U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58–826 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

OVERSIGHT OF WELFARE REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 19, 1998

Serial 105–80

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 March 12, 1998, announcing the hearing .......................................... 2

WITNESSES

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Olivia A. Golden,

Ph.D., Asistant Secretary for Children and Families ....................................... 6

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Daniel H. Weinberg,

Division Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics ........................... 69

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Howard Rolston, Ph.D.,

Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for

Children and Families ......................................................................................... 79

Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, Vesta Kimble ................. 42

Florida Department of Children and Families, Don Winstead ............................ 36

Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Frank Mora ........... 49

Nathan, Richard P., Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, University of New York ................................................................................................... 65

National Center for Children in Poverty, Barbara Blum ..................................... 84

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, J. Jean Rogers .................... 28

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF WELFARE REFORM

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:13 a.m., in

room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,

Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.

[The advisory follows:]

2

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025

March 12, 1998

No. HR–10

Shaw Announces Hearing on

Oversight of Welfare Reform

Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., (R–FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing on implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The hearing will take place on

Thursday, March 19, 1998, in room B–318 of the Rayburn House Office Building,

beginning at 11:00 a.m.

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include representatives

from the Administration, State welfare directors, local welfare programs, the Census

Bureau, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and universities. Any

individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed

record of the hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The ‘‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996’’

(P.L. 104–193), created the TANF block grant, a new cash welfare program.

This is the first hearing the Subcommittee will conduct this year to review the

implementation and effects of welfare reform. Future hearings are expected to focus

on impacts of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program on children

and families, as well as implementation and impacts of the 1996 reforms of the

Child Support Enforcement and Supplemental Security Income programs.

The Subcommittee is interested in specific examples of how reforms are now being

implemented at the State and local level. The Subcommittee will also review the

major research information that will become available over the next several years

that Congress, the Administration, scholars, advocates, and interested citizens can

use to examine the impacts of welfare reform.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: ‘‘Most of the provisions of the

1996 welfare reform law have now been implemented by every State. This is the

first in a series of hearings and other activities that our Subcommittee will conduct

over the next several years to carefully study the impacts of the welfare reform

law.’’

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed

record of the hearing should submit at least six (6) single-space legal-size copies of

their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS Text

or WordPerfect 5.1 format only, with their name, address, and hearing date noted

on a label, by the close of business, Thursday, April 2, 1998, to A.L. Singleton, Chief

3

of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested public

at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B–317 Rayburn House Office Building,

at least one hour before the hearing begins.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a witness, any written statement

or exhibit submitted for the printed record or any written comments in response to a request

for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or exhibit not

in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee

files for review and use by the Committee.

1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must be typed in single space

on legal-size paper and may not exceed a total of 10 pages including attachments. At the same

time written statements are submitted to the Committee, witnesses are now requested to submit

their statements on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS Text or WordPerfect

5.1 format. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will rely on electronic submissions for

printing the official hearing record.

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

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

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

by the Committee.

3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a statement for the

record of a public hearing, or submitting written comments in response to a published request for comments by the Committee, must include on his statement or

submission a list of all clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness

appears.

4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, full address, a

telephone number where the witness or the designated representative may be reached and a

topical outline or summary of the comments and recommendations in the full statement. This

supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.

The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being submitted for printing.

Statements and exhibits or supplementary material submitted solely for distribution to the

Members, the press and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted in

other forms.

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World

Wide Web at ‘‘http://www.house.gov/wayslmeans/’’.

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

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

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

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

there were two votes on the floor that we had to get behind us. But

we should go undisturbed now for a good while.

Chairman SHAW. We’re just a few minutes late starting, because

f

Welcome to the Subcommittee, our Members and guests.

It has now been more than 18 months since we passed the historic welfare reform law in 1996. Early indications are that States

have taken great strides to reform their welfare programs.

It is now time for our Subcommittee to begin a careful and thorough examination of what is actually happening at the State and

local level, and of the impact of all this vigorous activity on the Nation’s poor children and families. This morning, I personally reVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
4

viewed with Mayor Penelas some of the problems he’s having down

in Miami-Dade, and some of his successes, too.

Today we begin that process. We have asked the administration,

with whom we have worked very closely and productively since enactment of the welfare reform law, to give us their views on the

early stages of implementation. I’m looking forward to hearing Assistant Secretary Golden’s views on what has been accomplished

thus far and potential problems that still lie on the horizon.

Then we are going to hear from two panels of invited witnesses

who will help us establish the groundwork for subsequent hearings.

The first panel consists of representatives from two States and two

local programs who will describe for us the actual reforms that

have been put in place. I think it is vital that Members of this Subcommittee, as well as scholars, advocates and the American public,

understand the specific reforms that States and localities are now

implementing.

The evidence presented by these witnesses will show that the

Nation’s welfare programs are being transformed into something

very different than the checkwriting operations of the past. The

second panel will summarize the information that is now starting

to become available to evaluate the impacts of welfare reform.

The Subcommittee was very conscious of the importance of evaluating welfare reform. Thus, we included a three-part strategy for

evaluation in our original bill, and then fought to retain these provisions in the final bill.

First, we completely revamped State data reporting requirements. With the help of HHS and the States, we should soon have

better State reported data than ever.

Second, we gave HHS the money and authority to select interesting welfare reform programs to evaluate using scientific methods. Third, we gave a healthy sum of money to the Census Bureau

to follow a large group of families over many years and to collect

extensive information on children.

Today, we will hear about all three of these evaluation strategies,

plus other evaluation activities that are now in various stages of

implementation.

I’m also going to take advantage of this occasion to call everyone’s attention to the fine study on welfare reform just published

jointly by the University of Maryland School of Public Health and

the State of Maryland. Based on a random sample of welfare recipients who left the rolls, this study contains information about some

families who have been off of welfare for as long as 9 months.

The study found that about half of the families were working at

the time they left welfare, that the percentage of families working

increased somewhat over the 9-month period, and that very few

children became involved with the child protection system. I congratulate the State of Maryland for conducting this careful study,

and hope that other States will follow this example.

I know Mr. Cardin said he would try to join us today when that

testimony takes place. Copies of the study are available on the

table in the hearing room.

Whatever else might be said about welfare reform, there are very

significant changes now taking place in the Nation’s welfare proVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
5

grams at the State and local level. Our Subcommittee has a responsibility to document these reforms and to study their impacts.

I look forward to the testimony from today’s distinguished witnesses that will get us started on this long and complex journey of

evaluation.

Mr. Levin.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the first in what I hope will be a continuing series of efforts by this Subcommittee to assess the progress and problems of

welfare reform. Clearly, we have taken some encouraging steps.

Welfare rolls have dropped substantially, and large numbers of

people have moved from welfare to work.

Most States have taken their responsibility seriously, and are

providing support services necessary for both parents and their

children to transition from an income-based to a work-based system. The environment and attitude within administrative structures are being transformed to place emphasis on the value of a

paycheck.

A real sense of partnership is evolving between local, State, and

Federal administrative entities, replacing the adversarial relationships that existed in the past.

There are also areas that need our continued vigilance. In a substantial portion of the transitions to work, the type of employment

is in a low-wage job, raising questions of the danger of recycling

from one low-wage position to another, of the need for additional

training and the persistence of families at an income level below

the poverty level.

It is unclear also to what extent the persons remaining on the

rolls present the more difficult challenges, those with lesser skills

and those with more serious personal and health problems. And

whether structures are in place to meet these challenges, and continue the very substantial progress of moving people off of welfare

to work.

Major progress to date has occurred during a period of historic,

continuing prosperity. And it remains uncertain as to whether

there are structures adequately in place to respond to a period of

recession in order to sustain and continue the processes of welfare

reform.

There remains a need to sustain adequate tracking of recipients

in other research to evaluate what is happening with this population, and of the various causes of the major successes today, in

order to understand the continuing high rate of poverty among

children. We must work to identify the adjustments needed to continue the vital changes in our system.

This is indeed an important hearing, and I congratulate the

Chairman for holding it. I hope and believe that the spirit among

all of us will be a collaborative one, without regard to party affiliation, without regard to what our positions were at each step of the

legislative process, or whether we supported the legislation that ultimately prevailed, as I did, or not.

We as lawmakers, the entire Nation, and most importantly, children, have a major stake in seeing individuals move successfully

from welfare to work and remaining there. The value and dignity

of work is a key bedrock in the past, present, and future health of

6

this Nation, and the life of its families. We cannot afford to lose

this effort and this experiment, and must work to ensure that it

spreads to all Americans.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Levin.

Our first witness will be Hon. Olivia A. Golden, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. It’s a pleasure to welcome you back to this Subcommittee. I believe this is the first time since your confirmation

that you have appeared, so it’s no longer Acting Secretary.

Ms. GOLDEN. That’s right.

Chairman SHAW. We are pleased to see you back and look forward to your testimony.

We have your full testimony, as we have the full testimony of all

the witnesses that will be placed in the record, and we would invite

all witnesses to summarize. We’ve got many witnesses today, and

I want to try to move the hearing along as fast as we can.

Dr. Golden.

STATEMENT OF HON. OLIVIA A. GOLDEN, PH.D., ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss implementation of the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families Program, with a focus on State implementation, the new

Federal role, and upcoming plans. I appreciate this Subcommittee’s

efforts and yours, Mr. Chairman, to work with us in turning welfare reform into a reality.

Over the past 2 months, I have spoken with families, with private employers, with welfare workers, with community leaders,

with State and local policymakers and elected officials about how

welfare reform is proceeding.

In a recent trip to New Hampshire, I talked to a young mother

who had just started a job and left welfare. She spoke with great

passion about her joy and her children’s joy after she accepted the

job. She had gone to a clerical training program and found child

care through the welfare agency, and she receives regular child

support, which is critical to paying the bills.

I would now like to provide an overview of our earliest findings

on the effects of welfare reform and what we know about changes

in State policies and practice. And there’s much more detail in my

written statement. More recipients are now working, and more of

those who have left the rolls are working. Interim findings from the

national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies and State welfare

reform demonstrations indicates significant increases in the employment levels of recipients and former recipients.

States generally are maintaining their investments in poor families. We have not seen a race to the bottom. For example, 22 States

have reported that they exceeded the 80-percent maintenance-ofeffort level for fiscal year 1997.

States are beginning to focus more attention on the hard-to-serve

and fragile families. For example, 25 jurisdictions have elected the

family violence option to ensure that victims of domestic violence

receive appropriate protections and services. States are beginning

7

to focus their welfare offices on employment and are taking a variety of steps to reinforce the work message. Welfare offices are

working closely with the State employment service, one-stop career

centers, JTPA, Job Training Partnership Act, Programs and community colleges to place welfare recipients into jobs.

We have continued to see dramatic declines in welfare caseloads.

Since August 1996, 2.4 million recipients have left the rolls. And

at the Federal, State and community level, new partnerships are

being forged. government is collaborating with business, community organizations, transportation providers, the media, and religious leaders, to help move families to work.

Key elements of ACF’s new role at the Federal level include coordination, technical assistance, research and accountability. We’ve

expanded our network of Federal partners to improve the coordination of Federal programs, we’ve been working with the Department

of Labor on implementation of the $3 billion welfare-to-work

grants, and on our data collection and evaluation responsibilities

under those grants.

The Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and the Small Business Administration have joined us in related efforts to move families from welfare

to work.

Our technical assistance initiatives will ensure that States, local

governments and their community partners have access to the information they need to accomplish their goals for families. We are

using models, onsite visits, contracts, and conferences to support

State and local implementation efforts. We also collect and disseminate information on promising practices.

Another key component of the Federal role has been to ensure

State accountability in key program areas, and to promote high

performance. In November, we issued a proposed rule which covered the major TANF provisions on work, penalties, and data collection. We are reviewing comments and anticipate publication of

final rules by the end of the fiscal year.

This month, we issued the proposed rule on bonuses for States

that are most successful in reducing out of wedlock births. And we

also just issued key guidance on the formula we will use for awarding the high-performance bonuses to States in fiscal year 1999,

based on their performance this year. This summer, we expect to

publish a proposed rule that will address the high-performance

bonus for future years.

Our research and evaluation efforts are critical to the achievement of the goals of welfare reform. Howard Rolston, Director of

the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation for ACF, is a

member of the upcoming panel on research, and will provide a

fuller discussion.

Just to highlight some key points, first, States have myriad options available to them under welfare reform, and need information

about which strategies are most effective. Fortunately, the evaluation efforts we began under prior law have given us useful information and will continue to produce more in the years to come. Disseminating information on the results of this research is one of

ACF’s major upcoming tasks.

8

The second challenge we face is to get better information about

what is happening to families who are leaving assistance. To answer this challenge, we worked with the National Governors’ Association, the American Public Welfare Association, and the National

Conference of State Legislators to sponsor a conference that examined the information available on ‘‘leavers,’’ and will be compiling

a summary of followup studies.

And finally, we’re supporting research in five States that will

look indepth at the effects of welfare reform on children. At this

early stage of welfare reform, we believe that implementation is

proceeding on the right track. We are hearing from States and communities about what they view as the critical next steps.

First, supporting States, communities, and employers as they

focus on job retention and earnings after the initial placement. Second, working with States to provide supports so that all families,

including the hardest to serve, can succeed. Third, completing the

transformation of welfare agencies into job centers, and fostering

community-based approaches to reform. Fourth, completing the developing of a regular, reliable system for collecting necessary data.

And fifth, improving our understanding about the effects of these

changes on children and families.

At the Federal level, the Clinton administration and the Congress have worked for social policies to help ensure that work pays,

including family leave, a higher minimum wage, an expanded

EITC, the new child credit, the work opportunity and welfare-towork tax credits, and increased child support collections. The President’s budget would build on these successes by providing additional supports, such as targeting substantial new child care funds

to low-income working families who are struggling to stay off welfare.

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee, and I look forward to future conversations about the

progress of welfare reform.

I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Hon. Olivia A. Golden, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the implementation of welfare reform. I appreciate this Subcommittee’s efforts to work with

us in turning this historic piece of legislation on welfare reform into a reality. In

light of the Subcommittee’s interests, I will focus my remarks on the implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—or TANF—program, including

the patterns that have begun to emerge about state implementation, the new federal

role, and upcoming plans.

Our information comes from state plans and preliminary financial data and program data reported by the states. In addition, I learn directly about what states are

doing when I travel and speak with those who are designing welfare reform and

those who are impacted by it.

Over the past two months, I have spoken to families, private employers, welfare

workers, community leaders, state and local policy-makers, and elected officials

about how welfare reform is proceeding. I have heard over and over about the dignity of work and about the kinds of supports communities and states are seeking

to put in place as families move from welfare to work. For example, in one of my

recent trips, to New Hampshire, I talked to a young mother who had just started

a job and left welfare. She spoke with great passion about her joy and her children’s

joy. ‘‘I was jumping up and down. They were jumping up and down. I was on cloud

nine for a week after accepting the job.’’ To help her make the step to employment,

she had gone to a clerical training program and found child care through the welVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
9

fare agency, and she received regular child support that was critical to paying the

bills.

Today, I would like to provide some information about our earliest findings on the

effects of welfare reform and an overview about what we know about changes in

state policies and practice. I also will discuss the new federal role, the steps we have

taken at the federal level to assume our new responsibilities under the Act, and will

indicate the additional steps we will be taking to move this important agenda forward.

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

I would now like to share with you some preliminary observations on the impacts

of welfare reform. These are preliminary because while many states began their

welfare reform efforts under waivers, TANF programs have been in place only a

short period of time and are still evolving. We will learn more over the coming

months and years about the progress of welfare reform as states make further decisions about the design of their program and data is gathered on the state’s choices

and their impacts.

Keeping this caution in mind, we are seeing that:

More recipients are now working, and more of those who have left the rolls are

working. Interim findings from the National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies and State Welfare Reform Demonstrations indicate significant increases in the

employment levels of recipients and former recipients (with employment rates of enrollees in the welfare reform group sometimes 8 to 15 percentage points above those

of the control group). Also, research from several individual states suggests that 50

to 60 percent of families leaving the rolls are employed at follow-up; these rates are

somewhat higher than the employment rates observed for former AFDC recipients

(which were in the 45 to 50 percent range).

States generally are maintaining their investments in poor families. We have not

seen a ‘‘race to the bottom’’—in terms of state spending or benefit levels. Twentytwo states have reported that they exceeded the 80 percent maintenance-of-effort

(MOE) level for fiscal year 1997, and average spending per recipient on cash grants,

transportation, child care, and other assistance has increased.

Forty states have enacted policies to change the way income is counted in determining eligibility and benefits. Most of these have increased their earnings disregards, thus helping to make work pay and reinforcing the message that going to

work is better that staying at home.

Most states have maintained the income standards they use for determining benefits (according to the state plans, four states have increased while five have decreased their benefit levels). Also, 33 states raised their general resource limits, and

44 states have raised their automobile resource limits. To help families transitioning

off assistance, 29 states indicate they are extending child care benefits for more

than 12 months, and 13 states provide transitional medical assistance for more than

12 months.

States are beginning to focus more attention on the hard-to-serve and fragile families. For example, 24 jurisdictions have elected the Family Violence Option to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive appropriate protections and services,

and most states exempt parents of infants from work requirements. (Thirty states

provide statewide exemptions for parents with children under one, 11 states provide

exemptions for those with children under 6 months, and 3 provide exemptions for

children older than one.)

States are beginning to turn their welfare offices into employment offices and are

taking a variety of steps to reinforce the work message. Almost all states have

adopted a ‘‘Work First’’ model for setting individual expectations and responsibilities

and for structuring employment and training services. This approach emphasizes

early entry into the job market and often uses referrals to other local agencies and

organizations for transitional resources. Thirty-three states expect parents to participate in work within six months of joining the welfare rolls (compared to the statutory standard of 24 months).

Every state requires recipients to sign Individual Responsibility Plans whereby

they commit to making specific steps toward self-sufficiency. Twenty-eight states

deny assistance to a family for failure to sign or comply with one of these plans.

States are also making greater use of their sanction authority to enforce the

TANF work requirements. Between 1994 and 1996, sanction rates rose about 30

percent nationally, and sanction rates of 25 to 30 percent—or higher—are now not

unusual. Under their state plans, 37 states have sanctions that could result in the

loss of benefits for the entire family. (Most sanctions result from failure of individVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
10

uals to show up for initial interviews, rather than noncompliance with work assignments.)

With few exceptions, we have continued to see dramatic declines in welfare caseloads. Since August 1996, when PRWORA was enacted, 2 million recipients have

left the rolls. Since 1994, the number of welfare recipients has dropped by nearly

one-third. We know that many of these recipients are working at the time they

leave or after they leave, but we do not know precisely what is happening to many

of these former recipients.

The limited information we have suggests that sanctions, time limits, and other

changes are having mixed effects on families. We are not seeing dramatic changes

in the average incomes of welfare recipients and former recipients. For families

leaving the rolls, the proportion of families experiencing increases in income are

comparable to the proportion with decreases in income. Findings for sanctioned families are not dissimilar; studies in Iowa and South Carolina showed that 40 percent

of individuals who were sanctioned experienced income increases.

