you, when I got

to Congress in ’94, the low-income housing tax credit was being

considered to be abolished.

I don’t want to toot his horn too much, but John was the one that

really worked to get that thing back on, and get it fully funded and

increased.

And so the low-income housing tax credit is a tremendous public/

private partnership that works very, very well.

And I think we have got it in a place now where it is going to

continue to be there for a very long time.

Jim, I tell you what. I will trade the second district of Nebraska

for the second district of Nevada in terms of scenery. You have got

a beautiful, beautiful district, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for

the opportunity.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

And I want to thank you, I want to thank this panel.

I think we can certainly see, from the quality of elected officials

that they have here in Nevada, why things are working, and we

congratulate you and thank you for being with us this morning.

I am going to talk out of turn. Being a grandfather of eight kids,

I can tell what this young mother is going through right now, trying to keep this youngster, beautiful youngster, settled down.

So you are on the last panel, but I am going to take you out of

turn right now.

Lonnie Halterman, will you come to the table with Devin Cramer

as noncustodial parents from Sparks.

Do you have copies of their testimony? We have a copy of Devin’s

testimony, which will be made a part of the record. We invite you

to say what you see fit.

53

Mr. HALTERMAN. Good morning, Chairman Shaw, and members

of the senate committee. I would like to thank you for having us

here today.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Halterman, could you pull yourself up a

little bit to the microphone and turn it on? Thank you.

STATEMENT OF LONNIE HALTERMAN, NONCUSTODIAL

PARENT, SPARKS, NEVADA

Mr. HALTERMAN. My name is Lonnie Halterman, and I am 20

years old. Devin and I met in high school.

During that time, I had problems with drinking and drug abuse,

and I did some time in jail for this.

I tried to better my life by going to Oklahoma. Devin came there

to visit and see if we wanted to start a family there.

But not long after she went home, she informed me that she was

pregnant.

My daughter was born August of 1997. During that time, Devin

and I received—Devin was receiving—well, I moved back to Nevada, in December 1997, to take care of my responsibilities.

And I still—I was still not doing well at that and ended up in

court. The court referred me to the Employment Assistance program in January of 1998 and helped me get a job.

With the help of my counselor, I was able to get interview

clothes, write up resumes, receive referral for employment, and obtain bus tokens to get around town and look for work.

I was also referred to Job Corps.

After some testing, evaluations, I am happy to say that I have

been accepted in Job Corps, and I will start in September, 1998,

and I have planned to get my GED and my job training as an electrician.

While I was waiting for acceptance in Job Corps, I applied in

April 1998, and I have been working steadily ever since.

Devin also received help from my counselor. She helped with resumes, job referrals, and in emotional support, and I was employed.

Once I was employed and able to support my daughter, Devin

and I was able to talk and put our family unit back together.

We have been stable as a family unit since then, and I am proud

to say, we are looking to the future as a family.

And I am glad the court referred me to the Employment Assistance Program.

Through the program, and with the assistance of my counselor,

both Devin and myself, we have been able to make positive changes

in our lives and provide for us a stable, dependable home life for

the family.

Thank you for your time. I would like to answer any questions

you may have.

Mr. ENSIGN. Well, thank you. Thank you both for being here, and

bringing your pretty little girl there.

Chairman SHAW. She is pretty.

Mr. ENSIGN. How old is she?

Mr. HALTERMAN. She will be a year the end of this month.

54

Mr. ENSIGN. First thing I want to do is I want to commend you.

You should be an example now of, other people that have been in

your position who are now taking responsibility.

I mean, you have fathered a child, and too often that is not the

case these days.

And I applaud you for now taking responsibility and trying to

improve yourself, to be able to provide a good stable home for your

family, and it is good to see you taking that responsibility.

I guess one of the things—I want to just try to get into your

brain a little bit, just because we have heard so much about, welfare reform. Is it working? Is it not working?

What kind of an effect, did it have on you?

Mr. HALTERMAN. Like I said, there was—it was a time to where

I could not get around.

There was parts to where there was jobs where I could go, but

I could not get around to do—I could not afford bus fare to go to

the job interviews. I could not afford the clothes for the job interviews, stuff like that.

It is kind of hard for a person that, you know, just like in my

condition, which—which was on the streets, go to a job interview,

if they don’t have anything like this.

Because, you know, you do got to be presentable to a job. You do

got to have money to go to the job. Like I know you said, there is

a lot of jobs out there.

But it is the problem, as most the people do not have the benefits, like I did, that was able to get out there and do. Find the job.

I was not able to get out there and do the things I was able.

So if it was not for this, I wouldn’t have had the clothes or be

able to get around to get to the jobs.

And that is what I—and resumes. I never knew how to do resumes. And my resumes helped, because I would be able to remember the dates and everything that I have work for.

Mr. ENSIGN. I just want to, first of all, say that not only do I

commend you, but I also think that you are an example of the difference between true compassion and just sending a welfare check

every month.

That welfare check would have trapped Devin and your daughter

here, into a cycle of dependency. You may never have had to take

responsibility, and now with some of this assistance, be able to

transition.

You know, you can give some hope to your child there and to

your family. So I applaud you. I am glad that system is working

for you.

Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SHAW. I just want to briefly, briefly add, this is what

our fatherhood program is about. This is what we are trying to accomplish, and your looking forward to a family, I think is a wonderful thing.

My wife and I had, who is with me today, she is back there in

the second row. We just celebrated, day before yesterday our 38th

anniversary. I tell you, after you get over the first 30 years, it is

easy.

I am going to pay for that remark. But we are delighted, it is

wonderful to see the two of you together.

55

And realizing what a joy it is to be a father, not only just a mother, but to be a father to a child and watch them grow up and share

in that life, it is a great gift, and I congratulate you for seeing it.

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to thank you both, and you can tell that Mrs.

Shaw must be one heck of a woman to be able to put up with him

for 38 years.

But I want to thank you both for being here, and sharing your

story because the reason it is important for people like you to testify is because you will give hope to those others.

You may be, Lonnie, you may be the inspiration to another father, where maybe some of them weren’t going to take the responsibility for their children.

And you may be the inspiration that they needed to actually say,

you know what? I did father that child, and I am going to take responsibility at that point.

And so I just want to congratulate both of you for what you are

doing, and to wish you the best.

Thank you for being here.

Mr. HALTERMAN. Thank you.

[The proposed statement follows:]

56

57

58

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to call the next panel up.