At the state and federal level, and community level, new partnerships are being

forged. Government is collaborating with business, community organizations, transportation providers, the media and religious leaders to help move families to work.

For example, new partnerships with transportation agencies have resulted in substantial innovation. In many places, we are seeing revisions to traditional public

transportation services to provide low-income families with better access to jobs. To

pick two examples from dozens:

In Ventura County, California, the local transit agency has extended its

hours of service, re-routed some lines, and developed new service to some

remote locations being used as work experience sites.

The remote communities of Glendale and Azalea, Oregon, have adopted a

combination of innovative strategies, including the development of carpools

with 28 volunteer drivers, to give residents access to education, training,

and employment opportunities 10 to 50 miles away. Also as part of this effort, the local school district allows TANF recipients and other residents to

use school buses to get to work.

THE NEW FEDERAL ROLE

Consistent with the changed expectations about the federal role, PRWORA required significant reductions in ACF staff positions devoted to the programs that

were block-granted and in Department managerial positions. As noted in GAO’s

February 1998 report to you, entitled Welfare Reform—HHS’ Progress in Implementing its Responsibilities, we achieved these reductions.

At the same time, we have worked to focus on the areas where we have new and

expanded responsibilities. Our job is no longer to micromanage policy, but to support states and communities in moving families to work, to hold states accountable

for results, and to develop and share information about effective practices. Key elements of this role include: coordination, technical assistance, research, and accountability.

Coordination

In Washington, we have expanded our network of federal partners to improve the

coordination of federal programs and to make it easier for state and local program

administrators to leverage the resources they need. These efforts are critical, not

just for their direct positive effects, but also because they model the types of collaborations that we want to foster at the state and community level.

We have been working with the Department of Labor (DOL) on the implementation of the new $3 billion Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program, including the issuance

of guidance and Interim Regulations, state plan reviews, regional conferences and

roundtable discussions. We also are working closely with DOL in the implementation of our data collection and evaluation responsibilities under the Welfare-to-Work

program. Representatives from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, and Agriculture and the Small Business Administration have joined in some of these efforts to help address the challenges of finding

employment for hard-to-place TANF recipients and the crucial need for state and

local collaborations.

We also have entered into new partnerships with the Department of Housing and

Urban Development and the Department of Transportation to work on improving

the accessibility of welfare recipients to jobs and services. We are providing technical support to both of these federal agency efforts, working through our Regional

11

offices to support similar efforts at the state and community level and developing

information on promising practices that can be broadly disseminated.

Another key target of our coordination efforts has been Tribal programs. Prior to

the passage of PRWORA, Tribes had some experience operating JOBS and child

care programs, but little direct involvement with AFDC. Many were, therefore, not

very well positioned to make the decision whether to implement their own TANF

program or to understand what that would entail.

Here in Washington and in our regional offices, we worked extensively with

Tribes to help ensure that they made informed decisions and could submit an acceptable plan if they decided to go that way. We helped facilitate communications

between the states and Tribes about critical implementation questions, including

service area definitions, funding implications, and the need for referrals and exchange of information. We also issued guidance to clarify that states could contribute to Tribal TANF programs and claim such expenditures for MOE purposes.

This clarification facilitated the development of additional Tribal programs. To date,

we have approved ten Tribal TANF plans and anticipate that several additional

plans will be submitted this year.

Technical Assistance

The purpose of our technical assistance (TA) initiatives is to ensure that states,

local governments, and their community partners have access to the critical information they need to accomplish their goals for families. In these initiatives we use

models, on-site visits, contracts, and conferences to promote ideas and support state

and local implementation efforts. We also collect and disseminate information on

promising practices.

To help make our technical assistance efforts more responsive to state and local

needs, we established a Peer Technical Assistance Network and a Technical Assistance Work Group. The Peer TA Network facilitates the exchange of information on

promising and best practices among states, localities, and community groups. The

Work Group consists of federal, state, local, and non-governmental representatives.

In its first meeting in January, the Work Group decided to give priority to several

issues during fiscal year 1998, including: job retention, serving families with multiple needs, and information systems. In its next scheduled discussion, the group

will specifically address the issues of job retention and serving families with multiple needs.

Several of the initiatives we are undertaking focus on the priority areas we have

identified. For example,

1) In all our regions we are co-sponsoring workshops with employers to develop

short-term training programs that upgrade the skills of welfare recipients. We held

the first workshop at a community college in Huntsville, Alabama, earlier this week;

2) We have developed a training package for welfare agencies to use in implementing programs that identify and provide appropriate services for victims of domestic violence; and

3) We have funded a National Technical Assistance Center of Welfare Reform and

Disabilities at the University of Kansas. This center will provide stakeholders with

information to assist them in developing effective strategies for serving people with

developmental disabilities.

Finally, in the interests of expanding access to information, we are creating an

information center which will share data and information using a variety of media—

such as the internet, conferences, brochures, and handouts—on issues such as the

TANF statute and regulations, State plans, implementation status, and research results.

Accountability

Another key component of the federal role has been to ensure state accountability

in key program areas and to promote high performance. In these areas, we have

taken a number of critical steps over the past 14 months. However, there is still

much more to be done, and will be working hard to ensure that future actions are

carried out in a timely fashion.

Two TANF regulations recently have been issued which address the area of accountability. In November, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which covered the major TANF provisions on work, penalties, and data collection. This proposed rule sent a clear message that we recognize the importance of state flexibility

in designing their programs, but we also intend to hold states accountable for meeting critical program requirements. We anticipate publication of final rules in August.

This month we issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the bonuses

for states that are most successful in reducing out-of-wedlock births.

12

Key guidance on the formula we will use for awarding the High Performance Bonuses to states in Fiscal Year 1999 (based on their performance in Fiscal Year 1998)

was also issued this month. The proposed formula focuses on state performance,

both in moving individuals into the work force and in the success of individuals in

the work force, once they are employed. We developed this formula after extensive

consultation with the National Governors’ Association, the American Public Welfare

Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, state agencies, advocacy

groups, technical experts, and scholars.

We currently are working on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will address

the High Performance Bonus process for future years. We are committed to exploring measures that encompass all of the goals of TANF, including family formation

and stability, and will seek advice on additional measures through the regulatory

development process. We anticipate publication of the proposed rule in the early

summer.

Several other TANF-related regulations will be published this summer as well, including Tribal TANF and employment programs, child poverty rate methodology,

and data collection for the Welfare-to-Work program.

In addition, we have issued a number of policy announcements that have provided

critical information to help states proceed with the implementation of their programs. Among the most significant were last January’s announcement on the ability

of states to fund activities through separate state programs, information on funding

allocations, guidance on access to the contingency fund, and the interim guidance

on TANF data collection and reporting.

Finally, we are finishing work on two Reports to Congress. The first report addresses Recommendations for Changes to the Contingency Fund and the second is

the Annual Report on TANF Programs and Performance. We expect to submit both

reports to this Subcommittee next month. Since the amount of performance information we have available is still limited, the latter report will not cover all the topics

required by the statute. However, we are working with states to correct problems

in their data submissions and will provide supplemental information to this Subcommittee as it becomes available.

Research

Our research and evaluation efforts are critical to the achievement of the goals

of welfare reform. This subcommittee’s support has been critical to enabling reliable

information about welfare reform to be developed. Your keen interest in this area

is demonstrated by the separate panel in this hearing today, which will address the

topic of research on welfare reform. Howard Rolston, Director of the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation for ACF, is a member of this panel and will provide

a fuller discussion of this important topic. I would like to briefly highlight some of

the key points.

States have a myriad of options available to them under welfare reform and need

information about which strategies will be most effective. Fortunately, the evaluation efforts we began under prior law, and that PRWORA provided us authority to

support, have given us some useful information and will continue to produce more

in the years to come. Disseminating information on the results of our research is

one of ACF’s major tasks in the coming years.

One of the challenges we face is to get better information about what is happening

to families who are leaving assistance. To answer this challenge, the Department

worked with the National Governors’ Association, the American Public Welfare Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures to sponsor a conference

that examined what information was available on ‘‘leavers.’’ Building state capacity

to track ‘‘leavers’’ is central to meeting this challenge. At this meeting we learned

that states are greatly interested in studying this issue further, and we are compiling a summary of what follow-up studies are being done. We believe this information is critical to learning if families leaving welfare are achieving self-sufficiency

and improving the quality of their lives.

The impact of welfare on children is also of critical interest to us. Because most

research primarily looks at effects on adults, we are supporting research in five

states that will look in depth at the effects of welfare reform on children.

OUR FOCUS IN THE COMING MONTHS

The passage of this legislation has presented all of us with a variety of opportunities and challenges. At this early stage, it appears that implementation is proceeding on the right track. That is, reform efforts reflect an increasing awareness

of the critical importance of:

• Fostering personal responsibility;

13

• Maintaining investments, in order to reach all needy families rather than only

the easiest to place;

• Getting all key players to the table (at the federal, state and community level)

so that the many dimensions of underemployment and dependency can be addressed; and

• Directing agency efforts to the achievement of measurable employment goals

and positive outcomes for families and children.

Over the next several months we will continue to work along a broad front to further the work we have begun. In particular, we are hearing from states and communities about what they view as the following critical next steps:

Supporting states, communities and employers as they focus more and more on

retention and job success after the initial placement;

(2) Working with states to make the investments, develop the knowledge, and provide the supports so that all families, including the hardest to serve families, can

succeed;

(3) Completing the transformation of welfare agencies into job centers, ensuring

that appropriate linkages are developed, and fostering community-based approaches

to reform;

(4) Completing the development of a regular, reliable system for collecting the

data necessary for tracking what is happening and ensuring program accountability;

and

(5) Improving our understanding about the effects of these changes on children

and families so that we can develop more effective programs and make necessary

adjustments.

At the federal level, the Clinton Administration has led the call for social policies

to help ensure that work pays. The principle of supporting work has been embedded

in the President’s agenda, including family leave, a higher minimum wage, an expanded EITC, the new Child Credit, Work Opportunity Tax Credits, the new Child

Health Insurance Program, and increased child support collections. The President’s

budget would build upon these successes by providing additional supports. The

President’s Child Care Initiative, for example, targets substantial new child care

funds, not to welfare families, but to low-income working families who are struggling to stay off of welfare. Many states have followed the model established at the

federal level and have worked to enact programs at the state level that provide similar supports for low-income working families.

CONCLUSION

I would like to express my appreciation to this Subcommittee for its interest in,

and bipartisan support of, these endeavors. I look forward to future conversations

about the progress of welfare reform and hope we can continue to work together in

resolving any implementation issues that arise.

I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Chairman S

Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HAW. Thank you, Dr. Golden.

f

Dr. Golden, of the $16.5 billion TANF block grant, how much of

that was actually obligated in fiscal year 1997?

Ms. GOLDEN. Let me tell you a little bit about what we know

about fiscal year 1997, both in terms of the dollars and the uses

that States have made of their dollars. We have preliminary information from one quarter of the year, which was a transition year

for the States. In that year, States were focusing their spending on

a range of critical purposes; about 91 percent of the block grant

dollars were obligated. In addition, almost half the States exceeded

their maintenance-of-effort commitments.

What that means is that in a time of substantial caseload decrease, States are seeing that they’ve got to make the investments

in a range of critical supports. When you hear the speaker from

Anne Arundel County, for example, I think you’ll probably hear, as

14

I did when I visited, about the critical role of investing those dollars in supports for families, including hard-to-serve families.

So we know that States are investing those dollars in a range of

critical supports for families.

Mr. CAMP. So was it 91 percent that I heard?

Ms. GOLDEN. From that transition quarter in 1997, from our preliminary information.

Mr. CAMP. How much do you think will be obligated in 1998?

Ms. GOLDEN. My guess is that in 1998, now that States have

made the transition, State legislatures are really focusing on those

dollars. We’re working hard to challenge States to maintain their

own investments on the maintenance-of-effort side and to invest

the TANF dollars.

My sense from talking with States is that there is a range of critical needs and that they are investing those dollars for some of the

issues that both Chairman Shaw and Mr. Levin highlighted. States

are reaching a range of families, enabling them to move to work.

They’re taking work seriously and investing the dollars to accomplish that.

Mr. CAMP. Do you expect then that all of the dollars will be obligated?

Ms. GOLDEN. I expect that States will be spending the money. I

don’t know whether that means 100 percent. But I anticipate that

they will be spending the money on a set of critical supports. It’s

interesting, in a time of reduced caseloads, given the way State legislatures need to work, I would actually have expected much more

delay in being able to get that money out. So my sense is that people have made early and serious moves to investing those dollars

in new ways.

Mr. CAMP. And can States use this money for child care?

Ms. GOLDEN. States are using it for a range of purposes; child

care is one. But there are many other critical investments. They’re

spending it for a variety of welfare-to-work strategies, for supporting families, both before they leave welfare and to support lowincome families afterward.

So, they are spending it for a range of purposes, including but

not limited to, child care.

Mr. CAMP. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.

Chairman SHAW. Just as a followup to Mr. Camp’s last question,

do you feel that with this flexibility of the States and being able

to transfer the money into child care, and with the fact that the

States are performing so well, so that they have much money to

spend per client in this regard, do you think we need to at this

time put more money into child care, and if so, how much?

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. I believe that President Clinton’s initiative,

the proposal of $20 billion over 5 years for child care, is critical to

reach working families. I’ve been to about 10 States in the last couple months, and I hear this not only from families and States, but

also from employers.

What States are doing is seeking to make the investments in

order to move families from welfare to work, and they’re having to

work hard to do that.

Beyond that, there are enormous needs among working families,

which is the focus of the President’s initiative. When he announced

15

the report last week, the President focused on the fact that a family making in the high $20,000 would not be eligible for child care

in most of the States.

Chairman SHAW. No, under the present definition. Do you think,

without expanding it into middle income that there is a need for

more dollars to go into child care? I’m not talking about the new

program that the President’s expressed interest in. As to the

present definition of child care and who is available, who is eligible,

do you think there’s more money than is necessary?

Ms. GOLDEN. Right now, of the families that are eligible, we

reach about one in ten through the child care program. And that

need is particularly among the working poor, low-income working

families. So my sense is that what States are doing through their

investments is enabling families to move from welfare to work.

But the next need, the reason for the additional investment, is

those low-income working families who are struggling to hold onto

their jobs. That’s how I see what we need.

Chairman SHAW. Isn’t it true, though, that the States, even right

here in the District of Columbia, are not spending all the money

that’s available to them, because it’s a matching program?

Ms. GOLDEN. That’s not true nationwide. I haven’t looked recently at the District of Columbia figures. But we have, as I recall,

about 99 percent obligations on the child care dollars. We do have

States making the investment to pull down the matching funds.

Chairman SHAW. Have you had requests from States for an increase?

Ms. GOLDEN. What we have is States reporting both waiting lists

and reporting working families who need the resources. I think

States are working really hard to invest the money to move families from welfare to work. They’re doing a lot of things to make

that work.

They’re not getting to those families who are working, who are

in very low-wage jobs, and who are struggling to hold onto those

jobs, rather than to go back to welfare.

Chairman SHAW. I’m having trouble seeing a clear picture of a

need. If you feel there’s a need for additional dollars, would you

supply to this Subcommittee, and I’m talking about under existing

guidelines, what exactly you feel those needs are on a State-byState basis so we would have a better opportunity to be able to review that. Because that’s something this Subcommittee has been

very concerned about.

Ms. GOLDEN. OK. The national number, as I say, was about one

in ten of the currently eligible families. Let me try to provide you

with as much State-by-State information as we have.

Chairman SHAW. Taking into consideration of course that many

of the families choose to have family care, rather than to put the

child in a day care type setting. And of course, we’re not trying to

make that decision for them. We just want the day care setting

available where the parents choose not to do that for one reason

or another, including the nonavailability of family or friends to care

for the kids.

But of course we know that putting these kids in these centers

has both pluses and minuses, and it’s not for everybody.

16

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. And as you know, the bipartisan consensus

behind the child care block grant makes sure that those dollars go

to a parent’s choice of providers.

Chairman SHAW. What I’d like for you to supply is, is there insufficient dollars to meet the demand for child care that’s out

there? Are there some mothers that are not able to go to work because there is no child care available? And that is within the current definition, not the expanded program that the President has

suggested.

I thank you.

[The information follows:]

17

Chairman S

Mr. L

Just so we’re clear, I think what you’re saying is that if you take

EVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HAW. Mr. Levin.

f

all of those who are eligible outside, or perhaps including those

who are on welfare, there are inadequate funds. The 1 in 10 figure

is based on those who are eligible under the present child care statutes. The fact that States are emphasizing child care for those who

are on welfare often means there are even less sufficient funds for

18

other low-income families who are not on TANF, isn’t that what

you’re saying?

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes. I think States are working really hard on this.

My sense as I travel the country is that States are investing in

child care, and they’re also addressing complicated issues like

after-hours care, weekend and evening care. In moving families

from welfare to work, child care is critical.

But I think you’re absolutely right in saying that what they’re

doing with this intense focus is enabling families to move from welfare to work. There are additional families who are eligible, lowincome working families struggling to hold on to their jobs, and

there isn’t enough money right now for them. And that’s key to the

President’s proposal.

Mr. LEVIN. Let’s face the future just for a moment. You referred

to this a bit in your testimony. What do you think the major barriers are to continuing and to perhaps even accelerating the effectiveness of welfare reform, of people moving from welfare to work?

As you look ahead the next several years, what are the largest obstacles that we are facing?

Ms. GOLDEN. I think there is a set of important challenges. I believe that it’s my job, the job of some of the people in States and

localities you’ll be talking with, the job of people in communities,

to figure out how to address those. And I think that work is going

on in several of them right now.

I would highlight several. I’m hearing in States and communities

everywhere about how we work to focus on job retention and on

earnings gain after people move into work. That’s an arena where

a lot of very good work is going on. There are collaborative approaches at the State and local level. We’ll be issuing the high-performance bonus to reward States for succeeding in those arenas.

The second arena is reaching everyone, ensuring that we reach

all families on welfare, including investing in people who have a

variety of barriers to employment. Again, I think there’s a lot of

important work going on in that area. We’ve been trying to invest

in technical assistance in some of those areas, for example, persons

with developmental disabilities and family violence. We’ve been

trying to assist States in meeting those issues.

I would also say that States are completing the transformation

of welfare offices, as Chairman Levin highlighted. There’s been

really important change, and there’s a set of next steps in terms

of shifting and building the links at the community level between

welfare offices and other local programs.

All of those things are critical steps, and they all require us to

maintain the investment at Federal and State levels.

Mr. LEVIN. You mentioned that you’re working on the contingency fund issue. Just quickly tell us what you’re looking at.

Ms. GOLDEN. Surely. That report is extremely important to the

Subcommittee, and we will provide it to you in the first half of

April. What we will be doing, as we’re required to by law, is looking

at an array of options and issues that have been identified related

to the contingency fund.

We’ve done some consulting with a variety of people to learn

what the issues are, and we’re trying to set out systematic analysis

of those issues for the use of the Subcommittee and the Congress.

19

Mr. LEVIN. And that includes looking at what the needs would

be if and when there is an economic downturn?

Ms. GOLDEN. One of the topics is sufficiency of the fund.

Mr. LEVIN. Are you comparing individuals’ needs in previous recession periods with present levels of funding?

Ms. GOLDEN. We’ve looked at the best data we could find. I’m actually not positive if that specific comparison is in the current draft

or not. But we’re trying to look at the best information.

Mr. LEVIN. We’ve talked about it, and I would urge that you do

so. We need to make sure that welfare reform works during times

of prosperity, and that there is not a destructive outcome in times

of a downturn. While no one here wants to say there will be a

downturn in the economy, there have been in the past, and there

might well be another one in the future.

Chairman SHAW. I don’t know if that was a political prediction

or what, but I think we just elected a Republican President.

[Laughter.]

Mr. LEVIN. I thought the opposite, but that wasn’t the purpose

of my question.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Stark.

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Dr. Golden. I think it’s important to note here that

while you may think this TANF Program is working, there’s precious little detail in your testimony to support that conclusion. And

I’d just like to remind my colleagues that four out of the five Democrats on this panel voted against the legislation creating this program, and that three of the leading experts in Health and Human

Services resigned from their positions in protest when this program

was passed. These were your previous colleagues.

So it appears to the Minority on this Subcommittee, or most of

us at any rate, that TANF is a seriously flawed program. We’ve

been looking for some hope to indicate that our fears were not wellfounded, and you don’t bring us much.

You say in your written statement, 50 to 60 percent of the AFDC

families leaving welfare are employed. Well, by definition that

means that 40 to 50 percent of the AFDC families who left welfare

are unemployed. What are they doing to make ends meet? And you

don’t know, and you don’t seem to be concerned, which is indeed

troubling.

We have a report that the number of children receiving AFDC

as a percent of children in poverty declined between 1995 and

1996. And that is also true of the number of children receiving food

stamps as a percentage of children in poverty.

We also know the number of children receiving TANF has declined by another 16 percent or so between 1996 and 1997. There

is no way that poverty has gone down 16 percent in 1 year. You

know that, I know that. I think it’s suggested that poverty hasn’t

gone down 16 percent in 3 years.

I don’t know what you make of the trend, and why poor children

are less likely to get assistance now. I don’t know if your department has looked at it.

I would like to think that you could tell us how you would define

success under this program—in something other than caseload declines, which mean nothing. Why have you addressed no measures

20

of child well-being? Why have you included no measures of the

number of mothers in the labor force, or fathers paying child support? Is there any other evidence that would show us that welfare

reform has done anything more than kick families off programs?

You don’t bring us any of that. What are you going to do about

that?

Ms. GOLDEN. Let me start with the success measures question,

which I think is a central one, and then work back to what we

know on the others. I think it is critical to have measures of success that address a range of well-being——

Mr. STARK. When do you intend to have them?

Ms. GOLDEN. Today we issue——

Mr. STARK. When do you intend to have those measures?

Ms. GOLDEN. We’ve issued the high performance——

Mr. STARK. When do you intend to have them? In 1 month or 6

months? When do you intend to have the measures?

Ms. GOLDEN. We’ve just issued the measures, and we’ll have information next year.

Mr. STARK. But Madam Secretary, this is a simple question. You

can count, you do this with your shoes and socks off. When do you

intend to have some measures that you can bring to this Subcommittee that show us any results of this program? In how much

time?

Ms. GOLDEN. I expect the State information to be available next

year on——

Mr. STARK. In 1999?

Ms. GOLDEN. Yes, on the full year——

Mr. STARK. At the end of 1999?

Ms. GOLDEN. I think States are likely to be able to provide it

fairly early in 1999.

Mr. STARK. Madam Secretary, half of those children could be

dead by then, thank you very much. But go ahead. What else are

you going to do which will be too little, too late?

Ms. GOLDEN. Let me say what those measures will be, because

I think they’re important.

Mr. STARK. The measures are not important if they’re not going

to be here. That’s pie in the sky. What can you measure now?

Ms. GOLDEN. We know what families are telling us. We also have

an array of studies which show that more families are working,

that there is a range of income effects for families who leave welfare, and that there have not yet been the sharp negative effects

that many people expected. We don’t know over the long run how

that will play out.

In addition, when I talk to families, what I hear often is that the

reason for going to work is because of the children.

Mr. STARK. What families are you talking to? How many families

have you talked to?

Ms. GOLDEN. Not a large number.

Mr. STARK. How many?

Ms. GOLDEN. A couple of dozen, three dozen.

Mr. STARK. That’s piddling.

Ms. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. STARK. Madam Secretary, that is not a statistically valid

study.

21

Ms. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. STARK. My heavens.

Ms. GOLDEN. The statistical studies show a range of information,

but they don’t show everything. I think what you’ll be hearing in

today’s panel is that——

Mr. STARK. But you show us nothing. You’ve got no statistical

studies and you’ve talked to a couple dozen families. And you’ve

kicked, or you will be kicking, hundreds of thousands of children

off of support systems.

Now, to me, that’s pretty inhumane. To not care enough to know

what’s happening to those children and those families when they’re

booted off the welfare rolls is not something that the Democrats

should be very proud of.

Ms. GOLDEN. What I’m proud of is that we will be judging the

success of welfare by moving families to work, by their gains in

earnings and ability to——

Mr. STARK. You’re not moving them to work. You’re kicking them

off the welfare rolls. That’s all you know. All you’re counting and

all you are able to count is the decline in caseload. You’re booting

people off their support systems. You have no idea what happens

to them after they leave, except for talking to a couple dozen families.

Ms. GOLDEN. And requiring States, if they want a shot at $200

million——

Mr. STARK. Don’t push this off on the States. We’re running our

own program here, thank you very much.

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. And what we will be measuring is movement

to work, gains in earnings, retention of jobs——

Mr. STARK. I suspect that you should spend less time, Madam

Secretary, on all this public relations clap-trap that you’re bringing

here, and a little bit more time about worrying about what happens

to poor and dependent children in our country as has been the previous record of your Department.

Ms. GOLDEN. My history of research and my personal academic

work experience focuses on children and welfare.

Mr. STARK. You haven’t done any research.

Chairman SHAW. The time of the gentleman has expired. Dr.

Golden, you should see the way he talks to the Republican witnesses. [Laughter.]

Ms. GOLDEN. And I’d be happy to outline the research——

Mr. STARK. They at least come with numbers, Mr. Chairman,

and know what they’re talking about.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. McCrery.

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Golden, correct me if I’m wrong, and I could be, but it’s my

impression that much of the reduction in caseload has taken place

as a result of voluntary efforts on the part of former welfare recipients to leave the rolls, that many of them are in fact not being

thrown off the rolls, they’re voluntarily leaving the rolls to obtain

employment, or due to better circumstances, is that correct?

Ms. GOLDEN. Well, let me outline what we do know, what we

don’t know, and what we will know, because I think all of those

are important.

22

What we do know right now is quite limited. There’s a range of

studies in different States, and not a systematic national approach.

So we know some selected facts, like the percentage that are working and what the range is in different places. We know something

about sanctions.

What we know about the point you make is that about 50 to 60

percent of those who leave the rolls are working. Of those who

leave for sanctions, about 40 percent are working, which does suggest that some of those may have left by choice.

On the other hand, I don’t think we know enough to say very

much specifically about why people are leaving or about their circumstances. I share Congressman Stark’s concerns that we have to

know much more than we do.

We will know is a set of things. We are investing in research that

will be a much more systematic look at the ‘‘leavers.’’ The Congress

appropriated $5 million, which the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation will be using for much more systematic work

there.

We will know much more through a range of evaluation studies,

which will be discussed at length. Both Barbara Blum and Howard

Rolston will speak about some of the specific research that focuses

on children and outcomes for children, which I think is critical.

In addition, we will know more through administrative data. We

have just put in place, and are really very pleased to have put in

place, a system for reporting not just caseload information, because

as Congressman Stark points out, that’s not complete, but also information about what happens to people in terms of their movement to work, their time in those jobs, and their wages in those

jobs.

So, we know some information on the issues you raise. We will

know more, and it is absolutely critical for us to know more.

Mr. MCCRERY. Let’s return to the question of child care money.

I’m told that CBO, at least, estimates that in 1998, only about 75

percent of the TANF money that’s available to States will be in fact

obligated. In other words, States will in effect save 25 percent of

the money that’s available to them for TANF.

If that’s the case, and obviously we don’t know yet, that’s just an

estimate, but if that’s the case, and States are able to use that

money for child care, I’m not sure that we ought to dive headlong

into increased funding for child care, when there’s money on the

table that’s not being used that could be for that purpose.

Could you submit to us your agency’s analysis of exactly why you

think more child care money is needed in view of the CBO estimate

of utilization of TANF funds, and in view of the fact that we have

in fact called for, I think, about a 50-percent increase in child care

funding over the next 5 years, which is a significant increase. So

would you submit that to us.

Ms. GOLDEN. Surely, let me summarize the main points, and

then we should submit followup. First, as you note, it is speculation

in terms of next year for States. You may want to speak with other

panelists about that.

While States are holding some parts of money because they believe they need to address future as well as current contingencies,

States really are finding that they have to invest the TANF money

23

to address the challenges of reaching all families and moving families to work.

Second, I would again make the distinction between moving families from welfare to work, which I believe States are making the

investments to do, and the broader needs of those struggling families who are working and who should not be in a position where

they’d have to leave work and go back to welfare. In that latter

group of families, we’re providing child care to about 1 in 10 of the

eligible families.

The critical needs are to make sure we have a system that supports work and ensure that working families don’t need to return

to welfare in order to get in line for child care. And we’ll submit

the followup analysis.

[The information follows:]

Mr. M

Chairman S

Mr. M

C

ATSUI

CRERY

. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HAW

. Thank you very much.

. Mr. Matsui.

f

Dr. Golden, I want to follow up on some of the areas that Mr.

Stark moved into. I did skim over Mr. Rolston’s testimony and Barbara Blum’s testimony and the Census Bureau’s. I just skimmed

those. And I didn’t see anything that helps me understand what is

really happening with the welfare caseload at this particular time

in America.

Ms. GOLDEN. OK.

24

Mr. MATSUI. I guess one of the problems I have, and I understand that this is a political town and this is a political country,

but one of the real problems I think I have, and I think many of

us have, is that the impression trying to be conveyed by this administration and by HHS in particular is that welfare reform is a

wonderful success, because we’ve seen 2.4 million people go off the

welfare rolls.

And we’ve heard it from the President, in his Saturday morning

addresses. There’s just been an array of commentary on what a

wonderful program this is, but the Family Support Act actually deserves a lot of credit because the States were finally able to put up

the match and draw down Federal funds. Clearly, the Family Support Act helped create the progress we see today.

Because in early 1996, we saw a drop in the rolls, significant

drop in the rolls. And we’ve had also 80 months of economic

growth. So there are a lot of factors involved that have resulted in

this drop in the rolls.

If you came today and you had empirical evidence, data that Mr.

Stark had requested, to show that in fact this program is working

and you can attribute the drop in the rolls to this program, I would

really have a great deal of respect for your opinion and the opinion

of all the people that are touting this program.

But the problem is that you’re making these statements about

how wonderful this program is and how it’s worked so well, but

you’re not providing data. Just common sense tells me that because

the economy’s going so well, you have to expect the caseload to

drop. It would have happened under the 1988 Family Support Act.

It probably would have happened even without any welfare program in place.

So, I hope your rhetoric changes until you get these studies. Because until you get these studies, you’re going to get people like me

and Mr. Stark and others very angry. Because it’s misleading. It’s

not fair to the people that are falling off the rolls. And it’s just not

an appropriate way for adults and people that are in positions of

power and influence to be conducting themselves.

Ms. GOLDEN. What I would like to do is characterize what’s convinced me personally, because I’ve been working on welfare for 25

years.

Mr. MATSUI. I understand that. But you see, that doesn’t tell

me——

Ms. GOLDEN. But I would then address data.

Mr. MATSUI. I go back home to Sacramento and people tell me

it’s not working, that there are a lot of problems involved.

Ms. GOLDEN. Right.

Mr. MATSUI. In fact, all the people that are eligible in the State

of California to receive child care funds or child care programs are

not getting it. Only 30 percent are getting it, you know that.

So I’m hearing just the opposite of what you’re hearing. But I

won’t go around saying it’s not working, because that’s anecdotal.

That’s my personal opinion, based upon a comment by somebody.

And I don’t think you should make comments based upon anecdotes. Because maybe somebody’s feeding you information that may

not be accurate.

25

Ms. GOLDEN. Could I characterize what we know now and what

we don’t know, because that’s a very fair piece of information.

Mr. MATSUI. That’s fine.

Ms. GOLDEN. Part of what we know is about the array of studies

that I’ve just characterized, about more people working, but we

have fragmentary information in different places.

Mr. MATSUI. But can you attribute these to the welfare reform

program, or would you attribute it to the economy, or would you

say part of it is because of the 1988 Family Support Act that was

finally starting to work in 1996?

Ms. GOLDEN. I think everything, when the Council of Economic

Advisors looked at the reasons——

Mr. MATSUI. But then you’re just telling me what I already

know, that the welfare rolls have dropped, and half the people that

have dropped off of welfare now are working and the other half we

don’t know what happened to them. We all know that, and frankly

that statistic, we knew before the welfare reform bill.

Ms. GOLDEN. I started out in welfare in Massachusetts, working

as my first job out of college in the seventies. Two things are most

dramatically different to me, and they’re both indicators of

progress, not success. I believe that we have a lot more to do and

a lot more to learn.

One of the two indicators is who’s involved in moving families

from welfare to work. When I worked in Massachusetts, there was

no way that I or anyone else in the office would have thought we

could call up the transportation authority, employers, or community organizations and get them focused on working with us to

work with families. I now believe that has changed. The welfare

agency is not in it alone, and that’s an incredibly important step.

The other thing that is enormously important is that perspectives by and about families on welfare have changed. They believe

they can move to work, and employers and other people see them

as people we ought to be supporting in that move.

I think what we need to know, and I am very committed——

Mr. MATSUI. If I can just interrupt you, because I know my

time’s running out, I apologize to you.

Ms. GOLDEN. That’s OK.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Stark and I had these same kind of discussions

back in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office.

Ms. GOLDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. MATSUI. Remember when he eliminated the disregards and

made all these changes, we had that same problem. We basically

eliminated individuals from owning cars because we increased——

Ms. GOLDEN. Right, and now we’ve gone the other way.

Mr. MATSUI. Right.

Ms. GOLDEN. We’ve essentially made sure that the programs are

supporting work.

Mr. MATSUI. Many of these burdensome regulations that were

not necessary. So you’re speaking to the choir in that respect.

But the real issue is, are sanctions working? What happens to

these families that drop off? And there are a lot of States, 38

States, that impose very severe sanctions.

And you don’t know, and I don’t know, and I want to believe that

they’re doing better, maybe they move in with their brothers and

26

sisters or mothers and fathers, and so they’re taken care of. If you

show me they’re taken care of, that’s great. But if all of a sudden

we’re finding out that homelessness is going up, people are out in

the streets, then we need to do something.

Ms. GOLDEN. Right. Absolutely.

Mr. MATSUI. So before, and my time has run out, so before we

start spreading the gospel about how wonderful this program is,

let’s get the facts. And I would hope that you and your department

and others within the administration would be somewhat circumspect. Because we’re talking about, as Mr. Stark suggested, a

lot of people’s lives, particularly children.

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. The time of the gentleman has expired.

I’d like to just point out to the gentleman, in addition to the answer that Dr. Golden was making, that if you track welfare reform

into the States who got an early start, you will find that they are

way ahead of the curve, even though the curve is very aggressive.

I think that we have great evidence that it is working.

Are some people falling through the cracks? Yes. Some people fall

through the cracks of every program that we try to put together.

But I think to take away from the tremendous success of welfare

reform would certainly be a mistake. We’ve had years of prosperity,

and yes, the welfare rolls should go down in those years.

But the dramatic drop that we have seen in recipients of welfare

in this country certainly outstrips being able to simply attach that

to the economy. The economy’s been good.

Mr. MATSUI. If the gentleman would yield, I don’t want to make

this a long discussion, because I just want to see the facts. We can

talk rhetorically. But almost every economist says they have not

seen growth like this since the fifties and sixties. So I have to say

that the growth of the economy right now is unprecedented in

terms of our generation. I think perhaps maybe we should give a

little credit to that.

Chairman SHAW. I give a lot of credit to the economy, and I think

Dr. Golden was correct, that all of——

Mr. MATSUI. The only concern I have is that if the economy

starts to dip, then what happens to these people, if this program

isn’t working as we presume it is working judging by our rhetoric.

Chairman SHAW. That’s a concern we all share.

Dr. Golden, I have a question that I want to submit to you on

the welfare-to-work program. But I’ll do that, and ask that you

reply in writing if you would.

Ms. GOLDEN. OK.

[No questions were submitted by Chairman Shaw.]

Chairman SHAW. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield before Dr. Golden

leaves? I just want to say to Mr. Stark and Mr. Matsui that whether the recession is an issue, I think no one has worked harder on

the contingency fund issue than I have. That’s why I’ve urged the

Department to review it.

Clearly, prosperity has been a major factor, and I don’t think

anybody should deny that. I’ve spent a lot of time in Michigan,

mainly in Detroit. I would urge anybody who asks whether there’s

been a change in the emphasis on the State and local level to help

27

people move from welfare to work to go to Detroit and talk with

Mayor Archer, talk with the people who are working on that program. And they will give you compelling data.

Though we don’t have national data and there may have been exaggerated claims, I think it’s a mistake to say that there has been

a lack of overall progress.

Mr. MATSUI. I don’t think anybody is. In fact, I would take the

position, no one is saying that there’s no progress. What we’re trying to do is make sure that the words and the rhetoric are backed

up by facts.

Mr. LEVIN. I very much agree.

Mr. STARK. Would the gentleman yield further on that point?

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. STARK. Northwestern University economists just did a study

suggesting that the expansion of the earned income tax credit is responsible for more than half of the increase in employment rates

among single mothers over the period of 1984 to 1996. All I’m suggesting is that you look at the relative importance of the EITC,

welfare reform, and general economic conditions in moving single

mothers into employment.

At least the Northwestern study is one on which we can rely. I

don’t know whether they did any of their study in Michigan or not.

But to me, the idea that we are claiming victory in welfare reform

just because people are no longer participating in TANF is not responsible.

Mr. LEVIN. That isn’t what is being claimed, and as someone who

strongly supports the IT and the President, it is obviously a factor,

and a major factor. The question is whether the transition of the

welfare program to a work-orientation caseload with the maintenance of efforts by the States, has contributed to a movement of

people from welfare to work in addition to all of these other factors.