Myla Florence, Administrator, Nevada State Welfare Division;

Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator of Field Operations;

Nikki Firpo, Social Welfare Manager, Nevada State Welfare Division, Reno District Office.

Mujahid Ramadan, Executive Director, Nevada Partners, Inc.,

North Las Vegas; and Dorothy Wilcox, employee, office of Dr. Leonard Shapiro, Reno Medical Plaza.

We will hear first from Myla Florence, Administrator, State of

Nevada State Welfare.

STATEMENT OF MYLA C. FLORENCE, ADMINISTRATOR,

NEVADA STATE WELFARE DIVISION

Ms. FLORENCE. Thank you, Mr. Ensign, and members.

Mr. ENSIGN. If you would just remember about the five-minute

rule. We have a five-minute time, and we don’t want to give you

the hook.

Ms. FLORENCE. Thank you. Again, I am Myla Florence, administrator of the Nevada State Welfare Division.

The welfare division is the State agency responsible for administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF

program.

Child support enforcement, Nevada’s employment and training

program, called New Employees Of Nevada or NEON, and the Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant, Child Care Development Fund and

other low-income programs.

Our mission is to provide quality, timely and temporary services

enabling Nevada’s families, the disabled and the elderly to achieve

their highest level of self-sufficiency, a mission we have been pursuing since the early to mid-’90s.

I would like to thank the committee for coming here so close to

the second anniversary of welfare reform. It is an honor and a

pleasure to be here with you today.

Welfare reform, as you have heard, actually began in Nevada in

1993 when a welfare reform task force was convened.

And this group laid the foundation for Nevada’s make work pay

system introduced by Governor Miller and passed by the 1995 legislature.

Nevada has reached out to the private sector to secure jobs for

our clientele as new resorts have opened.

Among the many accomplishments in the agency’s efforts to partner with Nevada employers is the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino’s

1994, 1995, hiring of approximately 900 recipients.

Notable is the fact that 70 percent were still employed in a twoyear follow-up conducted on this population.

Today we continue as some of the newer properties have opened

and plan to open.

Properties being developed by Steven Wynn in Las Vegas have

committed to hiring four to eight hundred recipients in 1998, and

we are also working with the Venetian in Las Vegas to train recipients for that resort.

Nevada experienced a drop in the aid to families with dependent

children caseload prior to the inception of the national welfare reform legislation.

59

The AFDC program reached its highest peak in March, 1995,

with 42,700 recipients.

By December, 1996, only four months after PRWORA was signed

into law, Nevada’s AFDC Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

caseload had dropped 27 percent.

We attribute this caseload decrease to a strong State and national economy, talk of the national welfare reform legislation, and

the aggressive employment focus, such as applicant job search

which we implemented in January 1996.

You can see this slide depicts some of the significant events

which have influenced the welfare caseload.

As of July 1998, Nevada experienced a 42-percent decline in the

AFDC/TANF population since March 1995.

Noteworthy, as mentioned earlier, this is in the face of the fact

that our caseload declines are occurring in a State with the fastest

growing population in the Nation.

For persons approved for TANF assistance, the complete screening assessment of their employment skills, work experience, training and child care needs are conducted.

Every person undergoes a strength-based assessment where barriers to employment and potential for issues such as domestic violence and substance abuse may be discovered.

Welfare recipients are also referred to vocational rehabilitation

services, health and mental health services, adult basic education,

and others within the government or nonprofit agency systems as

needed.

Every possible step is taken to link the client with the help they

need to become self-sufficient.

If our clientele comes to us job ready, we help get them a job.

If they come to us with barriers, we provide the needed services to

assist them.

What kind of jobs do they get? As you can see from this slide,

sales, food services and clerical positions comprise about 60 percent

of the jobs obtained.

The welfare to work program made possible by the balanced

budget act of 1997 was perfect timing for Nevada, and we took advantage of it, becoming one of the first five States to receive approval of its welfare to work State plan in January of 1998.

Nevada is unique in the Governor’s designation of the TANF

agency as the agency to administer welfare to work funds.

Mr. ENSIGN. If you could summarize.

Ms. FLORENCE. I would just make one point about child care. We

appreciate the enhanced funding provided by Congress for child

care. Needless to say, the demand already exceeds the available

funding for child care.

Like to summarize just with some quick recommendations.

We believe TANF block grant fundings must be maintained. We

would like consideration for work participation calculations to consider some supportive services, such as English as a second language, parenting, and other kinds of programs that enable people

to maintain work, maintaining the welfare to work funding beyond

the year 2000, and, of course, increased child care funding.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you.

Mr. Michael Willden.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. WILLDEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF PROGRAM AND FIELD OPERATIONS, NEVADA

STATE WELFARE DIVISION

Mr. WILLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am Mike Willden, deputy administrator for the welfare division.

I would also like to thank you for this opportunity to be here and

provide a few brief comments about the division’s ongoing need to

change the way we do business.

Specifically, the training of our frontline workers.

Myla mentioned our mission at the welfare division is to provide

quality, timely and temporary services enabling Nevada families to

achieve their highest level of self-sufficiency.

If you take a minute to think about that mission statement, four

things come to mind.

First, we have to be committed to self-sufficiency.

Second, we must want to help, which deals with our attitude and

our contact with the clients we serve.

Third, we must know how to help. We must have the skills and

ability to help the people we serve.

Finally we must do our work timely, accurately, and promote the

program integrity.

Over this last 25 years, we have trained eligibility workers to

simply determine eligibility and the amount of benefits.

Until recently, employability was not integrated into the eligibility process, nor were social workers available to help families

with complex social programs.

Welfare reform has demanded a retooling or change in these

processes. I would like to quickly talk about three things we have

done in Nevada.

First, we are one of eight States to receive a cultural change

grant.

We have received approximately $250,000 from the Department

of Health and Human Services, office of child and family services.

We are very appreciative of getting these funds, and it has enabled us to do training over the last six months.

Nevada has primarily used our grant to provide a 40-hour training course to all frontline workers and supervisors.

We contracted with Mid-America Consulting Group, to tailor

their product to meet Nevada’s needs. We trained 30 of our own

frontline trainers.

And we then set out to train all frontline workers in the new

process, the new culture of welfare. This training emphasizes the

change from the old eligibility system to the new emphasis on work

and self-sufficiency.

Finally, I would like to indicate, the training will be of no value

unless we evaluate whether or not the exchange of information

across the worker’s desk to the client that we serve is of benefit.