I think the data will help us to assess all the causations. But I

don’t think there should be exaggerated claims on either side including those who try to minimize the significance of the——

Mr. STARK. I would support——

Chairman SHAW. This debate will be continued at another day in

another forum.

Before we leave, I would like to introduce the next panel, because

I know that Mr. Cardin wants to introduce one of his constituents.

So I would yield to Mr. Cardin.

Dr. Golden, thank you very much.

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. And thanks for putting up with Pete. I meant

that humorously. [Laughter.]

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to sit in with the Subcommittee. My colleagues from California thought I came to listen to their debate, but no, I came because I’m really pleased that Vesta Kimble is here, who is the deputy director of the Anne Arundel County Department of Social

Services.

The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services has

taken up the challenge that we created in welfare reform to establish innovative employment programs. They have developed a sinVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
28

gle stop shop for employment services that has been very successful

in the county and has acted as a model for our Nation.

I’m very pleased that she could be here with us today, and I

thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce her. And one

of your constituents happens to be Congressman Stark, who lives

in Anne Arundel County. [Laughter.]

But I warn you about the questioning ahead of time.

Chairman SHAW. Now you’ll lock your doors at night. [Laughter.]

I would like to introduce Don Winstead, who is from my home

State of Florida. He’s the welfare reform administrator of the Florida Department of Children and Families in Tallahassee. And we,

too, are very proud of the job they’re doing down in the State of

Florida.

Also, they will be joined by Jean Rogers, who’s the Administrator

of the Division of Economic Support, Department of Work Force

Development in Madison, Wisconsin, and of course, Madison, Wisconsin, has certainly been a leader in reform. Also Frank Mora, Job

Development Supervisor, Department of Public Social Services,

South County GAIN Region, Rancho Dominguez, California.

We are going to have a series of votes on the floor. The Subcommittee will stand in recess until approximately 12:35 to 12:40

p.m.

[Recess.]

Mr. COLLINS [presiding]. If the panel that’s already been introduced will take your seats. We will hear from J. Jean Rogers. We

will pause for a moment and wait for Ms. Rogers.

STATEMENT OF J. JEAN ROGERS, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION

OF ECONOMIC SUPPORT, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Ms. ROGERS. I’m honored to be here today to tell you all how

PRWORA, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and

Reconciliation Act, has made it possible for Wisconsin to help thousands of needy families reach self-sufficiency. PRWORA is based in

large part on Wisconsin’s experience and recommendations.

Although over the years, Wisconsin implemented 14 cutting edge

waiver demonstrations, it really wasn’t until we envisioned a world

without AFDC that we could create a program as innovative and

comprehensive as we have in Wisconsin Works.

While W–2 was fully implemented only 6 months ago, we’ve already seen a dramatic drop in our cash assistance caseload, from

31,476 families in September to only 14,391 in January. Unlike

other States experiencing recent caseload declines, Wisconsin’s

drop came from an already reduced caseload. In 1987, when we implemented our first waiver, we were over 98,000 families. Ninetyeight thousand to fourteen thousand—our numbers speak for themselves.

Without the authority granted by PRWORA, we really couldn’t

have implemented W–2. I’d like to share with you six reasons you

were right to pass PRWORA instead of continuing the old ways

that only allowed flexibility through the waiver system.

By their very nature, waivers are temporary. Why? Because

waivers were experiments which were time limited and only applied to some clients, and our participants knew it. Many figured

29

they just had to wait it out. TANF gave us the ability to make our

changes universal and permanent.

Second, waivers were static and rigid. Our benchmark for a policy change now is, will it help the participant progress toward a

job. If the answer is yes, we can change. Unlike a waiver,

PRWORA allows States the flexibility to change a policy or procedure immediately, based on their implementation experience.

Three, waivers were too restrictive to allow full engagement.

AFDC categorically exempted so many people that nearly half of

the caseload was not required to do anything for their welfare

check. The result? Thousands of families languished on assistance

for years without receiving any meaningful help to become self-sufficient.

Well, no one ever got a raise on welfare. PRWORA gave us the

ability to require everyone to work to the best of their abilities. The

surprising result? People with even the most severe barriers want

to work, and they can work. They just didn’t know how, in many

instances, to take that first step.

I had a woman say to me, with tears in her eyes, thank you,

thank you to my caseworker for believing in me, because nobody

else ever did.

Fourth, you couldn’t waive the entitlement. Ending the entitlement was really as much symbolic as it was hard policy. Having

no entitlement reinforces the work requirements and allows us to

design the work training requirements in W–2, like a job in the

real world, rather than a handout.

W–2 payments are based on participation, not on family size. As

parents move up the W–2 employment ladder, their income increases. And families can have outside income with no grant reduction, as long as they stay under the income limit of 115 percent of

poverty.

Five, even with extensive use of waivers, it really was difficult

to change the culture of the welfare office and our employers. The

existence of random assignment to control groups really constrained our ability to advertise as we do now. The improved support of services available to all parents in need, because half of

them weren’t eligible before, they were in the control group.

In fact, we’re recruiting clients. W–2 agencies in Milwaukee are

doing TV, radio, and full page newspaper ads, as well as having

community parties, just to encourage needy families to take advantage of the services in W–2.

Sixth, waivers didn’t allow us to change the bureaucracy. We

knew that if we were asking more of our participants, we really

had to ask more of our W-two agencies as well. To ensure that they

were really giving 110 percent, we instituted a competitive bidding

process with outcome-based contracts.

And the result? Of our 80 W–2 agencies, 63 are county run, 3 are

run by tribes, and 14 by private agencies, two of which are forprofit.

We already are seeing the positive results. Just look at our caseload numbers and wages at full-time placement. That is six dollars

and 38 cents and rising.

In addition, the block grant structure of PRWORA gives States

the opportunity to shift funds to critical areas of need. Because

30

we’re in the work support business, not the income support business, we really need to spend our money on things like child care

and increased case management and transportation. And that is

exactly what we’re doing.

We’ve tripled the funding for child care in Wisconsin, ending the

waiting lists. And we’re the only State to have no waiting lists.

We’ve expanded usage up to families with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty and only modest copays. Example, a mother at the

Federal poverty line with two kids on full-time licensed care, our

most expensive, pays only $69 a month for over $900 in child care

services.

Let me conclude with two more things that PRWORA did really

right. One, instead of mandating how many people cannot participate, as the extensive exemption criteria did in AFDC, PRWORA

sets aggressive work participation rates, raising the bar for all

States. And by limiting the amount of postsecondary education,

PRWORA focuses States on the basics of getting and holding a job.

Less than 18 percent of our current caseload has a high school

diploma. That’s down from 51 percent in 1995. This statistic shows

us two things. One, many former welfare recipients with a high

school diploma have already successfully entered the work force.

And second, we’re correct in focusing on basic education, rather

than on college degree programs. Once a person has the basics and

demonstrates the ability to hold a job, then W–2 will help with

postsecondary education as support for life-long learning, not in

place of working, just like in the real world.

One last thing I would like to take this opportunity to say before

I close, and that is, we have become aware of a budget proposal

that would cut TANF funds in year 6. To accomplish this, it would

likely eliminate all of the State’s ability to have carryover funds.

PRWORA did so much that was right, both in terms of its structure and in terms of its funding. Please don’t now put the States

at risk based on some early guesses on the part of the Congress

of what future caseloads and economic conditions might be. As was

mentioned earlier today, economies are cyclical, and we need to

plan for the future.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of J. Jean Rogers, Administrator, Division of Economic Support,

Department of Work Force Development

I am honored to be here today to tell you how the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 has made a difference in

the state of Wisconsin. This groundbreaking legislation, based in large part on Wisconsin’s experience and recommendations, gives each state the tools it needs to design a work-focused program responsive to the unique needs of its population. Wisconsin Works (W–2), our Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, is paving the way for a world without Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Being a leader in welfare reform for ten years, there is no doubt that Wisconsin

had a head start addressing the problem of welfare dependence and the poverty that

it creates. In fact, Wisconsin’s welfare legacy began in 1987, when Governor Thompson made welfare reform one of his top priorities upon taking office. At the time,

Wisconsin’s AFDC caseload had swelled to over 98,000 cases.

Governor Thompson had little confidence that the Family Support Act of 1988

would do much more than continue the status quo. As a result, Wisconsin pioneered

the way for states to receive waivers from the federal government to run welfare

demonstrations. Wisconsin’s first waiver, called Learnfare, changed the direction of

31

welfare by connecting, for the first time, the receipt of welfare to personal responsibility. Learnfare, which has since been folded into W–2, requires students to attend

school or face a reduction in the family’s cash benefit.

Since then, Wisconsin conducted 14 major welfare reform demonstrations, finding

solutions to many of the barriers faced by families on welfare and steadily chipping

away at the caseload. By 1990, the caseload had decreased to just over 78,000 cases.

Five years later, in 1995, there was a decline to 73,000 cases. When PRWORA was

signed into law, in September 1996, 49,932 cases remained on Wisconsin’s caseload.

Although we had cut our caseload in half in the preceding nine years, we knew we

could do better.

In fact, it was not until we envisioned a world without AFDC that we could create

a program as innovative and comprehensive as W–2. When, in 1993, Wisconsin’s

State Legislature mandated that the Governor end AFDC and replace it with a

work-based program, most states were just beginning to tinker with incentives to

work like increasing the earned income disregards. This mandate gave us more latitude than we could have hoped for. While many of our reforms were successful, they

were bound by federal limits. Legislating an end to AFDC allowed us to start with

a clean slate. We took nothing for granted.

The result was Wisconsin Works (W–2), a work support, not an income support,

program. When Wisconsin passed the W–2 legislation in May 1996, however, states

did not yet have the authority to end AFDC. It was the passage of PRWORA by

Congress just a few months later that made our vision of a work-based program possible. In fact, Wisconsin was the first state to submit a TANF plan. Key provisions

of W–2 were phased in soon there after.

Full implementation of W–2 began in September 1997 and the last AFDC checks

were sent out this month (March 1998). The transition to W–2 has been an overwhelming success. More parents than ever are finding employment. Since September 1997, our already reduced caseload has been cut in half from 31,476 families

in September to only 14,391 as of January 1998 (latest numbers available).

Caseload Reductions

Month Caseload Size

January 1987 .................................................................................................... 98,295

January 1994 .................................................................................................... 78,507

January 1995 .................................................................................................... 73,962

January 1996 .................................................................................................... 65,386

January 1997 .................................................................................................... 43,888

January 1998 .................................................................................................... 14,391

The decline in Wisconsin’s cash assistance caseload is truly astonishing— the

numbers speak for themselves. Although Wisconsin had the groundwork laid for a

work-based program like W–2, it was not until the advent of PRWORA that Wisconsin could take the final steps toward a truly work-based program. Without

PRWORA, the decline you see since August 1996 would not have been possible.

With PRWORA, Wisconsin was able to fully implement the clear lesson learned

from our 10 years of welfare reform experience—to prepare parents for employment,

a support program must look as much like the world of work as possible.

It is clear that without the authority granted to all states through PRWORA, we

could not have implemented W–2. Let me tell you six of the reasons you were right

to pass PRWORA instead of continuing the waiver system.

SIX DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WAIVERS AND PRWORA

1. By their nature, waivers are temporary.

The goal of welfare reform demonstration waivers was to determine whether a

specific policy caused people to change their behavior. Waivers were generally granted for a period of five to seven years, after which, the state would go back to the

status quo.

The result was that many participants subject to these policy changes knew that

it was an experiment. Many figured they just had to wait it out. In fact, a Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation’s Cross-State Study of Time Limited

Welfare, which focused on time limit demonstrations in Wisconsin, Florida, and

Vermont, found that several participants did not believe that they would ever actually be subject to a time limit. In fact, one individual from Florida said that ‘‘somehow, some way, they’ll come up with another program to supplement those who are

32

off.’’ [The View from the Field: As Time Limits Approach, Welfare Recipients and

Staff Talk About Their Attitudes and Expectations, A. Brown, D. Bloom, D. Butler.

MDRC: October 1997.]

In contrast, TANF gives states the ability to make our changes universal and permanent. Wisconsin has spent a lot of time and energy ensuring that our participants understand that W–2 is not an experiment, it is this state’s AFDCreplacement program: all participants are subject to a lifetime limit and will be required to participate in exchange for their W–2 payment. This fundamental change

is not a message we could have conveyed in a few weeks. Since PRWORA passed

18 months ago, we have been preparing our participants to transition to W–2. Our

efforts are paying off. Our participants are getting the message. Many have chosen

to enter the workforce and save their time on assistance for when they may have

a greater income need. The magnitude of these behavior changes would not have

been possible in an ‘‘experiment’’ we needed a permanent program with real consequences to get the message across. PRWORA gave us that.

2. Waivers were static and rigid.

Under waivers, we designed a specific program, and even if we discovered that

the program would be more effective if we could change a policy, extend certain benefits to another group, or increase a penalty for non-compliance, we could not make

that change until the waiver was ended. States became captives of their own experiments. Although keeping the policies static made the evaluation results more valid,

it was not the best thing for the participant.

Unlike a waiver, PRWORA allows states the flexibility to change a policy or procedure based on their implementation experience. Now, we can implement the lessons

we have learned right away. We are able to be responsive to the concerns of participants, communities, elected officials, advocates, and our W–2 agencies. Our benchmark for a policy change is, ‘‘Will it help the participant progress toward a job?’’

If the answer is ‘‘Yes,’’ we make the change.

For example, we recently extended our marginally employed policy to individuals

placed in our W–2 Transition position, where individuals with extensive barriers to

work such as a caring for a disabled child are usually placed. We originally thought

that these individuals would not be able to work due to their severe barriers. However, in just the first few months of statewide implementation, we heard from participants, advocates and W–2 agencies that many of our W–2 Transition individuals

can work, want to work, and can benefit from work, even if it is only a few hours

per week. Thanks to our ability to adapt, we have broadened our policy to include

these individuals. This would not have been possible under a waiver. If W–2 were

a waiver, we would have to wait until the end of the demonstration to consider extending this benefit.

3. Waivers made it difficult to implement Full Engagement.

AFDC categorically exempted anyone who met pre-determined criteria labeled

‘‘barriers to employment,’’ which averaged nearly half of the caseload. These individuals received a check without any participation requirement. The result? Thousands

of participants languished for years—even decades—in AFDC, often never working

with a case manager. By shielding these families from participation requirements,

AFDC denied them the opportunity to break down their barriers. One thing is clear,

no one ever got a raise on welfare.

PRWORA recognized that simply writing out a government check each month did

not address the problems of poor families. PRWORA gave us the ability and the incentives to require everyone to participate. Instead of ignoring the hard-to-serve, W–

2 works with them. W–2 requires everyone to work to the best of their abilities. W–

2 case mangers have flexibility to assign work activities that address participant

barriers such as an alcohol problem, poor work history, or a disabled child. The surprising result? The more we work with these individuals, the more we find that

their ‘‘barriers’’ do not actually prevent them from working.

In fact, most of these parents want to work, but they were told for years that they

were not capable. And they believed it. These people simply did not know how to

take that first step. I had a woman say to me with tears in her eyes, ‘‘Thank Governor Thompson for believing in me.’’ In Wisconsin, we are now helping thousands

of parents take that first step. It is not an easy one, and we have to stick with these

families to ensure that they stay on their feet, but a job is their best chance of becoming self-sufficient.

Interestingly, penalties for non-participation in W–2 are not as high as in earlier

Wisconsin demonstrations. The goal of W–2 payment reductions is to encourage individuals to participate, not to punish them. Instead of imposing uniform ‘‘sanctions’’ for non-participation for a month or three months, under W–2, just like a job,

33

the parent receives payment for only those hours in which they participated. Every

hour the participant fails to show up for required, pre-assigned activities, their W–

2 payment is reduced by $5.15. Both participants and W–2 case managers realize

that it takes a lot of hard work and commitment to move families toward selfsufficiency. Participants further realize that participation requirements, more suited

to individual circumstances because of PRWORA, are actually helpful in realizing

their employment goals. Case managers are more committed than ever to making

a success story out of every family on their caseload, since contracts are outcomebased.

4. You could not ‘‘waive’’ the entitlement.

Ending the entitlement was as much symbolic as it was hard policy. When we

were designing W–2, I met with employers from across the state. They told me that

the existence of the welfare system as an alternative to work was acting in a very

real way as a competitor. Employers, particularly those needing large numbers of

entry level workers, complained that their ability to attract and retain, and in some

sense manage their workforce, was weakened by the alternative cash support system. If our workers with minor children did not like something about the job, they

could always quit and go back on welfare. Now, under PRWORA, individuals who

quit their jobs without good reason are no longer entitled to a check. Instead, we

help them find a new job.

Having no entitlement reinforces the work requirements and allows us to design

the work-training requirements in W–2 like a job rather than a handout. Under

AFDC, states set payment levels based on family size and Wisconsin was among the

most generous in the nation. The inherent problem in that process was that there

was an implied reward for having additional children while on welfare. In addition,

the old concept did not reflect the working world, where parents do not receive a

raise when they have additional children.

PRWORA allowed states more flexibility in setting payment levels. W–2 payments

are based on participation, not family size. As a parent moves up the W–2 Employment Ladder, their income increases with the final rung being an unsubsidized job.

Even the lowest rung on that ladder pays more than what 80 percent of what AFDC

recipients in Wisconsin received before W–2.

In addition, W–2 allows families to keep more income than under AFDC. Previously, net income was deducted dollar for dollar from a family’s AFDC payment

eliminating any incentive to pursue other avenues of income. Even child support

was assigned to the state and a family could only receive the first $50. Under W–

2, once a family passes the gross income test (115 percent of federal poverty level

or $15,330 annually for a family of three), income does not reduce their W–2 payment. And the W–2 payment does not count in the gross test. Even wages from a

part-time job do not reduce the W–2 payment. In addition, through a federal waiver,

Wisconsin asked to be even more generous with its needy families. In another reflection of the real world, Governor Thompson fought to pass through the full amount

of child support paid each month to W–2 families.

Because of PRWORA and creative thinking by W–2 planners, families are encouraged to seek other sources of income to augment earnings when the enter the world

of work. Unlike the old system, these earnings do not reduce a family’s grant. Again,

just like the real world: you work more, you have more.

Under PRWORA, eligibility requirements became much more simplified and Wisconsin took advantage of these less complex federal regulations. For example, there

are no more rules excluding two-parent families and discouraging marriage and

family formation. Gone are the strict asset limits which were out of step with the

times. Also noticeably absent from W–2 are the complex benefit calculations that

were incomprehensible to workers, not to mention recipients. Instead, PRWORA allows states to set reasonable limits for eligibility. Our goal now is to focus on case

management, not mathematical equations!! Participants may now own a vehicle

with up to $10,000 in equity value and remain eligible for W–2. In addition, they

are able to retain up to $2,500 in other assets, such as savings accounts for future

education or family emergencies.