This evaluation will occur this coming month, and we hope that

we will be able to come out with future recommendations and areas

that we need to make additional change.

83

Second, we have opened a professional development center in Las

Vegas. Mr. Ensign commented about the population modifier.

In the TANF grant, we are using the population modifiers to

fund training centers for our frontline workers. We have one open

in Las Vegas that opened last February.

This includes an academy for all frontline workers where they

learn to do business from A to Z. This is largely different from the

way we did business in the past, where we would bring an employee in, buddy them up, give them OJT and expect them to do

their job.

The academy will be a huge change in the way we do frontline

training.

Also included in the academy are several issues where we marry

up with our client training.

The academy houses several lecture rooms, automated system

labs, and we use those labs to not only train the clients in work

efforts and employment training efforts, but our own staff.

Also included in the professional development center is on-site

child care, we are now in the business of remodeling the facility

and doing construction there, but this will be a huge cornerstone

to the outcome and the product that we have produced there.

Finally, I would like to talk about our workers’ certification program.

We have contracted with the University of Nevada Las Vegas to

provide additional frontline workers training. When I say frontline

worker, this is eligibility workers, employment and training workers, and child support workers.

Each of these individuals will go to 32 hours of core courses,

where they will learn the principles of public welfare, program policy and procedures, technical and quantitative skills, communication skills, interpersonal effectiveness and achieving personal excellence and transition to leadership.

In addition to the core courses, staff will be eligible to attend 27

hours of expanded course work. If they complete each of these

courses, they will be eligible to receive a certificate in professional

development, and it will also improve their knowledge and skills to

help families become independent.

In summary, I would like to close with the comment that we are

cognizant that doing business now is extremely different than the

way we have done it for the last 25 years.

It requires a totally different type of worker to deal with the

issues that are involved in welfare reform, and we would like to

recommend that Congress and the administration continue to support ways to improve frontline worker training.

We also are recommending formal technical assistance programs

where States can share the positive things that other States have

put in place.

I would suggest to the committee that the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service has an excellent State exchange service that I believe could be modeled for TANF, and it

would be an excellent tool.

I thank you for this opportunity, and I am available for questions.

[The prepared statement follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Nikki.

STATEMENT OF NIKKI FIRPO, SOCIAL WELFARE MANAGER,

NEVADA STATE WELFARE DIVISION, RENO DISTRICT OFFICE

Ms. FIRPO. Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is

Nikki Firpo, and I am social welfare manager for the Nevada State

Welfare District Office in Reno.

I was asked to provide a view of welfare reform impacts from the

local level.

I feel well qualified to do this, as I have been in a field office or

representing a field office for the last 20 years in both child support

enforcement and eligibility programs.

In the Reno district office, we have processed approximately 475

TANF applications. Each month we have an ongoing TANF caseload of approximately 1750.

I was an eligibility worker years ago when self-sufficiency was

not the buzz word. We followed the guidelines to the letter when

determining to what programs an applicant was entitled.

We made home visits when appropriate, but we did not delve

deeply into the lives of clients. Decisions were based on the application, the interview and collateral contacts.

Case actions were solely related to eligibility criteria. We did not

suggest to the clients they should be working.

Welfare was an entitlement program. If someone was eligible, we

provided benefits.

We are now in a new world of welfare. Workers reorganizing

their workday to spend more time with clients. They help the clients identify issues and become familiar with clients as parents

and families.

Their casework is no longer black and white, but filled with

multicolors representing strengths, problems, barriers and achievements. They work through the processes, leading clients through

training and on to employment.

The workers are the rule books, the cheerleaders, the referral

sources and the providers of temporary benefits.

Some workers have adjusted favorably to the new environment.

Under the previous rules they felt stifled when they were only

dealing with obvious aspects of the clients’ lives, the part revealed

on our application.

They are now challenged with the problem-solving areas. These

areas include how to prepare for employment, how to juggle work

and parenting, how to handle emergencies, et cetera.

Because they are part of the clients’ successes, the process is

more enjoyable. They have pleasure in witnessing the increase in

self-esteem of our clients as these people become employed and

take charge of their lives.

Other workers have struggled with the change. They have found

it difficult to balance the work load with the new emphasis on partnership with the clients.

Some have become unsettled with the amount of information

they receive and must process. One worker shared with me the

conflicts she felt as she discussed the molestation of a client’s

grandchildren with them.

90

She felt unprepared and unworthy to play such an important role

in the client’s life as to recommend counseling.

She knew she had to develop a plan with the client, but was in

tears when the interview was over. The whole process became overwhelming to the worker.

I think we have to recognize all staff will not be comfortable in

the new roles.

Another important measurement is the acceptance of welfare reform issues by the clients.

Many of them do not believe some welfare rules apply to them.

They have tested the system and have discovered sanctions are

really in place, and if they do not comply, it does not take too long

to lose their cash grant.

There are many who doubt the certainness of time limits. As I

have talked with clients, they believe it might happen to others,

but if they are discontinued, there will be another program available.

Those successful clients who have become employed want us to

continue to hold firm with the new rules because their friends and

neighbors will be better off once they are working.

As the process has worked for them, it will certainly work for

others.

In Reno, we have worked hard on our community partnerships,

including other agencies and potential employers.

We have job developers and employment and training counselors

working with the private sector to create ways for our clients to be

interviewed for jobs.

We have recognized the need for our clients to be able to keep

their jobs, and we have a new job retention contract in place with

our local JTPA agency.

The clients are trained in goal setting, money and time management and workplace norms and expectations. We should be seeing

the results in job retention over the next few months.

It is interesting to note, although transition is difficult, the majority of staff and clients want it to work.

This is seen as a turning point in welfare history. As we endeavor to create positive change, the little achievements we have observed keeps all of us motivated.

The clients are proud of themselves and start to believe that the

road to success is not so steep and not so rocky. Self-sufficiency is

reachable to them and to others.

We appreciate the flexibility Congress has given us which enables us to shape our program and our services as needed.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

91

92

93

94

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you.

And I would like to state a word about Nevada Partners.

Right during the whole welfare reform debate we were doing

there in Congress, I visited Nevada Partners. There was a class

called the women in transition class, and there were 30 to 40

women in that class.

And that was at a time when we were being called all kinds of

evil things, throwing women and children into the street, and accused of just being hard-hearted, mean-spirited, whatever other

things that you can describe us as.

There were cartoons and editorials across the country that really

lambasted us for what we were doing.

And yet in that class, I never will forget, several of the women

actually thanked us just for discussing welfare reform and saying

that there was going to be an end to entitlement.

Because that is what got them to come to that class, and they

were so excited about what they were going to be doing. They were

going to be changing their lives, and the lives for their children,

and I never will forget that day.

I brought that testimony back to the Chairman at that time and

shared with him, because we were being beat up so badly, that we

kind of needed the encouragement to go on, as well.

So I thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF MUJAHID RAMADAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NEVADA PARTNERS, INC., NORTH LAS VEGAS

Mr. RAMADAN. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Christensen, on behalf of Governor

Bob Miller, the chairman of the board of Nevada Partners, and

founder of it back in 1992, we were spawned out of social unrest

in southern Nevada.

Since that time, it has become part of the big component of what

was identified as an organic whole of getting people to transition

successfully from welfare and into the work force.

To date, through the private sector, Nevada Partners has invested over $9.5 million in Nevada Partners, and we placed well

over 4,500 people to work, about 40 percent of which happened to

be on welfare.

Of course, it was noted earlier that the people who were placed

at the MGM, the 900 came through Nevada Partners life skills preemployment, postemployment preparation.

And that is largely where Nevada Partners gives a focus to, is

how to shift the paradigm of the unemployed, always on welfare,

successfully into the work force.

So in discussion of welfare reform, it has become necessary to encompass some of the things that you already know and put them

into a context of welfare reform, so we can take the actions that

will truly make an impact on the lives of the individuals.

As Congressman Ensign has made note, these individuals were

really encouraged by the fact they were going to have to now go

into the work force.

Human behavior, as we realize, is based on three levels of components.

95

The base level has to be physical reaction to our desires, and that

is where we reside.

This is where most of the information regarding our physical

senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing, take place.

Above this level is our emotional or implicate level, where emotional responses and desires are experienced.

The upper level contains the working knowledge of what is needed to be done, how to accomplish it.

This is what our life skills and pre-employment and post employment preparation focuses on.

Within the welfare culture, there is a group that had been created. There are circumstances we would like to change, and we

have been successful in doing so.

It becomes necessary to realize that a forced change in behavior

is simply that: Forced change in behavior. It is possible through the

changes in the systems of effect to effect temporary change on the

behavior of people.

But until such time as an impact is made on that emotional

level, we cannot truly expect the change of paradigm and thus lasting difference to be made.

In making a change in an individual’s paradigm or how they experience life, it is crucial to understand their origin.

Most of us are pretty much aware that a change in perception

is what it takes to make a change in a person’s reality. That makes

a difference between someone who is dependent upon a system, as

opposed to someone who makes his or her own way out.

The question that is often raised, or the issue most misunderstood, is how to penetrate the misconceptions and clear away the

baggage to create a positive result.

I would like to bring to your consideration the effects of establishing a human response pattern.

In recognition or processing of a stimuli, certain areas of our

human behavior are activated, and a series of reactions occur in

the human personality due to the firing of how our brain functions.

An experiment at the University of California, San Francisco, revealed some pertinent fact about the brain and habituation.

In the study, primates were used to illustrate the point, as they

tend to provide the best model for studying human behaviors.

Subjects were told to use one finger to press a button and reap

food as reward. This continued to produce a learned response:

Press the button with this finger and get the food.

The subjects learned this behavior sequence and related it to the

pleasurable outcome of gaining rewards.

The part of the brain stimulated in this response was also studied. It was found, through habitual stimulation, this part of the

brain developed deeper pathways or patterns in the brain’s response.

Thus, in the absence of food as a reward, the subject continued

to use the same finger to press the button, having associated it

with a pleasurable event.

Human beings behave in much the same way when it comes to

association. We develop brain response patterns that dictate much

of our behavior.

This is exemplified in the phantom limb syndrome.

96

These continued behaviors that have been developed over a period of time we can see often in the welfare population.

These neural pathways can be forged that are particularly difficult for this population to overcome.

In the case of welfare, brain response patterns have often been

created over periods of generations. To simply remove the financial

compensation will not extinguish the paradigm. It then becomes

necessary to impact the perceptions that lead to a voluntary change

in behavior.

A new human response pattern can be developed into a complete

new way of seeing life. Only in this process will we truly impact

many individuals’ lives.

Oftentimes, it takes a discontinuance of habitual behavior to see

the involved thought process for what it really is.

It is difficult to recognize this behavior response pattern while

we are directly involved in it. As with many people on welfare, it

is difficult to see the damaging effects of welfare.

Consider our adolescent paradigms and how we now see it from

the adult point of view.

In my summation, the Nevada Partners’ effort is to be able to

bring people new life skills and to help alter how they experience

and how they view life.

We have a mirror inside of our facility, which is about 20,000

square feet, 14,000 which is dedicated to life skills, pre-employment, postemployment preparation.

And above the mirror there is a sign that says: Would you hire

this person? And the mirror really speaks back to you itself. If you

can’t say you would hire the person, no employer would.

We also look at that, and the fact we have the luxury in southern

Nevada of having a rich, growing economy in our efforts to help

people work gainfully in the private sector, get people into the

work force.

But the deal is we have to send them good, sound people. We

work with Nevada State welfare, and the culinary people have to

go through partnership, pre-employment, postemployment preparation prior to going into training to go to success into the work force.

So on behalf of our board and the private sector participation, all

of those who have participated with Nevada Partners, we appreciate your allowing this testimony.

Congressman Ensign was very involved in Nevada Partners.

[The prepared statement follows:]

97

98

99

100

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you.

Now, I really think one of the stars of the day, Dorothy Wilcox,

who is a former welfare recipient and who is truly the personification of what the welfare reform bill was supposed to do, both on

the State and Federal level.

And we invited you here to tell your story because we also want

you to be an encouragement to others who are on welfare currently,

and we want you to be an inspiration for people to be off. Look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY WILCOX, EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OF

DR. LEONARD SHAPIRO, RENO MEDICAL PLAZA

Ms. WILCOX. My name is Dorothy Wilcox. I have been on welfare,

on and off on since 1992.

I would get off welfare, when I could support myself by providing

child care for other people’s children. But I would get very depressed and not be able to continue. Then I would reapply for welfare.

Have three children, two boys and a girl, ages four, nine and

thirteen. My youngest son goes to daycare each day, and my

daughter is in year-round school. My oldest son is mature enough

to stay home during the day.

I last came on welfare in June 1997. I went to an employment

and training orientation in August 1997.