All of this increased generosity is made possible because of the end of the entitlement. States can now say, ‘‘Just as in the real world of work, we will help you if

you help yourself to the extent you are able, and do so without fear of the abuse

of due process.’’

5. Waivers made it difficult to change the culture of the welfare office.

The existence of a random-assignment control group constrained our ability to advertise, as we do now, the improved supportive services available to parents, because half of them were not eligible—they were in the ‘‘control’’ group. Now we no

34

longer have to say, ‘‘I’m sorry, we know this may help you leave welfare, but because your Social Security Number ends in an odd number, you are not eligible.’’

In fact, we are recruiting clients. W–2 agencies in Milwaukee are doing television

and radio commercials and full-page newspaper advertisements as well as community parties to encourage needy families to take advantage of W–2.

6. Waivers did not allow us to change the bureaucracy.

We realized that in order to change how families receive welfare, we had to

change how we provide welfare. So we eliminated the entitlement counties had as

the sole service providers of cash assistance. Instead, we asked them to compete

with themselves to meet certain performance outcomes in order to be W–2 agencies.

The benchmark was set high: two standards had to be met within a 12-month period:

Caseloads had to be reduced by up to 25 percent; and

• 105 out of 160 points had to be earned by progressively increasing the number

of adults in work activities and reducing the amount of AFDC expenditures.

We speculated that perhaps half would make it. We underestimated what a little

healthy competition could do. Seventy of the 79 counties/tribes earned the Right of

First Selection. In the five unsuccessful counties and the seven successful counties

who earned the right, but simply were not interested in being in the welfare business any longer, we opened the process up to private sector competition. In essence,

we ended the monopoly that counties in Wisconsin had on administering welfare.

This competitive process to select the best and most enthusiastic provider is integral

to W–2.

And size was important too. We wanted each agency to be small enough to develop a sense of community. Therefore, Milwaukee, which did not earn the Right

of First Selection and contains over 80 percent of our state’s cash assistance caseload, was divided into six W–2 Regions. As a result, while the majority of cases in

Wisconsin are privatized, the majority of agencies are not.

The results:

66 Counties/Tribes; 12 Non-profit agencies; 2 For-profit agencies; and 2 Tribes developed their own TANF plan.

By the way, every county agency and all but one Job Opportunity and Basic Skills

(JOBS) agency that went through the competitive process was selected.

We found that through this process, even with counties that earned the Right of

First Selection, agencies had to redefine their mission. The result was more innovation and creativity than would ever be possible under the old system. The bidding

process also established partnerships between private businesses, government agencies and non-profits who in many cases will work together for the first time to provide the most effective and efficient services to low-income families across the state.

The Department of Workforce Development is managing the W–2 contracts

through state field staff to ensure that contractors are meeting performance specifications. The approach is one of technical support and guidance rather than

‘‘gotcha.’’

We made our goals our measures of success. The primary goal we want to achieve

is economic self-sufficiency. We chose a modified health maintenance organization

model. Instead of determining funding based on the number of cases, we made a

one-time determination of the caseloads in each region at the start of the program,

and set maximum contract allocations based on this number.

W–2 agencies keep their profits. Therefore, there is a built-in incentive for the

agencies to succeed in placing individuals in jobs. Rather than prospering by having

a large caseload, agencies will succeed by helping their participants find jobs and

move off the caseload, but not permanently. Agencies will be tracked for recidivism

and wages at placement to ensure they are helping people properly. In addition,

there is a $5,000 penalty per instance of failure to serve.

Why is the competitive contracting process so important? Because we felt our W–

2 families deserved excellent service. We knew we could best ensure excellent service if we had the following three things:

A single entity to hold accountable for all aspects of the program; Providers who

wanted the privilege of helping people help themselves; and The ability to change

providers through time-limited contracts if service and outcomes were substandard.

Wisconsin’s AFDC program was state-supervised and county-administered, with

basically two separate, parallel, service delivery systems: 1) eligibility and check distribution, run exclusively by counties, some of whom did not even want to be in the

business; and 2) the JOBS program, which could be run by public or private vendors, some of whom were not committed to the workforce-attachment model.

The W–2 program was designed so that one organization is wholly accountable

and responsible for results. By having one agency, with each participant dealing

35

with only one case manager, we eliminated the excuses for low performance by both

agency and participants.

PRWORA also gave states the opportunity to shift funds to critical areas of need.

One of the best examples of that flexibility is in the area of child care. Safe, affordable child care is a challenge for all working families, regardless of their economic

status. It was also the barrier cited most often by welfare recipients trying to enter

the workforce. Wisconsin was able to pool child care dollars into one funding stream,

with the goal of providing access to all working families below 165 percent of the

federal poverty level and recipients up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level,

with child care subsidies. To that end, $158 million was budgeted for state fiscal

year 1998 and $180 million for state fiscal year 1999. Modest co-pays, which underscore personal responsibility as well as stretch available funds to more families, are

based on a sliding scale. For example, in Wisconsin, a mother at the federal poverty

line with two children in full-time, fully licensed care pays $69 per month for over

$900 in services. Today, there is no waiting list for subsidized child care in Wisconsin!! Without PRWORA, we could probably not make that statement.

W–2 Child Care Program

# of Families

Served # of Children Served

September 1996 ........................................... 3,552 5,847 (9,347 children on waiting

lists)

December 1997 ............................................ 11,357 19,868

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude with two additional things that PRWORA did right:

1. Instead of mandating how many people cannot participate (as the extensive exemption criteria did in AFDC), PRWORA sets aggressive work participation rates,

raising the bar for all states.

2. By limiting the amount of post-secondary education, PRWORA focuses states

on the basics. PRWORA contains a welcome provision that restricts post-secondary

or vocational education to 12 months. This reflects Wisconsin’s experience with postsecondary education for welfare recipients. Under the AFDC JOBS program, participants with the poorest success rate were enrolled in educational components; the

most successful participated in work experience or on-the-job training.

Currently, our most urgent educational goal is to increase the percentage of W–

2 participants who graduate from high school. In December 1995, almost 51 percent

of our AFDC population had a high school diploma or its equivalent. By contrast,

less than 18 percent of our current W–2 caseload has attained that educational

level. This statistic shows two things: 1) that many former welfare recipients with

a high school diploma have successfully entered the workforce; and 2) we are correct

in focusing on basic education rather than on college degree programs. As a result,

our goal is to have each W–2 participant who lacks at least a high school education

enrolled in basic skills, GED, or HSED classes.

However, we do not stop there. W–2 also supports lifelong learning. Career planning and exploration go hand-in-hand with services provided by W–2 case managers. Wisconsin also offers grant money and additional subsidized child care for

education to individuals who have a proven work history. However, just like the

working world, families must strive first to support their families. Many parents

have balanced work with part-time education over the years. And as many of us

know, that opportunity for higher education means more when it is earned, rather

than seen as an entitlement.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about some of the many

benefits Wisconsin has gained from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. We believe its passage was the 104th Congress’ finest accomplishment.

ment will be entered into the record, each of you.

Mr. C

Mr. Winstead, we’ll hear from you now, please. Your entire stateOLLINS. Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

f

36

STATEMENT OF DON WINSTEAD, WELFARE REFORM ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES

Mr. WINSTEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information

about Florida’s welfare reform activities and our implementation of

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant Program. My name is Don Winstead, and I’m the welfare reform administrator for the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Along with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment

Security and the Department of Health, our agency is responsible

for administering the program that you passed with the National

Welfare Reform bill.

I’d like to highlight some of the comments that I’ve submitted in

writing today. In the spring of 1996, the Florida legislature passed,

by unanimous votes in both chambers, the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency, or WAGES Act. This act anticipated enactment of national welfare reform legislation. When you passed your

bill, we were able to move very quickly, because our laws were already on the books. We submitted the required State plan and

began statewide implementation of our program in October 1996.

In the month prior to our WAGES implementation, there were

slightly over 200,000 families in Florida receiving AFDC. This

month, March 1998, the cash assistance caseload in Florida is

110,826 families, a decline of 45 percent. When you focus specifically on the families containing an adult that are the ones under

the time limit, the decline has been over half. And there is a chart

attached to my testimony that gives more information about the

caseload reduction.

At the same time, our Department of Labor is reporting in the

first year of operation over 63,000 entries into employment, 26,000

additional by the end of the calendar year, and as of yesterday, the

total figure was over 105,000.

The caseload reductions we’ve seen have been in spite of changes

in eligibility rules to reward work. We have increased the earnings

disregard, we disregard the first $200 of earnings and half of the

remainder for as long as the individual is receiving welfare. We’ve

doubled the asset limit. We have eliminated the so-called marriage

penalties that applied to two-parent families under the AFDC unemployed parent program.

We’ve extended transitional child care to 24 months. And we’ve

also implemented a provision called transitional education and

training where people who leave welfare can continue to get help

to upgrade their skills and further their education. There’s information in my testimony on our caseload trends and also on our experience with time limits.

We have changed our governance structure for the program. The

Florida legislature established a board of directors to have oversight to the State WAGES Program. And this board has a majority

of private sector members.

We’ve also set up local WAGES coalitions in each of 24 regions

of the State who have oversight of the local implementation of the

program, and our implementation is very much community based.

37

In terms of time limits, Florida was one of the first States to implement time limits under demonstration waiver. And I believe I

would be accurate in saying we’ve had more experience with families actually reaching the time limit than any State in the country.

I was in Pensacola in February to celebrate with them the 4-year

anniversary of our demonstration in that county.

There’s more detail in my testimony, but bottom line, our experience has been that the so-called time limit cliff is more like a gradual slope, that the catastrophic impacts that some people have

feared would result from time limits have not occurred, at least so

far.

We’ve seen remarkable progress in our implementation of welfare reform. Employment’s up, caseloads are down. And we’re keeping our commitment to provide the child care and transitional benefits that families need to move successfully from welfare to work.

We foresee not only using all of the child care funds that you are

providing, but we anticipate transferring the maximum allowable

amount of the TANF block grant to the child care and development

fund, and to the social services block grant.

In the next State fiscal year, Governor Chiles has proposed to

use over $80 million in welfare savings to expand child care for the

working poor families of Florida. This proposal has received broad

bipartisan support in the Florida legislature, and when implemented, will represent the most significant expansion of child care

services to low-income working families in the history of our State.

In closing, I’d like to emphasize three key points as we move forward. First of all is the need for continued flexibility. The regulations that were recently published by the administration for Children and Families have been the subject of much discussion. We

have provided specific recommendations. We hope that they will seriously consider our recommendations in support of continued flexibility, and we hope you will do the same.

Second, we also urge you to continue your funding commitments.

We hear persistent rumors that Committees of the Congress are

considering a variety of measures that would undercut our reform

efforts. Measures that cut our Federal matching funds in the Medicaid or Food Stamp Programs or further reduce funding in the social services block grant will have a direct impact on our success

in welfare reform.

I have very clear memories of the recession a decade ago, when

our AFDC caseload doubled. The effect on the State budget was

devastating. And for each $1 of increased cost, we were then only

responsible for 45 cents. Next time we’ll be responsible for 100

cents on $1 of that increase. That’s why we’re using part of our

TANF block grant for a welfare reform rainy day fund, and it’s critical that we have that ability.

In our initial implementation, we’ve demonstrated that the law

you passed and the framework you established for State and local

reform can work. The old AFDC Program no longer exists in Florida. In its place is a program that supports work, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. With your continued support and

through the efforts of communities throughout our State, we believe that next phase of welfare reform can build on the success of

38

the first 18 months and complete the transformation that has

begun.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Don Winstead, Welfare Reform Administrator, Florida

Department of Children and Families

FLORIDA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE REFORM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to

provide you with information about Floridas welfare reform activities and our implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. My

name is Don Winstead and I am the Welfare Reform Administrator with the Florida

Department of Children and Families. Along with the Florida Department of Labor

and Employment Security and the Florida Department of Health, our agency is responsible for administering the program you created in Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–193).

Implementation of WAGES

In the Spring of 1996, the Florida Legislature passed, by unanimous votes in both

chambers, the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) Act. This Act anticipated enactment of national welfare reform legislation. With the passage of the

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Florida

was able to move quickly to submit the required state plan and implemented the

new program statewide in October 1996.

In the month prior to WAGES implementation, 200,292 families in Florida received AFDC. This month, March 1998, the WAGES cash assistance caseload is

110,826 families, a decline of 45%. In the first year of operation, the Department

of Labor and Employment Security reported over 63,000 entries into employment by

WAGES participants, with an additional 26,000 reported in the October 97 through

December 97 quarter.

The caseload reductions have been achieved in spite of changes in eligibility rules

to reward work. We let participants who go to work retain eligibility longer by disregarding a higher portion of their earnings than under the old AFDC program. We

have replaced the ‘‘$30 and 1/3 disregard’’ under the AFDC program by disregarding

the first $200 of earnings and 1/2 of the remainder. This earnings disregard is available as long as the individual remains eligible for temporary cash assistance.

Other changes have raised asset limits so that people can exit welfare with more

savings and eliminated the so-called ‘‘marriage penalties’’ which placed severe restrictions on two-parent families. We have also extended transitional child care to

24 months and implemented a transitional education and training provision to permit people to upgrade their skills and further their careers after they leave welfare.

The following chart shows the caseload trend in Florida for June 1995 to March

1998. As you can see, the caseload was declining prior to our implementation of

WAGES, but the rate of decline has increased considerably since October 1996.

39

Governance Structure

In addition to changes in program design, Floridas WAGES program has a very

different governance structure than the old welfare program. A State Board of Directors, with a majority of members from the private sector, has been established

to provide oversight to the program. The State Board of Directors oversees development of the statewide implementation plan, oversees the program budget and charters local coalitions.

Local WAGES coalitions have been set up in 24 regions with oversight, service

delivery and financial planning responsibilities. The local WAGES coalitions provide

for many of the work activity and training components of the program through contracting for services. In addition, we are in the process of implementing privatization projects in three areas of the state for all WAGES services.

Time Limit Dynamics

Florida was one of the first states to implement time limits through our Family

Transition Program begun in early 1994 under a federal waiver. We are continuing

that demonstration in Escambia County to learn more about the impacts of time

limits. So far, over 1,400 families have reached their theoretical time limit in

Escambia County. Very few individuals have used all of their benefits and been terminated due to the time limit. Our experience has been that over time, about 6%

of families reach the time limit and are cut off. Another 6% are employed, remain

eligible because of the higher earnings disregard and choose to continue receiving

cash assistance until they reach the time limit.

For families reaching the time limit, we can extend benefits for the children if termination of full benefits would make it likely that the children will come into emergency shelter or foster care. So far, we have used this option in only a handful of

cases. Our experience in the Family Transition Program has been that most families

who have reached the time limit have had other sources of support such as family

members or other income.

Our statewide WAGES program used the time limit structure that we tested in

the Family Transition demonstration. Our time limits are shorter than those in federal law. For most families, the time limit is 24 months out of a 60 month period.

For longer term welfare recipients and younger individuals lacking high school completion or work experience, there is a 36 month out of 72 month time limit. Both

the 24 month and the 36 month limit are within an overall 48 month lifetime limit.

40

As in the federal law, child-only cases, such as children being raised by grandparents where the benefits are only for the children, are not subject to either a time

limit or a work requirement.

The following chart shows a snapshot of the families in Florida who are subject

to the time limit and the theoretical end of their eligibility. This chart shows when

people would reach the time limit if no family left welfare for any reason other than

the time limit and if no family received a hardship extension. This is a theoretical

worst-case scenario that we use for planning purposes.

The chart show that very few of the families who became subject to time limits

in October 1996 are at risk of reaching the time limit in October 1998. Local

WAGES coalitions are now in the process of reviewing the families who are within

six months of the end of their time limit. Those who have diligently participated

in the program and those with hardships may qualify for an extension of their time

limit for up to 12 months under state law.

Our experience is that the so-called ‘‘time-limit cliff’’ is more like a gradual slope

and the catastrophic impacts that some people feared would result from time limits

have not occurred, at least so far.

The Need for Continued Flexibility and Support

Mr. Chairman, we have seen remarkable progress in the implementation of welfare reform in the past 18 months. Employment is up, welfare caseloads are down

and we are keeping our commitment to provide the child care and transitional benefits that families need to move successfully from welfare to work. We foresee not

only using all of the child care funds you are providing, but we anticipate transferring the maximum allowable amount of the TANF block grant to the Child Care

Development Fund and Social Services Block Grant.

In the state fiscal 1998–99 budget, Governor Chiles has proposed to use over $80

million in welfare savings to expand child care for working poor families in Florida.

This proposal has received broad bipartisan support in the Florida Legislature and

when implemented, will represent the most significant expansion of child care services to low income working families in the history of our state.

By the end of April, the Florida Legislature will pass a state budget that expands

services for WAGES clients at risk of domestic violence, increases funding for treatment of substance abuse and expands family planning services to reduce out-ofwedlock births.

41

We’re off to a good start, but we need your continued help and support.

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has recently published proposed regulations that would impose extensive reporting requirements on states, restrict the extent to which state expenditures can be counted toward the maintenance of effort requirement and make it more difficult to transfer funds to the child

care block grant. We have provided specific recommendations to ACF on ways we

believe the final regulations can implement the statute while continuing to support

state flexibility. Without the past support of the Administration for Children and

Families through the federal waiver process, many of the lessons we have learned

from previous demonstrations and applied in the design of the WAGES program

would have lost.

We hope they will seriously consider our recommendations in support of continued

state flexibility and we hope you will continue to allow us the flexibility we need

to best serve the families in our state.

We also urge you to continue your funding commitments. We hear persistent rumors that committees of the Congress are considering a variety of measures that

would undercut our reform efforts. Measures that cut our federal matching funds

in the Medicaid or Food Stamp programs or further reduce funding in the Social

Services Block Grant will have a direct impact on our success in welfare reform.

I have very clear memories of the recession a decade ago when our AFDC caseload

doubled. The effect on the state budget was devastating, and for each dollar of increased cost, we were only responsible for 45 cents. Next time, well be responsible

for 100 cents of every dollar in increased cost. Its important to remember that the

implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant transferred the risk of future economic downturn and the resulting caseload increases

from a shared federal/ state risk to a state risk.

TANF Block Grant funds were established as funds available to states ‘‘without

fiscal year limitation’’ under federal law. As federal participation rates and the pressure of time limits increase, we retention of the block grants is critical to success.

The unexpended block grant balances also represent a ‘‘welfare reform rainy day

fund.’’ to protect the state from future caseload increases.

Our initial implementation has demonstrated that the law you passed and the

framework you established for state and local reform can work. The old AFDC program no longer exists in Florida. In its place is a program that supports work, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.

With your continued support and through the efforts of communities throughout

the state, we believe the next phase of welfare reform can build on the success of

the first 18 months and complete the transformation that has begun.

42

Mr. C

Ms. Kimble.

OLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Winstead.

f

STATEMENT OF VESTA KIMBLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ANNE

ARUNDEL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND; ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTINE

BONDS, CHILD SUPPORT WORKER; JUANA CHAPMAN, JOB

COUNSELOR; AND ANGELA COLEMAN, CASEWORKER

Ms. KIMBLE. Good afternoon. My name is Vesta Kimble, and I’m

Deputy Director of Social Services for Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services is a

State office, a local office of a State agency, the Maryland Department of Human Resources. Three years ago, our local office

changed the culture of welfare without any State legislation, without any Federal waivers, without any additional staff and without

any additional allocation of funds. We simply began doing business

in a different way, transforming ourselves from an impersonal,

forms-laden bureaucracy into a professional job center that offers

customized employment services for any county resident.

The job center is open Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

for walk-in service. No appointments are necessary. We offer many

employment services onsite, free of charge: Employment assessments, local job listings, onsite job fairs, targeted hiring, resume

computers, phones for calling employers, occupational training,

43

microenterprise development programs, and even a job club for

those people who need a little bit more intensive services.

We also offer employment-related services onsite, free of charge:

Career clothing vouchers, transportation subsidies, child care

vouchers, onsite child care, instruction in earned income credit,

GED preparation classes and GED testing, English as a second language classes, and even an alternative high school for teen mothers.

In addition, we offer other family services, onsite, free of charge:

Child support services, immunizations, WIC clinics, Healthy Teen

clinics, and even a summer camp and after-school club for schoolage children.

All of these services, in tandem, have helped us achieve a 66-

percent reduction in the number of able-bodied TANF cash assistance recipients and have helped to keep our recidivism rate to

under 10 percent.

Some of us would argue that welfare reform was possible all

along, given effective management, even under the AFDC Program,

and that we really didn’t need PRWORA’s time limits and other

penalties. In 1995, a full year before any legislative reform in

Maryland, our local office became an employment agency for welfare applicants in order to divert them from ever applying for cash

assistance.

In 1996 we opened the job centers to the general public in an effort to remove the stigma of welfare and to mainstream our recipients with other unemployed county residents. In 1997, we began

our boldest initiative to date, to help any under-employed county

resident get a better job, one that pays at least $8.15 per hour and

has health benefits.

Our goal, you see, is to reduce poverty, not merely reduce welfare

dependency. This is by far our greatest challenge. It is a challenge

that lawmakers and policy leaders applaud, but do not support

when the budget funds are divvied up.

If I could ask you for just one change, it would be to please think

in terms of outcomes that matter for needy families, not merely job

placements, but prevention of recidivism. Not merely employment,

but employment in living-wage jobs that just might survive the

next economic downturn. Not merely services for TANF-eligible

parents, but services for all low-income individuals who seek our

assistance in finding a job, finding affordable child care, transportation, health care, and training for a better job.

Please remove the categorical chains that bind the funding we

receive, so that we can serve our customers better. We do not want

to, nor will we ever, turn away some residents simply because we

cannot fit them into a particular funding category.

Our caseloads overall have not decreased. In fact, they have increased slightly. Nearly every TANF case we close remains open for

food stamps and Medicaid. Nearly every would-be TANF applicant

whom we divert up front from applying for TANF, applies for and

receives food stamps and Medicaid, if only for the children. We

haven’t lost those people in exiting the TANF caseload; in fact, we

still own them in many other caseloads.

44

Now, during these glory days of economic health, is the time to

address poverty head-on. Please help us achieve our goals within

our existing allocation of funds.

I’d be happy to answer any questions I can, and I will defer to

the experts, my staff, on questions that I cannot answer. With me

here today are Christine Bonds, child support worker; Juana Chapman, job counselor; and Angela Coleman, caseworker. All of them

are from the Annapolis Job Center.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Vesta Kimble, Deputy Director, Anne Arundel County

Department of Social Services, Annapolis, Maryland

‘‘CHANGING THE CULTURE OF WELFARE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL’’

My name is Vesta Kimble. I am the Deputy Director of Social Services for Anne

Arundel County, Maryland. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services is a local office of the

Maryland Department of Human Resources. Three years ago, our local office

changed the culture of welfare—under the AFDC program—without any State legislation, without any Federal waivers, without additional staff and without an additional allocation of funds.

We simply began doing business in a different way—transforming ourselves from

an impersonal, forms-laden bureaucracy into a professional Job Center that offers

customized employment services for any County resident.

Services On-Site, Free-of-Charge

The Job Center is open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM, for walk-in service. No appointments are necessary.

We offer many employment services, on-site, free of charge: employment assessments, local job listings, job fairs, targeted hiring, resume computers, phones for

calling employers, occupational training, micro-enterprise development, and a Job

Club for those who need more intensive services.

We also offer employment-related services on-site, free of charge: career clothing

vouchers, transportation subsidies, child care vouchers, on-site child care, instruction in Earned Income Credit, GED preparation classes and GED testing, English

as a Second Language classes, and even an alternative high school for teen mothers.

In addition, we offer other family services, on-site, free of charge: child support

services, immunizations, WIC clinics, Healthy Teens clinics, and even a summer

camp and after-school club for school-age children.

All of these services, in tandem, have helped us achieve a 66 percent reduction

in the number of able-bodied TANF recipients, and have helped to keep our recidivism rate to under 10 percent.

Management by Objective

We did not engage in a lengthy planning process before we began reforming the

AFDC program in our local office. Rather, we chose to begin with a few strategies

that seemed to work in a few other offices that we had visited around the country.

Specifically, from Portland, Oregon, we learned about up-front job search coupled

with child care subsidies for any AFDC applicant, not just for AFDC recipients.

From Minneapolis, Minnesota, we learned about on-site child care in the social services office. From Riverside County, California, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, we learned

about the importance of professional environments.

Unlike these other offices, however, we chose to develop a team of specialists—

child care staff, child support staff, job counselors and caseworkers—and presented

them with a set of objectives for the year, judging their performance as a group.

Team members had free reign to design and experiment with strategies to achieve

four specific expectations that first year: 1) reduce our County’s AFDC caseload 3

percentage points faster than the other major metropolitan counties; 2) double the

number of job placements when compared to the Private Industry Council agency’s

number from the previous year; 3) divert as many families from applying for cash

assistance as possible by providing other services up-front; and, 4) keep as many

employed parents as possible from coming back into the AFDC caseload within six

months of employment.

45

The success of the team approach that first year was evident in the results: the

team quadrupled the number of job placements, decreased the caseload faster than

other counties by 12 percentage points, and kept recidivism to 10 percent. Up-front

child care and transportation subsidies helped to divert hundreds of would-be AFDC

applicants that first year.

A formal cost-benefit analysis, conducted by the University of Maryland, concluded that every $1 invested in the Job Center and its services, yielded $2.70 in

public program savings—money not paid out in AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid.

We received designation as a pilot site for a U.S. Department of Health & Human

Services program called ‘‘Changing the Culture of Welfare.’’ At times, we had to

hide behind that designation in order to protect our staff-directed local reforms both

from those who sought to preserve the stigmatizing system of welfare, and from

those who sought ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ welfare reform at the State level.

There were no special permissions or financial incentives granted to our staff from

the headquarters office in Baltimore, and there was no escape from the ‘‘welfarelike’’ salaries for caseworkers and supervisors ($17,900 annual salary for a caseworker with a college degree).

Instead, the only rewards for staff were the authority and freedom they had to

make changes in welfare as they knew it. For example, a renegade group of four

caseworkers attacked the stack of State forms and the State’s 14-page benefits application form, reducing them all to a one-page Assessment Form with additional

information able to be input directly into a local data base designed in-house specifically to suit their needs. With this new freedom, the teams also identified several

key operational needs: for transportation strategies; for training (in Earned Income

Credit and domestic violence awareness); and, for a Job Developer to serve as a liaison to all the local employers who flooded the Job Center with job orders.

National Attention

This led to the development of three national models:

• A curriculum for training front-line workers in Domestic Violence Awareness,

whose development was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. This training protocol

is now helping other jurisdictions implement the Wellstone-Murray provisions of

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).

• The AdVANtage transportation program, which transforms welfare recipients

into van company owners who help transport other Job Center customers on job

search and to and from work. This strategy was funded by a grant from the Community Transportation Association of America, which operates a demonstration

grant program for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration.

• The Wheels for Work program, which Anne Arundel County Executive John

Gary created in 1995, to help welfare recipients purchase surplus County government vehicles that otherwise would have been auctioned off for a very low return.

These and other strategies have attracted national media attention. TIME magazine, CNN and The Washington Post have highlighted the Job Center as a national

model, and because of the media attention, more than 500 visitors from local, State,

Federal and national (for-profit and non-profit) organizations have toured the Job

Center in an effort to learn how it has accomplished its objectives—in other words,

to pick our brains.

Most visitors are surprised to learn that the Job Center is run by State government employees—not some local, private company or national, for-profit contractor.

Our usual retort is to be equally surprised at our visitors’ amazement that government workers can and do operate an efficient, effective, business-like entity. We further assert that it is better for the government to operate such a facility because

it can easily shift its objectives as customers’ needs dictate, and not be burdened

with lengthy and costly contract modifications. Moreover, it is better in the long

run, because the social services agency can also carefully track whatever effect welfare reform might have on the foster care caseload. Notably, the foster care caseload

in our County has decreased steadily during the past five years, while the rest of

the State’s caseloads have increased. Again, effective management was the key.

Outcomes that Matter

Ever since that first magical year, the Job Center’s strategies and its objectives

have continued to evolve. In 1996, we established a second Job Center, in our other

district office, and decided to open both Job Centers to the general public, in order

to remove the stigma of welfare, and to mainstream our recipients with other unemployed County residents.

46

Diversion is now one of the principal objectives. As Chart 1 indicates, in September and October 1997, 3,666 County residents used the Job Centers. More than

2,300 of them were interviewed by Job Counselors, yet only 417 applied for cash

assistance, and only 194 of those actually had their cash assistance cases activated.

Recently, we began our boldest initiative to date—to help any under-employed

County resident get a better job—one that pays at least eight dollars and fifteen

cents per hour and has health benefits.

By far the most challenging of our customers are those who are working, but

whose wages are so low that they continue to qualify for, and choose to receive,

TANF. Their partial monthly cash assistance grant is usually under $100; nevertheless, each month’s grant still counts toward their lifetime limit of 60 months. This

group of recipients represents a different type of ‘‘hard-core’’ population because it

is difficult to persuade them to close their cases voluntarily, or to seek training to

get better jobs while they are also working. Some of them, quite frankly, do not believe the 60-month lifetime limit will ever be imposed.

Even though PRWORA allows us to claim victory for a high ‘‘participation rate,’’

we cannot and should not rest on our laurels. Our goal, you see, is to reduce poverty, not merely reduce welfare dependency. The outcomes we focus on now are

broader than the PRWORA or ‘‘Welfare-to-Work’’ formula grant programs. We seek

to achieve:

• Not merely job placements, but prevention of recidivism;

• Not merely employment, but employment in living-wage jobs that just might

survive the next economic downturn;

• Not merely employment for those who are ‘‘mandatory’’ for work activities, but

resources to assist even those who are statutorily exempt from work requirements

but who want to work, and need to work, just to stay above the poverty level (such

as disabled parents and parents of disabled children);

• Not merely services for TANF-eligible parents, but services for all low-income

individuals who seek our assistance—in finding a job, and finding affordable child

care, health care, transportation and training for a better job.

We seek to address these broader outcomes largely in spite of existing Federal and

State programs, which recently have created some operating flexibility for local programs, but still rely on ‘‘one-size-fits-all,’’ restrictive, categorical funding.

For example, as Chart 2 shows, the TANF grant and Food Stamps together do

not provide enough income to meet the Federal Poverty Level. Clearly, in Maryland,

work pays more than welfare. However, there are few incentives to strive for a better-paying job. Gains in wages decrease overall household income for a mother with

one child because of the loss of Food Stamps benefits and the loss of eligibility for

child care subsidies. Sadly, if this low-income mother has another baby, then the

State will pay child care subsidies for both children. This message, of course, is

counter to every common-sense notion in anyone’s version of welfare reform. Yet, the

Federal rules associated with these funds limit her options.

We would prefer not to turn away low-income residents simply because we cannot

fit them into a particular funding category. Those who today are living on the edge

of poverty will tomorrow most likely spiral down to a level that will qualify them

for services. Now is the time to address the needs of all low-income families.

Although our TANF caseload has decreased markedly, our caseloads overall have

not decreased. In fact, they have increased slightly, from 20,175 cases in 1995, to

20,467 in 1998, as is shown in Chart 3. Nearly every TANF case we close remains

open for Food Stamps and Medicaid. Nearly every would-be TANF applicant that

we divert up-front, applies for, and receives, Food Stamps and Medicaid, if only for

the children.

At the present time, neither the Federal government nor the State government

measure the diversion activity that occurs on the front lines. Because it is not measured, it is also not funded. We look forward to a day when our staff and other resources are allocated, not based on the number of cases we have under care in the

cash assistance caseload, but rather, based on the services we provide to the lowincome residents in our County and the outcomes associated with those services.

I’d be happy to answer any questions I can, and I will defer to the experts—my

staff—on questions that I cannot answer. Accompanying me today are: Christine

Bonds, Child Support Worker; Juana Chapman, Job Counselor; and Angela Coleman, Caseworker. All of them are from the Annapolis Job Center.

Thank you very much.

47

48

49

[The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. C

Mr. Mora.

OLLINS. Thank you. We’re glad to have your staff here, also.

f

STATEMENT OF FRANK MORA, GAIN SERVICES/JOB DEVELOPMENT SUPERVISOR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, RANCHO DOMINGUEZ,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. MORA. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here on behalf of Los Angeles

County.

We have jobs, OK, I want to start with that. On behalf of Los

Angeles County, I have 17 staff members that work with me, job

developers. My name, again, is Frank Mora. I’m a supervisor. What

I do, basically, I talk to 50 to 60 employers a week.

I understand what employers want, I bring it back to my staff,

and I relay this to my clients. The process to becoming employed

is understanding the process of getting a job, what you need to do,

and applications, and so on, including the interview.

I bring all the resources together in our region, meaning from the

housing industry, EDD, to job services, to JTPA and so on, to make

sure that our clients who become employed can go on and get the

training they deserve.

Our 17 job developers, we average approximately 325 participants per week that we see. Of the 325 we see every week, we put

them into a job pool, what we call a labor market job pool, a computerized system, that we can become somewhat like a temp agency. We’re catering to employers. When they call us, we can call people, motivate people within 24 hours, and fill employment.

50

Out of this pool, we need to identify the three groups we have.

The first group on the labor market is the fast tracking client that

doesn’t need much, he can get out there and work and get going.

This kind of client is very successful. Anybody can do it, there’s

nothing to it.

The second group is the tough one. It’s the person who has not

worked in the last 3 years or has been out of work even 10 or 12

years. We need to find out and we need to recondition, we need to

do some self-skill training, we need to establish the self-confidence,

motivate the client so he or she can get into the employment force.

And we’re doing that quite successfully. I’m talking about quite

successfully, $6 an hour. That’s very good.

The third group that we have is the one I pride the most, because this is where the welfare starts, is the teen parent. This is

where the problem begins, folks, and gets out of control. We’re talking about keeping families together, we’re talking about talking to

young people, 19, 20 years old, and counseling them and keeping

them together, and to employment and completing their education.

Let me describe to you one case that I have, that touched me,

and this is what’s going on. I’m telling you what’s happening right

now in the trenches.

Last September I had a gentleman by the name of David. He’s

20 years old. He came to see me. He came to see our job development staff, and we noticed that he was ready for employment. We

screened him. This guy can get out there in the market, he can

start work right now.

So consequently, I told David, David, I’m giving you an appointment with me next week at 2 o’clock on Tuesday, see me, I’m going

to talk to several employers, that’s what I do for a living, and I’m

going to get you some interviews. I want to see you in my office

at 2 o’clock next week, so I can get you ready to go within 48 hours.

The following Tuesday came and David didn’t show up. I’m a

very intense job developer. And what happened was, we made a

house call. Because I made a commitment to an employer that I

found that wanted to see the guy. He wanted to see this guy within

48 hours, because he wanted to give him a job, interview him, see

what he’s made of.

I went to see David. He lived in a not very good area of Long

Beach. I took a job developer with me over there, for safety reasons, two together. When we were outside, we noticed that there

were some gang members that were buzzing around us on bicycles.

My job developer became very concerned. I told her, don’t worry,

I’ll take care of this right now.

When David came out, I said, David, where were you? You had

an appointment with me at 2 o’clock. I see there are some safety

reasons here. I want to see you in my office this afternoon at 2

o’clock. If you really mean it, and you really want to go to work,

and you have a wife, you told me you do, with two little babies upstairs, I want to see you this afternoon at 2 o’clock.

At 2 o’clock, David came to see me. When David came to see me,

I told David, David, we need to be responsible. David, we have a

family that we need to keep together and you want to provide for,

and two little babies. He opened up to me. He told me what the

problem was and so on.

51

I made an appointment with the housing authority in Los Angeles County to bring their resources together with him, because obviously, for him to work and perform, he needs safety. He needs to

live in a place that will enable him to come back and forth and feel

safe with his family.

I told David, David, I got you the interview with Delco Machine

Shop in Long Beach. You need to be there, that’s your first responsibility, then you need to go see the housing authority, and everything’s going to work out, we’re going to give you the 100-percent

effort. If you’re giving us 100 percent, we’re going to give you 100

percent.

David told me his wife was concerned, she didn’t want to be

alone and so on. I told David, relax, go to the interview on Thursday. David went to the interview on Thursday, Delco Machine.

Saram Graham called me back from Delco Machine in Long Beach.

She told me, you’ve got an outstanding client here. He can go to

work, I don’t see why not. He can be a warehouseman. I told David, I said, David, you got yourself a job at $7 an hour.

So David came to me, he told me, Mr. Mora, I still need some place

to go where there’s housing that I can feel safe. I called into the

housing authority and I told Linda that David was coming over.

As far as I saw, there was an effort from David coming to me

that was going to allow him to become employed and give his family a chance to stay together. This is very important to us. This is

not written policy, but it’s common sense. If we’re going to make

it together, we have to maintain the family together.

David became employed. He got a job at Delco Machine. David

went to the housing authority. He moved. He got a better house,

a better place to live.

Three months after David was employed at Delco Machine, I

called Saram Graham, Delco, and I said, Saram, you wanted to

talk to me about maybe possibly sending David to training while

he’s still working. So Saram told me, Yes, we can do that, but I

need to find out the school.

I called Long Beach City College. We got the community college,

we’re bringing resources together here so we can do something to

keep a family together. It makes sense.

Long Beach City College told me, that’s fine, we can do it. And

I can tell you right now, sir, that David is going to Long Beach City

College. When he completes machine shop operator, while he’s

making $7 an hour, still working, he’s going to be making $15 an

hour upon graduation.

His wife is completing her GED under Cal-Learn, the State of

California has allowed that. She graduates in June. I will make

sure that she gets proper guidance and employment. And I’m talking about a family here, keeping it together, that she’s going to be

making probably $7 to $8 an hour in customer service.