The employment and training worker saw I had some skills, and

placed me in a community work experience program at Catholic

Community Services.

I stayed there for three months. I would walk my youngest child

to daycare each morning and ride the bus to work, to my work site.

After a while, my worker and I decided I needed to get more skills

training.

I enrolled in a Medi-soft program at my local community college.

This course taught me how to do medical billings, set up appointments for doctors and the technical language of the medical field.

I walked to school each day for six weeks. The classes were concentrated, and I was in school from eight to five.

Once I had graduated from the program, I applied for two jobs

and was not hired. The employment and training worker and the

counselor encouraged me a lot.

They would not let me doubt myself. One of the companies that

had not hired me called back because the person they hired did not

work out.

So I went to work at the Reno Medical Plaza as a patient coordinator on July 7th of 1998.

I make 7.50 an hour and work full-time. I still walk my son to

daycare every day and spend 45 minutes, one way, including transfers, taking the bus to work.

I tell my friends who don’t have cars that you don’t need a car

to get a job because I have done it. I have a lot of self-esteem now.

I know I can support my children. While I was on welfare, the

support enforcement workers were able to get me a court order for

child support.

When my cash grant stops next month, I will start getting my

child support directly, which is over $200 a month. I also will begin

101

receiving Social Security survivors benefits of $524 for one of my

children.

With this income, in addition to my job earnings, I believe I can

provide for my family.

I have gained a lot because of welfare reform. I now have selfesteem, training and skills I can use on the job.

Before I thought no one cared. There were very few training opportunities. Now I have been able to get just about anything to get

me going.

My workers pushed me and made me believe in myself. They

kept me going when I didn’t think I would get a job. Now I am almost there.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

102

103

104

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you very much, Dorothy.

I enjoyed spending time with you at your workplace. I also want

to thank your employer for allowing you to be here today, but also

for believing in you.

And, by the way, I talked to him this morning. He said you are

doing a great job, so that is very encouraging.

I have a few questions for various members of the panel.

First of all, I do want to start with you, Dorothy.

You mentioned this morning, when you were being interviewed

by one of the news stations, you mentioned that, when they asked

you about the welfare reform bill, and your comments, I just maybe

want to share what your comment was about whether or not this

welfare reform bill should have been enacted.

If it was not, where would you find yourself? And should we ease

up on people, I guess.

Ms. WILCOX. I don’t think you should ease up on people. I would

not be here today if it was not for them. I would still be sitting at

home depressed. They made me believe in myself and know that

I can do it.

They need to be tough on these people because they think they

can sit at home collecting this money, which is not doing anything.

Mr. ENSIGN. You know, your comment was, also, about transportation. That is one of the big things that people talk about is transportation, and they don’t have a car. They can’t get to work.

And you travel 45 minutes on a bus doing various transfers, and

you have got to walk to child care. You have got all the obstacles

that everybody else used for excuses.

And all the people that would criticize us for doing this welfare

reform bill, you are overcoming those obstacles.

And I thought it was interesting, your comments that if we ease

up on them, then they are not going to use these excuses forever.

Ms. WILCOX. Right.

Chairman SHAW. I wanted to pursue one side that we really

haven’t touched on.

How old are your children, Dorothy?

Ms. WILCOX. Four, nine and thirteen.

Chairman SHAW. How has your going to work affected their attitude towards life and towards you?

Ms. WILCOX. Before, when they were on welfare, they didn’t get

out much. They weren’t happy, and they knew I was not happy.

Now that I am working, they are—I see their attitudes have

changed towards life. They are really happy now, and they get out

and do stuff. I can take them places every weekend, to the movies

and do more things with them.

Chairman SHAW. At one of our hearings in Washington, I remember—I think it was Eloise Anderson, who is the welfare director of California. I think she is the one that said this. But it was

somebody of equal position, if it was not her.

She was talking about how the children would tend to go to

school and brag, saying, ‘‘My mama went to work today,’’ which is

really a wonderful thing to see.

So I think the role model that you are now, is infinitely higher

than the role model you were when you were home depressed,

watching the reruns.

105

So I congratulate you. Thank you.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you. I have a couple other questions.

First of all, Mujahid, could you just do me a favor and comment

on this population because it seems like you deal with a lot of different populations.

Not just the ones like Dorothy who was in and out. She, motivated herself to get out. Therefore, we have given her the tools to

get off welfare.

But can you comment on what we talk about, that 50 percent or

whatever of the welfare rolls that are going to be, on there for a

long, long time, do you deal with those?

Mr. RAMADAN. Yes, we do. It is going to be—actually, it has been

mentioned this morning, but to reinforce that fact, going to be a

more challenging population.

Two years and beyond, you are going to find a great deal of difficulty because it becomes a pattern of behavior, not only physical

behavior, but an emotional makeup, and that paradigm has to be

shifted.

And so that is the population we are now going to begin to engage, and it is going to be a population we are going to have to go

through the more intensive life skills and employment preparation

to help break the way the individual is seeing life.

But the key is helping them to see that the resistance that you

are getting, the opposition that this young lady has talked about,

really, there is that help to help them reinterpret their life experiences.

So it takes a series of life skills, and, of course, it takes building

into that a support base of case management, through welfare. It

takes building in mentoring.

And in the employment arena, we have a luxury in southern Nevada where the business community, with the new opening of the

Bellagio, the upcoming Venetian, all of those properties are working with Nevada Partners, welfare and others, to help put in the

type of components we need in order to make that successful transition. It is a hope.

But when you are dealing with a challenged population, you also

find that population will generally suffer from greater domestic violence, greater emotional abuse.

Sometimes you are going to find drug and alcohol problems, have

greater difficulties in managing, dealing with child care, and just

managing their day-to-day life, in terms of time management,

money management, communications skills, not only interpersonal

communication skills, but intrapersonal communication skills as

far as they communicate with themselves.

So there is a whole host of things that we have to encounter in

their life skills, if we are going to be, I think, we are going to be

successful in helping them to make that transition.

Mr. ENSIGN. I just have one question for Myla.

You mentioned child care funding, needing more of it.

You have 42 percent fewer families now on the welfare rolls, and

we fixed—1995 is the year that was our highest year ever, and we

fixed that as our formula year.

And one of the reasons we did that, we didn’t want to penalize

States that were going to make—as they went forward and deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:12 Aug 09, 2000 Jkt 064534 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63767 pfrm08 PsN: 63767
106

creased, we didn’t want to say to a State, as you get better, we are

going to take your money away.

We knew, first of all, that a lot of these difficult families were

going to take more time.

As a matter of fact, meeting in your local offices, you know, I had

a lot of meetings down in southern Nevada with the local welfare

workers themselves and listened to them.

And that was one of the things they brought up to me was, fine,

when you get through these initial people, like the Dorothys, you

can get them off.

When you get these challenging cases each individual is going to

have to take more time to work with them.

And the training centers, Michael, that you mentioned, and getting these people, trained to deal with these tougher people.

So we know there is more money there, but we also put a huge

amount of money in for the block grants for child care.

But also, you can transfer from block grant to block grant. It just

seems with 42 percent fewer people, that there should be enough

money to do all of the things that you need to do.

I guess I am having trouble understanding why you were asking

now for more money.

Ms. FLORENCE. Well, we will be transferring TANF funds into

child care, but, again, it is not only child care for families that are

on public assistance or formerly have been on public assistance.

But there is that growing low-income group that were previously

subsidized, but now with the focus on the public assistance population, child care is just one of those things that, I think, we will

struggle with for some time to come.

There is an extraordinary demand. It is very expensive.

This is another area where I do think the private sector needs

to step up. They will find they will be more productive.

Mr. ENSIGN. So you are not talking about TANF, within the welfare reform?

Ms. FLORENCE. Talking child care as a whole.

Mr. ENSIGN. Within welfare reform there is plenty of money for

these people coming off.

Ms. FLORENCE. For people on assistance and currently for people

coming off.

Mr. ENSIGN. Correct.

Ms. FLORENCE. But that population will grow.

Mr. ENSIGN. That is a separate problem, and I think that we

need to keep them separate.

I mean, it is all in child care, but it is a separate problem than

the welfare reform.

Because the people that are coming off, what we try to do is provide that revenue source to be able to get them off and provide the

child care, like, Dorothy, and that is adequate, from what we understand.

Ms. FLORENCE. For that population, yes, but generally, still a

problem.

Mr. ENSIGN. Okay.

Mr. Chairman or——

107

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Nikki, on the apologists and naysayers on the

welfare reforms over the last two years, what do you say to those

people?

We have made such giant strides, so many things are happening

that are positive, the Dorothy story and what Nevada Partners

have been doing, how do you counter the naysayers?

Ms. FIRPO. I am surprised that there are so many naysayers still

because to me it is success after success after success.

Truly, the workers do see these difficult clients, and it becomes

a challenge, but they spend more time, and they reach a little deeper, and they get a little further.

I just think our successes will prove out.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Also, I have a question from the last panel,

three to six o’clock syndrome.

Whether it is Mujahid, or Dorothy or Myla, or Nikki, what suggestions might you have for us on the three o’clock to six o’clock

problem with increased juvenile problems, as well as the whole situation with teenage pregnancy increases?

Anything that we should be doing there, federally or statewide

or on a private basis?

Mr. RAMADAN. Well, on a statewide basis, obviously, we can look

at expanding the operation and/or the utilization of schools into

those hours while parents are working.

Obviously, we need to become more involved in getting the private sector to do more things, like mentoring programs, not only

for boys, but for the girls.

We have the luxury of Nevada Partners, the 7,000 square foot

building, or portion of the building is dedicated to Nevada Partners, Sugar Ray Leonard boxing gym, this becomes a delinquency

prevention program that is managed by an international boxing

referee, Richard Steel.

We probably occupied some 60 boys per day in that program, but

it is expanding those type of programs. It is introducing more Boy

Scout/Girl Scout programs into low-income, at-risk communities,

expanding YMCA programs, outreach, these type of communities.

I think we have to look more to those communities. I think it is

engaging the religious community to do more in after-school tutoring programs to occupy the time of these students, and in doing so,

you can provide the type of developmental programs.

It talks about parenting, talks about being a husband, talks

about the responsibility of being a husband, and what the positive

and long-term outcome happens to be.

Of course, the negative side in this is if you are involved in teen

pregnancy and immoral and illicit sexual behavior, I think you are

talking about looking at getting communities to be more involved,

engaging churches, engaging programs like YMCA, like Boys and

Girls Clubs, expanding these into communities and getting those

traditionally more based outside of those communities that have

been challenged, expanding those programs within these communities.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. ENSIGN. I just want to point out one thing before I turn it

over to the Chairman here.

108

Want to ask unanimous consent that this be made part of the

record. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has truly

a remarkable program with their own church. They have their own

welfare program that is completely faith-based.

And, Mujahid, you even mentioned getting faith-based organizations involved in the mentoring program. This is, truly something.

There is a lot of accountability there, as well.

And as part of their efforts, I want to submit an article that was

in the Wall Street Journal, June 26, 1998, called Help in Hard

Times, by H. David Burton.

I just want to make that part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

109

110

111

Mr. ENSIGN. Do you care to inquire?

Chairman SHAW. Yes, sir.

Ms. Florence, your testimony describes how your agency is providing services to pregnant and parenting teens.

We heard from the one of the witnesses, the first panel, that Nevada is in a very bad position with regard to the statistical data

on out-of-wedlock births.

What exactly is your agency doing on this, and have you seen

any results that you would care to share with this community?

Ms. FLORENCE. The STARS program, which began in 1996,

STARS, is a partnership with University of Nevada Reno and University of Nevada Las Vegas, where social work students, both at

the master’s and bachelor’s level, work with these teens, teen parents, kids having kids.

They have followed the families through a semester, and letters

that I have received from both the students and clients indicate

that there is a real meaningful connection between these parties.

Noteworthy, I think, mentioned in the testimony, eight of those

teens have had second children, but overall, the purpose of the program is to help a person go through either high school or complete

their GED, link them with various job training programs, and essentially give them a good step on life.

Chairman SHAW. I would like to underscore something that both

Michael and Nikki made reference to.

And that is the question of how the job description has changed

from welfare.

Dr. Haskins was telling me about a welfare worker that he met

in Wisconsin, that said, ‘‘Now I can do the thing I really went to

school for.’’

Today, when you go into a welfare office, they don’t just sit you

down and try to describe to you all the benefits that you are quote,

entitled, end quote, to.

But they come, and I assume, and I am sure this is true in Nevada because of just listening to the two of you and what you do,

that you say you need a job, and I am here to help you.

We saw where the young man that was with his child, sitting before this committee a few moments ago, was talking about the

needs for clothes, making resumes and things like that.

And it is really wonderful what you people are doing, and I certainly want to congratulate all of you for it.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you.