We’re talking about maintaining a household together.

[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]

Statement of Frank Mora, GAIN Services/Job Development Supervisor, Los

Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Rancho

Dominguez, California

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to

testify on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)

52

Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program’s job development efforts. As far

as welfare to work is concerned, as a GAIN service/job developer supervisor, I am

‘‘where the rubber meets the road.’’

Special acknowledgment must go to our leaders in Los Angeles County. Their vision of the program has allowed us the opportunity to excel. Our entire staff also

shares in the dedication that has enabled us to fast-track welfare recipients into the

workforce.

I am here to talk to you about DPSS California Work Opportunities and Responsibilities for Kids (CalWORKs) program’s job development component. I service welfare recipients who are at different stages within the GAIN program. My unit provides job development services. Job development consists of a job creation process

for job ready welfare recipients who need assistance in entering the job market.

I will describe to you my typical experiences in the trenches. I supervise thirteen

(13) GAIN service workers and one (1) clerk engaged in developing jobs for the

South Los Angeles County GAIN Region service area. Job development however is

a countywide effort that is taking place in five (5) regional offices.

A job developer is a self-motivated individual who will be responsible for understanding employer’s needs. He/she is the liaison between the employer and the welfare participant. Employers perceive job developers as genuine and honest individuals who the employer can rely on and trust. Employers range from mom-and-pops

operations, to small, medium and large businesses.

The job development responsibilities impress employers and allow for a successful

relationship with the employers. Employers value our providing screening, shortterm training, employment tracking and post-employment counseling to participants. Consistent attention to all these components impress our employers and

make our program successful.

Screening consists of assessing whether or not our participants are job-ready and

able to enter the job market and/or are suitable for this employer. The screening

focuses on work history, skills, education and conditioning habits that are conducive

or non-conducive toward the work environment.

In Los Angeles County, we provide our employers the assurance that every participant who we refer to them meets the legal immigration status required for employment. Employers find in our participants a diverse prospective employee pool, with

different skill levels, rich multicultural and language backgrounds.

Another asset of our program that has impressed our employers is our participation in forming short-term training programs that help to meet the employers’ current job demands. For example, a fork-lift program can be done in one (1) week

through a community college, provided the participant has some previous warehouse

experience. The forklift training has led to immediate employment at an average

pay of seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per hour. The certified nurse assistance

(CNA) short-term training emphasizes acute care and can be done in eight (8)

weeks. Our CNAs average earnings of nine dollars and sixty-eight cents ($9.68) per

hour with benefits. Normally a CNA training used to take six (6) months long and

the forklift training used to be one (1) month. The beauty of the short-term training

programs is that they were done with private sector participation. There are other

short-term training programs that are available such as welding, landscaping, and

customer service.

Employers are also impressed with our employment tracking that enables them

to evaluate our retention rates and to predict trends in retention and growth.

Post employment counseling is the final service in the job development process offered to our participants. We give participants essential information for their understanding about available transitional supportive services such as child care and

Medical (Medicaid).

Employee mentoring occurs as participants and job developers continue to nurture

the relationship and the credibility with employers.

The job development services enable our employers to make a connection with our

participants before, during, and after participants enter the workforce. The flexibility that Los Angeles County has provided job developers in guiding our participants toward employment has left a positive impression with our employers. A single job developer is perceived as a reflection of the whole organization. Employers

perceive that this can be a ‘‘no-nonsense’’ approach, meaning less paperwork and

more measurable results. We continue to nurture the relationship with employers

through follow-ups, swiftly addressing their trends and employment needs. This is

a beneficial relationship where employers get ‘‘a bigger bang for the buck’’ while we

move welfare recipients into the workforce.

Having addressed the relationship with our employers, I would like to address the

relationship that our job developers build with participants.

53

Job developers identify participants as either (1) job ready, (2) as needing additional case management, or (3) as needing to complete basic education activities. Job

ready means participants can be fast-tracked into employment. Job developers work

one-on-one with participants who need additional case management in order to be

‘‘reconditioned’’ to enter the job market. These participants usually have some work

history and may have been out of work for more than three (3) years. Participants

must have a broad view of the job market to be successful in getting hired and keeping the job. Lastly, the third group of participants require basic education to be successful. They may be functionally illiterate in their own language. These participants will be encouraged to attend basic education classes with a vocational focus.

They will also be encouraged to take an entry level part-time job if one can be found

for them. If the participant is a teen, and already in school, he/she will be encouraged to stay on track to complete his/her high-school diploma or equivalent degree.

Participants value our workshops and one-on-one servicing on resume preparation

services, faxing resumes to employers, typing tests, dressing for success, and referral to private and public employment agencies. Most of all, participants value the

job leads and personal contacts. It is during the job interview where participants

‘‘put it all together.’’ For participants, this is ‘‘where the rubber meets the road.’’

Once offered the job, participants gain reassurance to maintain self-sufficiency

through exit interviews and mentoring with the job developer and when they see

the job developer continue a relationship with the employer. If the participant does

not get the job, we duplicate the process again and again until we succeed or until

more information becomes available to assist us in removing the participant’s employment barriers.

Challenges exist. Employment does bring other issues to the surface such as dependable and quality child care, and reliable transportation. There are some very

basic changes the participants may have to make such as personal hygiene and

grooming habits, their concept of appropriate business attire and soft-skills needed

to maintain employment. Such soft-skills may include: getting to work on time,

being reliable, being a self-starter, following instructions and being a cooperative

team player. Other challenges include such things as language barriers, the ability

to read written instructions, etc. Substance abuse, credit record setbacks and/or convictions require a managed and an honest approach with the employer in helping

the participant find employment. On the other hand, we do not ask or expect employers to lower their standards for our participants. We ask and expect of our participants to rise to the employer’s standards. We strive to solve problems before the

participant gets hired. That way, the problem the participant faces does not become

a barrier to getting employment.

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, our young CalWORKs program has developed into

a successful model for welfare to work. It offers more open participation from all

players involved—public and private. It uses innovation to the fullest and keeps up

with demands as they occur. In summary, I want to emphasize that success in our

program lies in making our participants and our employers the central and most

important elements in our process. Our success occurs when the participant and the

employer find a common ground.

Attachments

Employer Address

Employers Who Hire Significant Number of Participants

f

Carl’s Jr. Restaurant ........................... 16229 Paramount Boulevard, Paramount, CA 90723

Chief Auto Parts, ATTN: Vicky

Demas.

5400 LBJ Parkway Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75240

Daniel Freeman Hospital .................... 333 N. Prairie Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90301

Franklin Brass Mfg. Co. ...................... 19914 Via Baron Rancho, Dominguez, CA 90220

Helpmates ............................................. 13221 South Street, Cerritos, CA 90703

Helpmates ............................................. 2780 Skypark Drive/Suite 115, Torrance, CA 90505

Kaiser Permanente .............................. 9333 E. Rosecrans Avenue, Bellflower, CA 90706

Little Company of Mary ...................... 4101 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503

Microdyne ............................................. 23610 Telo Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505

Saint Mary’s Medical Center .............. 1050 Linden Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90813

Sears (Carson/Torrance) ...................... 22100 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503

St. Francis Medical Center ................. 3630 E. Imperial Highway, Lynwood, CA 90602

Torrance Memorial Medical Center ... 824 E. Carson Street, Carson, CA 90745

54

Employers Who Hire Significant Number of Participants—Continued

Employer Address

United Airlines ..................................... 5970 Avion Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045

Volt Temp ............................................. 3655 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503

Other Private and Public Agencies Who Partner With South County Gain Region

Agency Address Type of

Partnership

Job Training Partnership Act

(JTPA).

Contact: Thelma Coles ................

7655 S. Center Avenue ............

Los Angeles, CA 90001 ............

Job Fairs

Los Angeles District 22d .............

Contact: Rudy Svorinich, Jr. .......

461 W. 6th Street, Ste. 302 .....

San Pedro, CA 90731 ...............

Job Fairs in

South Bay Area

Compton Career & Human .........

Services Center ............................

700 N. Bullis Road ...................

Compton, CA 90221 .................

Employment Placement

State of California .......................

Employment Development ..........

Department (EDD) ......................

Contact: Sharon La Floer ............

1220 Engracia Avenue .............

Torrance, CA 90501 .................

Employment Placement

Larson Training Center ..............

Contact: James Griffith ...............

637 E. Albertoni Street, ...........

Ste. 100 .....................................

Carson, CA 90746 ....................

Job Fairs

Hub Cities Consortium ................

Contact: Joe Martinez .................

5610 Pacific Boulevard ............

Huntington Park, CA 90255 ...

Soft Skills Training

California State University .........

Long Beach, CA 90840 ................

Contact: Sigmud Jacoby ..............

1250 Bellflower Boulevard ......

Long Beach, CA 90840 ............

Certified Nurse Assistant

Training

Carson Community Center .........

Contact: Pete Fajardo ..................

3 Civic Plaza .............................

Carson, CA 90745 ....................

Job Fairs

Long Beach City College .............

Contact: Jim Martois ...................

1305 E. Pacific Coast Hwy ......

Long Beach, CA 90806 ............

Forklift Training and

Certified Nurse Assistant

f

Training

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Mora, we’re out of time, sir. That’s a good

story, though, it’s a good success story.

Let me ask you a question about that. How are other participants, what is their attitude? This is one case. On the scale, since

we passed the welfare reform, how has it affected the other participants in your area?

Mr. MORA. I’d probably have a heart attack telling you some stories that——

Mr. COLLINS. We don’t have time for individual stories. Has it

been positive, negative?

Mr. MORA. Very positive. The overwhelming turnout from our

participants, it’s incredible. I mean, they want to go to work, sir.

It’s just us coming up with the manpower.

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that’s good. It’s good to hear that.

Ms. Kimble, how does the 1996 welfare reform law support the

changes that Anne Arundel County made at the local level, and are

there continued Federal barriers to the changes that you still want

to make, and if so, what would you suggest we do?

Ms. KIMBLE. Well, it’s clear that some of the provisions of the

PRWORA have assisted us. For instance, in Maryland we already

passed a welfare reform bill expecting that PRWORA would be enacted. I don’t know if we’re the only State, but I think we’re one

55

of the few States that said, whatever State money is put in, we’re

going to keep those funds in the budget, so that whatever savings

accrue during the year, we will plow those back into the programs.

And in fact, 45 percent of those savings go back to the local jurisdictions that generated them.

So we’ve had a wonderful, really a windfall of funding to be able

to plow back into training programs and replicate the job center.

We now have that additional money. Hopefully, that will continue.

That is, of course, only a State option.

Changes I would love to see, I was unfortunately a little bit unhappy about the welfare-to-work legislation. Because it was so restrictive about who we could serve with that funding, and how the

funding was even allocated. So it’s only particular people within

the caseload who even qualify to get some of that funding. And categorically funded programs are just so difficult to operate, especially when you have a job center that you want to open to the public, to try to remove the stigma.

So really, taking the categorical chains away from all the funding

and just saying, ‘‘Here is your money. What is it that you want to

do? Demonstrate with outcomes, not merely participation rates.’’

Quite frankly, the participation rates aren’t helping our people.

They allow us to claim victory by saying, a certain percentage of

our welfare caseload is participating.

But those people are still ‘‘on the clock,’’ and the clock is ticking

away. So we look at that as a failure, not a success.

Mr. COLLINS. Very good.

Ms. Rogers, tell us more about having to advertise for people in

Milwaukee. It’s kind of unusual, isn’t it?

Ms. ROGERS. Well, we believe that the way to really help people

in the broader sense of the community become self-sufficient is to

reach out and let them know that we have services available to

support them in work, child care, transportation, case management, those kinds of assistance. And under the umbrella of a job

center, so that it doesn’t carry the stigma of welfare.

And that is an education and a cultural change that takes time.

We have competitive agencies, meaning they have contracts that

are based on competition, and they can earn profit. So for these

agencies to be spending what amounts to hundreds of thousands of

dollars advertising services, I think, puts a very strong comment on

how committed they are to helping the community and not just

pocketing savings.

Mr. COLLINS. Has this been a result of the drastic drop in the

number of cases, the success of your program has led to the point

that you have fewer participants?

Ms. ROGERS. In a sense. Resulting from the fact that we realized

that we have the increased flexibility to be able to reach out to the

larger community. It was also a commitment from the very beginning as well, because we want to establish an environment in

which the noncustodial parent can come to the door for help, too,

in hopes that we can build a more traditional family support system. That will take some time.

Mr. COLLINS. Very good.

Mr. Levin.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you.

56

Mr. Winstead, let me be sure we understand the figures in your

testimony. On the first page, you talk about the month prior to the

implementation of WAGES, 200,000 families, and now the caseload

is, as of March, was 110,000. Then you referred to employment figures.

Do you know what percentage of those who have left the rolls are

now working?

Mr. WINSTEAD. I don’t know the precise number of those that

have left the roles that are now working. Our followups show it’s

over 50 percent. But of course, there are some people who don’t report to us that they’re leaving because of employment. They call up

and ask that their benefits be terminated, or they don’t come in for

their redetermination.

And we don’t have information about how many of those are

working. Some of the followups we’ve done, we have indications

that many of them are, but I don’t have the precise percentage.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the State tracking current recipients and former

public assistance recipients?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir. We set up in essence a data warehouse

where we’re using the unemployment wage information, so that we

can track longitudinally what happens to people who have left welfare.

Mr. LEVIN. So let me then ask you, Ms. Rogers, about your figures. The chart about the caseload reduction for the State. Has the

State of Wisconsin been tracking what happens to those who leave

AFDC or TANF?

Ms. ROGERS. Two things. First of all, what we do have and have

had in place for several years is the ability to look at what we call

status codes, why a case closes. One of those codes has to do with

what’s called excess income. About 75 percent of our reported closures are as a result of excess income. And excess income is driven

by, largely, income, meaning earned income. In part, a small part,

it’s child support as well that could be part of excess income. About

75 percent is that.

Another thing that we’re doing is working very hard to build a

data warehouse so that we can track into the future against wage

records the kind of information that you and we are looking so

much for. Part of the problem in the past, and why we haven’t been

able to do that immediately in these new programs is because the

old systems were designed simply to meet the Federal reporting requirements.

That’s all that was in place before. Now we have to track a larger

set of data, and it takes time to build those programs onto systems

that really weren’t designed to do it in the first place. We expect

that we will have our first capability in July, with reports coming

quarterly thereafter.

Mr. LEVIN. So your information is that a decrease from 98,000

to 14,000 is not a static figure. Taking those figures into account,

about 75 percent of the reduction involves income from one source

or another, correct?

Ms. ROGERS. That’s our best estimate, based on the data we

have.

57

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Winstead, are you going to have a system in

place soon? When do you expect your system will be up and running?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir, we have the system in place now. We

have built on a system that was originally put in place in our Department of Education to follow or develop outcome measures from

vocational education and adult education programs. So we’re

partnering with them to enhance their capability to track what

happens to people who leave welfare.

Mr. LEVIN. Ms. Rogers, on the second to last page of your testimony, there’s a reference to the number of people who have a GED.

It appears that those with a diploma have been placed more readily

than those without.

Ms. ROGERS. It would appear, from looking at what percentage

of the caseload has achieved that, that those are the easier folks

to help find jobs.

Mr. LEVIN. Right.

Ms. ROGERS. We have a more difficult time with both the education and the broader aspects of readiness for the work force with

the remainder.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to say to you, Ms. Kimble, it’s a factor like that that caused us to try to focus the $3 billion welfare-to-work

program. We wanted to provide the States with some additional resources for the harder-to-place recipient. We didn’t want States to

simply work with those who are easy to place or easier to place or

help place.

So if you would look at testimony like from Ms. Rogers and other

data that you perhaps have, I think you can understand, we

weren’t trying to tie hands, we were trying to focus resources. Because there’s so much flexibility with the rest of the money, total

flexibility.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you.

Mr. Shaw.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Winstead, I enjoyed visiting with you and the Governor down

in Florida and listening to the success of the Florida plan and how

far you’ve come.

I’d like to direct your attention to the attachment to your testimony entitled WAGES Monthly Flash Report. On the total assistance expenditures, you show your baseline for the month of September 1996 of $53 million. We come over to the monthly report

for March 1998, and we find that it’s only about 66 percent of the

baseline.

Would you explain that to me, and what happens to the surplus?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir. As you noted, in September 1996, we

were spending slightly over $53 million a month in welfare payments. And this month, in March, about $30 million, so that’s a difference of about $23 million a month in terms of the savings.

What we’ve done in Florida is really three things with the savings. First of all, used a considerable portion of it to fund child care

expenses. We have transferred, last year we transferred some $70

million. In addition, to that $70 million, the Governor has proposed

an additional $80 million, over $80 million, closer to $85 million,

in terms of child care expenditures in the coming budget year.

58

We’ve also used those savings to establish our work supports.

We’ve significantly expanded our focus on employment support

services, and so forth. Then we’ve also used a portion of the savings

to establish a welfare reform rainy day fund, a reserve. Because

we’re very fearful of what the effect could be on our State should

we experience an economic downturn. We wanted to use the fact

that you’ve made those funds available without fiscal year limitation, gives us the opportunity to establish some reserve and we

think that’s prudent.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Other Members will remember that

this was something that was very important to welfare reform, and

that is, giving the States flexibility to do precisely that. You spoke

of, if we have an economic downturn. I think Mr. Levin expressed

the possibility of something. I think we all know, however, that

economic downturn is a certainty. It’s just a matter of when. And

I congratulate you for doing that and setting up that rainy day

fund.

I’d like to get into just one other area with you, because the Governor was very supportive of what I as Chairman tried to do last

year, and that is, the possibility, worrying about the possibility of

the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Could you tell us,

what impact would that have on the Florida program? I know that

the Governors all across this country, on both sides of the aisle,

have expressed concern about this.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. We’re very concerned, and have been very

concerned, about the potential impact. And it takes several forms.

First of all, we were concerned about nonprofit organizations and

governmental agencies even being reluctant, and particularly,

State, local, and civic organizations and governments being reluctant to work with us, because of unknown liability, how this would

affect unemployment compensation, how this would affect other liabilities.

In Florida, we did pass into State law a provision that said in

terms of workers compensation that the State would be responsible

for workers compensation. We also passed in State law a provision

that said people assigned to work experience that we would use a

calculation based on their cash assistance and food stamps divided

by the minimum wage in terms of adjusting the hours. So those

were not issues for us.

The concern that the Governor expressed to you that was a particular concern was the effect of other labor-related laws or payroll

taxes on welfare recipients. Questions like, would we be required

to withhold 7.65 percent from the cash assistance and food stamp

benefits of recipients as a ‘‘payroll tax’’ if they were assigned to

work experience. That would constitute one of the largest reductions in welfare benefits in the history of our State, and that’s

something that was very much a concern.

Chairman SHAW. There’s a concern of sending out the wrong

message, too, because in listening to all of these witnesses on this

panel, it’s very obvious that you’ve turned this whole thing around

to showing that work pays and that work is much better than welfare.