Before we dismiss the panel, the last comment I would like to

make was, as a matter of fact, I heard this so often when I visited

the welfare offices.

That there was, the paradigm that you talk about, it was almost

built in—that there was an encouragement of people to stay on

welfare.

I never will forget this one lady who worked for me. She came

to me, and she was a single mom with a small child, and she had

just gotten off welfare, and you know how Dorothy was getting

some of the transitional help.

And she had gone in there and said she had already got her job,

but she needed some help, like in child care.

112

And what they told her at the welfare office was, ‘‘Well, why are

you getting a job? You can have all these other things, and you are

crazy to get a job.’’

You know, we have all these other types of—and I never will forget her telling me that. That really stuck with me.

The whole incentive had become part of the paradigm, really, of

working in the welfare office. It is an entitlement. It is easy.

You know, ‘‘I can help you by getting whatever I can get you

there, but you can’t go to work.’’

And that is why I am so excited about the welfare reform effort

at all levels, and you can really see it at your levels, and the local

offices, they are excited about it.

I mean, the people that are staffing, they like their jobs better

now because they actually feel like they were helping people instead of destroying people now.

Mr. RAMADAN. Congressman, I believe this is the auxiliary benefits that we are going to begin to encounter in the years to come.

That is, young men are going to become more sexually responsible with their behavior and become more engaging in terms of

taking on their responsibilities because no one is going to take care

of this responsibility that you have actually brought about yourself.

I think this is going to bring about a great deal of discipline

within the fabric of many communities and shift the entire paradigm as to what individual responsibility is.

And what family responsibility happens to be, I think, is going

to be challenging. But I think there are auxiliary benefits that, as

a community and as a Nation, as a whole, we are going to benefit

from.

Mr. ENSIGN. Well said.

I want to dismiss this panel, and call up Thomas Leeds, who is

the Child Support/Paternity Hearing Master, Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada in the Nevada Division, Las Vegas.

And, Myla, you are staying for this panel, as well, right?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. LEEDS, ESQ., CHILD SUPPORT/PATERNITY HEARING MASTER, EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF NEVADA, FAMILY DIVISION

Mr. LEEDS. Mr. Chairman, esteemed members of the Committee,

my name is Thomas Leeds.

Appointed in 1994 as the first hearing master in Nevada devoting full-time to the Child Support Enforcement Program, I became

a student of child support issues.

As one who since that time has heard an average of over 200

child support cases each week, I also consider myself a frontline

caseworker in the effort to obtain financial support for our Nation’s

children.

Without any question, the most significant event impacting the

collection of child support was passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly

known as welfare reform.

The first and most immediate effect of welfare reform on the

court system was to make routine enforcement more efficient.

113

Before passage, simple tasks such as withholding wages to pay

support, adding a payment for arrears, or ordering genetic tests in

a paternity case required a motion and a hearing in court.

Due to section 325 of Welfare Reform, those measures can now

be taken administratively. As a result, time is available in court to

concentrate on problem cases, including parents who claim to be

unable to pay support due to unemployment.

They may be unable, they may be trying to avoid the obligation

to pay.

For such a case, first in Clark County, and then also in Washoe

County, we developed the Employment Assistance Program to help

parents with children who have received welfare assistance find

jobs.

With the help of grant funds from section 391 of Welfare Reform,

we have expanded the program to include access and visitation programs for noncustodial parents.

This has resulted in two very important developments which

have increased the payment of support.

The first development has been to find jobs for unemployed noncustodial parents, and you have heard a lot about that today.

In our court program alone, an average of 260 cases per month

now receive payments as a result of that program. Money collected

helps families that would not otherwise receive support.

A second important development of the program, however, is described by the term smoke out.

That is, by providing employment assistance, we have been able

to smoke out parents who say they are unemployed, but really have

income.

A parent, when given an appointment with an employment counselor, suddenly admits to working, perhaps, quote, under the table,

close quote.

Or a parent never shows up for an appointment with a counselor,

but suddenly begins paying support. Smoke outs increase collections just as unemployed parents who obtain jobs.

I expect similar results from our access and visitation program

made possible by funds received through section 391 of the Welfare

Reform Act.

Many parents complain that they would have paid child support,

but they weren’t able to see their children.

The access program will help the sincere parent by providing a

way to sit down with the custodian and discuss the barriers and

logistics of visitation.

Availability of mediation, however, will also smoke out the parent using failure to see the children as an excuse to avoid paying

support.

In either event, more child support will be paid. The parent who

spends time with the child will be more willing and more likely to

pay.

The parents who are smoked out will not be able to fool themselves and also be more likely to pay.

In closing, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act is a long, but I believe, accurate and appropriate

title, as it relates to child support enforcement.

114

In Nevada, by utilizing administrative procedures, and combining our existing employment assistance program with the grant

money for child access and visitation, more parents are finding

work opportunities, and more parents are assuming personal responsibility for their children.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

115

116

117

STATEMENT OF MYLA C. FLORENCE, ADMINISTRATOR,

NEVADA STATE WELFARE DIVISION

Mr. ENSIGN. Myla?

Ms. FLORENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Myla Florence, Administrator of the State Welfare Division.

I think the hour is growing long, so I will just quickly highlight

a couple of things that the Child Support Enforcement Program

has been, is doing.

This slide, you can see the continuing escalation of child support

collections in fiscal year 1998. Nevada collected nearly $92 million

in child support payments, and this represents a 55 percent increase over fiscal year 1994.

One notable issue is the caseload mix is changing significantly.

Our nonassistance cases are growing, and as a result of that,

county child support offices have had to add staff to meet that

growing new population.

So we urge Congress to continue the financial support to the

child and support program, and recommend that no changes be

made in the funding methodology until we have had some time to

sort out some of the new requirements under PRWORA, such as

the case registry, central disbursement unit and others.

One initiative Nevada has undertaken is doing up-front orientations of TANF applicants, where we station a child support worker

in our welfare office to inform the custodial parent of the benefit

of child support, eliminating the need for the person to move from

office to office, and make multiple applications.

I am unaware of any other State that has initiated this process.

As Hearing Master Leeds has mentioned, our noncustodial employment and training program, implemented in 1997, we collected

$158,000 in child support payments, serving 662 individuals during

the first year of that program.

We will see, in fiscal year 1998, $556,000 was collected on approximately 2400 cases.

This is a program that benefited that first family that testified

here today, where the noncustodial father was referred by the court

into the employment and training program.

As Hearing Master Leeds mentioned, the mediation grant provided in fiscal year 1998, has served to assist individuals who have

children out of wedlock and custody issues are unresolved.

This is not only important in bringing child support to the child,

but having the noncustodial parent again involved with that child,

which is even as important as collecting the child support.

New-hire reporting was a strong enforcement tool provided by

Congress. In Clark County over a three-month period, employment

was identified in approximately 5,000 cases, resulting in over $2

million in child support collections.

So you are to be commended for that initiative, as well.

Finally, our recommendations with regard to child support, continued support for the access and visitation program, and as I mentioned earlier, to maintain the existing Federal participation in the

Child Support Enforcement Program funding.

[The prepared statement follows:]

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you both.

I just have a quick question. As a matter of fact, this goes back

to one of the first meetings Myla and I had when I was first running for office.

Before I was ever elected, we talked about this computer system

that was—your big nightmare.

And I know that the computer is a big part of this interstate

problem with child support enforcement, and I know we did provide

some funding for that in the welfare reform bill.

But can you just address where we are with, your computer system, and second of all, with how that is going to affect the whole

child support enforcement, interstate child support enforcement?

Ms. FLORENCE. Well, my testimony didn’t touch on this subject

at all.

It has been a very difficult situation for us in that Nevada was

extremely aggressive in, if you recall when we had this conversation, developing a fully integrated system that not only includes

child support functionality, but eligibility for all of our other public

assistance programs, and developed that all as one system.

Next weekend we will be moving into our first phase one pilot,

so we are reaching a very important milestone in the completion

of this project.

The impact of welfare reform on that system as it was designed

in 1993, has been considerable.

So that essentially delayed the ability to roll out the child support components of that system while modifications needed to be

made to the eligibility components of the system.

At this point, our target is phase two pilot in April of 1999, and

hopefully have the entire system implemented by October 1999.

Some of the new requirements we are looking to build outside of

that system so that we can meet the new time frames that we will

be facing.

Mr. ENSIGN. Is Nevada going to be facing penalties like California is?

Ms. FLORENCE. Unfortunately, we are.

Mr. ENSIGN. Okay. Do you have any questions?

Chairman SHAW. Yeah. I wanted to go into another area.

With regard to the collection and recovery of child support payments, as you know, the States, all the States have in the past

really profited from recovering some of the TANF payments, or before that, the AFDC payments.

Now because of the drop and the plummeting of the caseload,

those recoveries are falling off considerably.

What has been your experience here in Nevada with that?

Ms. FLORENCE. We had, I believe, in the written testimony, we

have had a drop of about 3500 active TANF cases just in the past

year.

So as I mentioned earlier, the nonassistance caseload is growing

in our State, as well as other States, and the public assistance

caseload has dropped dramatically.

Again, that is why I recommend that we not change the funding

structure for child support until all of these issues are better discerned.

128

Particularly in October of 1998, when individuals not even requesting services will be referred to the 4D program through orders.

So we are seeing reduced collections or retained collections by the

State, not only due to the dropping caseload, but by returning a

greater portion of those collections to families first, as well.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Leeds, you know, the parents that are, quote,

unemployed, unquote, some of them not, and they are coming in,

what percentage are you actually getting jobs?

Mr. LEEDS. Well, just using very rough statistics, because I don’t

have access to the official statistics, it looks like, of the people that

I referred to the program, about a quarter or more start having

paying cases.

And I look on that as quite a success because there are a certain

percentage, again, with the robust economy in Las Vegas, we are

dealing with the very problem population.

There are some people that just are not going to get motivated

the first time they are referred. So there is that amount.

But then if you look at it positively, that is because of the problem population. When I said 260 cases per month, really and in a

very literal sense there are 260 families that would not be receiving

money but for the program, either because they have been able to

find a job, or because of being brought out of the closet, and starting to pay when faced with referral to the program.

Mr. ENSIGN. Okay. Can you, we have had—I had a meeting, I

think last week in my office in Reno, the interstate is still a big

frustration.

I guess, where do we see that going, you know? How long before

States are actually able to communicate with each other?

Mr. LEEDS. I was telling Mr. Hoskins that since January, when

all States passed the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act which

was a requirement of welfare reform, I have seen a very smooth

transition.

I have conducted myself a number of tribunal to tribunal communications, and one of the big differences is when a hearing master

calls another State, you have a better chance of getting the phone

call returned.

And so we have been able to help people through the maze of

systems to get problems solved.

Mr. ENSIGN. So when I have people call my office here, I now

know who to call, okay? Call this person. You will have a better

chance of getting it done, because we get a lot of those calls.

Mr. LEEDS. Believe me, I think a little personal service, customer

service from my office, goes a long way, and we are also, by every

time I talk to a tribunal, they realize there are human beings on

the other side of their phone line, as well. So I think that has been

very successful.

The second thing I think, which we haven’t seen yet, but hopefully will see in the near future is this Federal case registry.

As the States come on board and start reporting the new-hire reports from their State’s registries to the Federal registry, I am hoping that that is going to increase our interstate efficiency.

129

Mr. ENSIGN. Well, I want to thank you, you and the rest of the

panelists.

It has been an excellent morning of testimony, and I certainly

have learned a lot, and I hope that the Chairman has enjoyed his

stay here in Nevada.

He got to stay up at Lake Tahoe the last couple of days with his

wife celebrating their anniversary, so I know you have enjoyed

that, and I want to thank you.

And my colleague, Congressman Christensen, thanks for coming

out here to our State to actually hear some real testimony from

people that are actually on the front lines, and especially those

whose lives have been changed by our welfare reform bill.

Ms. FLORENCE. Thank you.

Mr. LEEDS. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. John, I want to thank you for suggesting that

we come out here.

I can tell you we have many hearings in Washington. A lot of

times I think we have too many hearings, but I can tell you that

when you get out into the people and talk to the people and get

into States such as Nevada and find out exactly the people that are

really doing the heavy lifting and the work making these programs

work, it really makes you very proud.

And I can tell you, John, this is one of the best hearings that I

think we have ever had. I have certainly learned a lot, and it really

buoys me to find that welfare reform is working the way it is.

And when you see the people that are making it work, you understand why it is working.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I would concur with the Chairman. I enjoyed

my stay last night at the Best Western across the street.

Mr. ENSIGN. You can see when you get a little seniority what

happens.

We take care of the Chairman, I guess, a little better around

here. Thank you all for attending.

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