I’m very, very impressed by this entire panel. We certainly don’t

want to see that all of a sudden, when someone has to work for

59

their benefits, that their paycheck is less than their benefit. That’s

sending out all the wrong messages.

I thank you all for your very fine testimony. And thank you for

the good work that your States are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robert Matsui, Congressman from California, is recognized.

Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I want to thank, first of all, both the Majority and the Minority

staff and the Ranking Member and the Chair. Because I think this

panel is an excellent panel, and I really appreciate the fact that

there are a wide variety of views here, which I think is very, very

important for us as we try to understand this program and obviously how adjustments could be made to it in future years. I just

think it’s an excellent panel.

I’d like to commend you, Ms. Kimble, because you saw the problem back in 1993, 1994, and you made those adjustments under the

1988 act, and you didn’t even ask for a waiver. You just went

ahead and did it. It shows the kind of leadership that’s required

to make a program work.

I think your concept of perhaps looking for some flexibility in the

work program, training program, might be something we may want

to look at in future years. I know the theory behind it was not to

skim the cream, but I think we need to maybe even go beyond it.

I see Mr. Mora even acknowledging that. I think it’s probably

something we need to look at.

I’d like to ask Mr. Winstead a question, a followup to Mr. Levin.

You said about 50 percent, I’m trying to quote you here, it says,

there’s an indication that 50 percent are working, is that right, or

a little over 50 percent?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Over 50 percent.

Mr. MATSUI. When you say over 50, like 55 or 52, or 51, 60 percent maybe, 70 percent? You don’t have any statistics, this is anecdotal, like Olivia Golden testified, right, your feeling about things?

Mr. WINSTEAD. No, sir. I’m trying to recall, and I don’t recall the

specific percent from our demonstration program that we began

under waiver, where we had half of the group randomly assigned

to a control group, and half randomly assigned to the program, and

what the experience was with the followup done by the Manpower

Demonstration Research Corp.

Mr. MATSUI. I have a 1996 green book here. You probably know

these numbers, but it states on page 500, most episodes of AFDC

enrollment end within 12 months, but of those who exit, many

come back after 24 months. Statistically, I recall, in fact we’ve had

these numbers for years and years, that the first 12 months, about

70 percent of the recipients go off of welfare. They get married,

they get jobs, some of them go on disability, I think 2 percent go

on disability. Seven percent move.

So we know that 70 percent go off, it’s the 30 percent that everybody was always concerned about. The problem is that many of the

70 percent went back on, because they get divorced, they lost their

job, or they quit their job because they lost their Medicaid benefits.

So your numbers are very similar to what these numbers were

back in 1993 when these studies were being done.

60

So perhaps maybe over time you can do some kind of a study as

to why this is happening. Why these numbers haven’t really

changed, even though we have this wonderful, healthy economy,

the most healthy economy we’ve had in a generation. Is it because

maybe there are impediments in the welfare law? Are the time limits hurting people? Are they creating more poverty?

These are the kinds of study and data that we need in order to

really make a fundamental, very good faith decision. This program

may be working wonders. But we shouldn’t attempt to skirt it and

make it that way if it in fact isn’t. And we shouldn’t try to make

it bad if it really isn’t, either. What we need is hard data, and data

that doesn’t try to obscure what we want to do.

And I appreciate the fact that you’re doing a rainy day fund. But

rainy day funds usually don’t work that well. I remember back in

1982, in the height of our recession, that horrible recession, Members from Michigan, the Michigan unemployment department came

to us and said, we have a rainy day fund, but it didn’t work in

terms of UI, unemployment benefits. So we had to do EB, extended

benefit, Program, and a number of others.

And obviously, the Federal Government in those days tried to

bail out, obviously, States and local government, of some of their

problems. I don’t know if we’re going to be able to do that in this

case if we hit a recession, because I think we have a compact with

you.

And like you said, you’re going to pay 100 percent of whatever

the problem might be whenever that recession hits. And I think the

Chairman is right, it may hit one of these days, hopefully not too

soon.

I don’t know if you have any comments on this, but let me say

this. The success of this program isn’t necessarily going to be measured when we have this wonderful economy. The success of this

program is going to be measured when we’re in a recession, a recession that goes on 1 year or 2 or maybe 21⁄2 years, whatever the

case may be.

That’s when you determine whether a program is working or not

working. Because that’s when you decide whether or not you have

people who are going to go into poverty, when people are hurting,

when you create hardship for people.

And that’s why this is a little artificial right now. I mean, I don’t

know of anybody that complains about anything right now. In fact,

we’re seen so wonderfully, Members of Congress, everybody is so

high in popularity now. But that’s because we have a great economy. So we shouldn’t have these problems.

And I will say one final thing. And you can comment. One of the

reasons Mr. Stark and I are intense about this issue, and we

haven’t had a chance to really talk about this, is because we do

something to senior citizens like we did in 1996, AARP will be all

over us, they’ll be doing 150, 200 studies that will be commissioned

by millions of dollars worth of consultants. They’ll be shunting

paper all over this institution, saying, you guys are screwing up,

you guys aren’t doing well, this bill needs to be changed in this

way.

Children, kids in poverty and single women don’t have that kind

of lobby. And so some of us have to take that responsibility on. And

61

I hope all of you will as well, because you’re in charge of this, and

you need to make sure that if programs aren’t working, you need

to come back to us.

Mr. WINSTEAD. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, a couple of

points. First of all, one of the reasons that we are continuing, even

though we have terminated our Federal waivers, because we didn’t

need them, we were able to do without waiver the things we were

already doing in our program. But we continued the evaluation

that we began under those waivers.

And Secretary Golden mentioned five States they were working

with to measure the impact of welfare reform on the well-being of

children. We are one of those five States, and we have continued

that commitment, because we want to, now that we have a substantial number of people enrolled in our time limit demonstration,

we think we have an opportunity to learn more about, now, what’s

the impact on the children in those families. Because that is a very

important issue to us.

I work for a Governor for whom there is no higher priority than

Florida’s children. So that is the critical question. And I would

agree that the economy has certainly helped us quite a bit, and I

hope it continues. I hope that recession is a long way off. But I’ve

administered these programs during recessionary times, and I

know how difficult that can be.

I don’t know if a rainy day fund will work for us, but particularly

if we have a regional recession or a short-term recession or a recession that disproportionately affects our State, given our reliance on

tourism and agriculture, then it’s one consideration, and the fact

that we do not have a State income tax, so that State funds are

affected very quickly when you rely on sales tax receipts. It becomes very much an issue for us.

Mr. MATSUI. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I appreciate this. Let me just say this. I have a great deal of confidence

and respect for you and Governor Chiles. You have been wonderful

over the years, and I have no second thoughts about your commitment.

I’m just saying that there may be circumstances beyond your

control. I was in local government before I came back here. And I

have to say that when we hit a recession, and it was the difference

between taking care of police and fire or children that are in poverty, it was easy to make that decision politically. You took care

of police and fire. Because they had a constituency.

Obviously, at the State level, you have those same kind of competing priorities. And usually, the ones that can’t squeak are the

ones that lose out, and you know which group that is.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATSUI. Thank you.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Coyne.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Winstead, the State of Florida has reduced its caseload by

45 percent since you implemented the WAGES effort.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. COYNE. And at the same time, Mr. Rolston, who will be on

a panel right after this, will testify that 31 percent of the Florida

participants HHS studied were sanctioned, 31 percent.

62

I wonder if you could tell us what percentage of that group that

were sanctioned lost all of their benefits and therefore left the rolls.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I’m not familiar with the 31-percent sanctioned

figure. So I can’t speak to that particular——

Mr. COYNE. Well, as I say, Mr. Rolston will testify to that later

on.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right. I’ll listen very attentively.

The sanction in Florida, the way we work our sanctions is, if you

fail to comply with the work requirement, the entire family benefit

is terminated. That is a new provision, a provision that we enacted

under welfare reform, and it’s different than what it was under our

waiver demonstration.

The reason that we recommended that to our legislature, which

they passed, was in our family transition demonstration program,

the case managers who worked with families told me, they said,

Don, the people who are most at risk of reaching the time limit

without good options started to fail to comply early on, and our

sanctions were so weak that it did not have the effect of redirecting

their behavior. And that’s why we have changed our sanctioning

policy.

On the first occurrence of sanction, it is full termination. For

chronic noncompliance, we have a provision where we can then restore benefits on second or third occurrence of sanctions to the children and pay those through a protective payee.

Mr. COYNE. Can you tell us what percentage of those who have

left the rolls have left the rolls because they found a job, they found

employment?

Mr. WINSTEAD. As I said, it’s something over 50 percent that we

believe are connected to employment. When you look at the employment figures reported by our department of labor, it’s over

105,000. But as you all know, the numbers associated with the dynamics of welfare programs can be very misleading.

When I say that our caseload has gone from 200,000 to 110,000,

that’s not because 90,000 families left the rolls. Actually, it’s because when we were at 200,000, of those specific 200,000 families,

140,000 of those have left the rolls. And 60,000 remain, and they’ve

been joined by another 50,000 who have entered or reentered.

That’s what that dynamic is.

Of those 140,000 who have left the rolls, our department of labor

is reporting employment entries of slightly over 105,000 as of now.

It was 63,000 the first year, then an additional 26,000.

Some of those employed families, however, are still on the welfare rolls because of our earnings disregard, and have chosen to do

that.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Ms. Kimble, we’re all pleased to hear that you’re focusing on

helping former welfare recipients find jobs that pay a living wage

and offer the health insurance, which is critical to family security.

I know you’re very interested in that in Maryland. But of the

former welfare recipients you have placed, what percent found good

paying jobs with health benefits?

Ms. KIMBLE. I can tell you the average wage at placement is

climbing. And I think that has more to do with the Federal minimum wage increase than it does with actually our efforts. We

63

started out with $6.27 an hour as an average, and it’s up to about

$6.50.

Our goal this year for our job center teams, and let me just add

that they come up with the strategies, we just set the goals for

them, $7.00. So they have a way to go before September.

It isn’t that easy. It’s easier to help someone get a job, any job,

and then we have to make the commitment to say, we will help you

get a better job. All of our job training slots for the higher wage

jobs, the jobs that pay at least $8.15 an hour with benefits, are reserved for people who have jobs, so they have to have at least a

part-time job in order to qualify for training.

Mr. COYNE. Do you have any information that would tell us how

many of them have health care benefits?

Ms. KIMBLE. From our up front job search, where I got the average of $6.50 per hour, right now, about 25 percent of those jobs

have health benefits. And that really hasn’t changed over time. The

goal for the job center is to try to get that up to 35 percent this

year.

They’ve climbed a little bit, not much. And it’s difficult, because

of the Medicaid income eligibility standards, unfortunately, do

knock the parent off of Medicaid, even though the children stay on

Medicaid in Maryland.

Mr. COYNE. Do you have any additional suggestions about what

additional resources and training would be required to help all welfare recipients find the kinds of jobs that promote self-sufficiency

and would provide health care insurance?

Ms. KIMBLE. I guess my bottom line is flexibility with the money.

The less time we spend administratively trying to pigeonhole people for particular funding categories, the more time we have to

spend with individuals, who for want of pride, do not come into the

TANF caseload. They’re just as much in need, however.

Mr. COYNE. Are you aware of the study that was done in your

State that showed 38 percent of the companies in Maryland looking

for employees, needing employees, but not finding them because of

the lack of training?

Ms. KIMBLE. I’m not aware of that actual study, but I do know

that that’s an issue in our State. And that’s why we’re trying to

partner with employers specifically. For example, we know nationwide there’s a need for 150,000 electricians. So we have just

partnered with an electrical contracting conglomerate to do that

training for us and it’s our job to get the people there, to give them

the transportation they need, to give them the child care.

Our job is not to help employers get tax credits. Our job is to

help people get jobs and keep jobs. That’s our commitment to the

employers. So we’ve removed all the stigma. We don’t need tax

credits. We don’t need specialized things to entice employers. But

we do need to respond to their needs, as you said, for specialized

training.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you.

Mr. Winstead, I want to go back and ask you a followup question

to a question earlier. It was about sanctions. You understood early

on that some of those who were going to reach the limit were going

64

to reach that limit because of the fact you didn’t have strong

enough sanctions.

But then in your testimony, too, you mentioned community based

programs. Did the community-based programs have any effect or

work with you in helping to keep the number who actually reached

the limit from being such a large number? If so, how?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes sir, and I think in the experience that I

talked about and in interacting with the case managers in our Pensacola office, that’s an example of the community-based emphasis

that we have. But under our new program, we’ve set up 24 regional

coalitions that have oversight responsibility for bringing together

all of the State and the community resources.

I would remark also that we gave local communities, when we

did State level welfare reform in anticipation of your bill, we also

did State level work force development reform in anticipation of

something. But that hasn’t happened yet at the national level.

But we’ve reconstituted our private industry councils, we established work force development boards in regions. And we gave communities the option of having the same local board that administers their work force development programs be the oversight

board for their welfare programs. In 16 of 24 areas of Florida, they

are the same. So in fact, our welfare-to-work recipients will in large

part be the same organizations that are helping us provide oversight to our welfare programs.

But we think the more of those resources we can get together at

the community level, and also the more authority that we can delegate to the community level on how they operationalize the program, the more effective the result.

Right now we are going through a review process, because we

have shorter time limits than what you permit. And for some families in Florida, the time limit can be 24 months. Our communitybased coalitions are going through a review process now, looking

with us at families that are within 6 months of the end of their

24-month time limit. They have authorities under State law to

grant exemptions or extensions of the time limit, based on people

who have diligently participated in the program and haven’t been

successful. And they’ll be making those decisions.

Mr. COLLINS. They’ve actually been able to guide you?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you.

We thank the panel, and we will excuse you and call the next

panel.

We’ll introduce the panel, and then we’ll go back and call on

them in the order of the introduction.

We have Richard P. Nathan, director, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Albany, New York; Daniel H. Weinberg, Division Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics, Bureau

of the Census, Washington, DC; Howard Rolston, Director, Office

of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC; and Barbara Blum, director, Research Forum on

Children, Families and the New Federalism, National Center for

Children in Poverty, New York, New York.

65

Very good. Welcome, each of you, and your testimony and your

statements in full will be entered into the record.

We’ll start with Mr. Richard P. Nathan.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. NATHAN, DIRECTOR, NELSON A.

ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY

OF NEW YORK

Mr. NATHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m the principal investigator for a study in 21 States where

we’re focusing on management systems, institutional change, the

organization of agencies, their budgets, their staffing, their contracting, their information systems. Is welfare reform, with the

ideas that you’re trying to work with, penetrating to the local workers and affecting the culture and signals of agencies and agency

systems?

I, myself, have been to 10 States, and in the 10 States, I’ve

talked to our researchers, because we have researchers in 21

States. I’ve talked to officials in State agencies, and then I go and

talk to caseworkers, to see if what they’re telling me, people tell me

is happening, is really happening.

I’ve been working in this field 30 years. I started in high school.

And I have never seen so much change as is going on now. New

policy bargains are being struck. The work emphasis is happening.

Welfare is being reinvented. Most agencies don’t call themselves

welfare agencies any more. Semantically, we’ve ended welfare.

I brought a chart that’s got eight points. And all I’m going to do

is quickly mention some of these points. Number one, there are, to

me, and I’ve looked at this for a long time, I’m a political scientist

interested in management, there are big surprising changes in the

signaling and bureaucratic culture and behavior of people at all

levels who carry out these social programs.

And when you talk to the workers and go to the local offices,

most places I’ve been, this is something that I have not seen before.

When I give talks about it, I make what I think is a little joke, that

all of this is happening and all Congress did was pass a law.

Point number two is, it’s not just devolution to the States. It’s

very much also local, second order and third order devolution to

community groups in most of the States we’re in. And I was going

to name the States, but I’m afraid I don’t have time. But I have

7 States out of our 21 where we have data I could mention, including some represented here today.

Third is a point that I didn’t expect. There’s a new politics out

there. There’s a new political equilibrium. People are much more

accepting of welfare and what welfare programs are supposed to

do. Because the time limit and the work emphasis are popular and

there are a lot of jobs available in most parts of the country.

So the mood has changed. And social agencies are getting a lot

more cooperation from other agencies that provide services. Employers want to hire anybody who can breathe into a mirror in the

morning and have a little mist form in most labor markets. If

you’re ever going to reform welfare, this is a good time.

Point number four is the work-first emphasis. I used to be, and

Barbara Blum and I worked on this together for many years, chair

of the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., and their reVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
66

search shows that immediate attachment to the labor force is

where you get your strongest effects. That is your culture change,

that is the signalling. And it’s very strong in the country. Our research, yes, we look at statistics, Mr. Matsui, but we also spend a

lot of time looking at institutions, which we should look at more.

Mr. MATSUI. Well, since he mentioned my name, you worked for

Richard Nixon, didn’t you?

Mr. NATHAN. I did. First term. First term. I like to—I don’t know

how to take that, but OK. [Laughter.]

Mr. MATSUI. Take it as you heard it. Take it as you heard it.

Mr. COLLINS. Now, wait 1 minute. Let’s let him finish his testimony.

Mr. NATHAN. I’m proud of what I did.

Mr. COLLINS. You’ll have your time.

Mr. MATSUI. No, I appreciate the fact, the Chairman says that.

He should not have mentioned my name in that context. That’s all

I’m asking.

Mr. COLLINS. Refrain from mentioning a Member’s name.

Mr. NATHAN. I won’t mention any other names.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The fifth point on our chart is diversion. That was a surprise,

too, to people, in that what agencies are trying to do, welfare agencies are trying to do, is prevent people from becoming permanently

in assistance systems, and help them deal with emergencies up

front. And that is happening very widely in a lot of States.

Point number six is enforcement. Not so much sanctions, but

that people are being required to sign personal responsibility or

self-sufficiency agreements, and they’re being required to take the

steps that are part of this process embodied in programs that go

back a ways, but particularly embodied in this new law and in earlier laws.

Point number seven is that work force development, employment,

and training agencies are playing a much bigger role. In fact, in

many States, the responsibility for administering TANF Programs

is being turned over to them, as you heard, in Florida, Michigan,

Texas, in lots of States. This is becoming a different signalling by

a different bureaucracy. It’s very jobs focused.

Point number eight is one that I particularly care about and that

you’ve been talking about today, but I won’t mention any names,

and that is information systems. We really do need to give attention to how we can get and who should be responsible for the kind

of data we need for general oversight, for case management by case

managers and for evaluation.

I’d like to have a word, if the opportunity arises, to talk about

the fact that many States are collecting the kind of postprogram

data we ought to have about what’s happening to people who are

exiting from these systems.

Thank you very much for the chance to testify.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Richard P. Nathan, Director, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute

of Government, University of New York

My name is Richard P. Nathan. I am the director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller

Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of the State University of

New York located in Albany, and I am the Principal Investigator for a multi-state

67

study the Rockefeller Institute is conducting of the implementation of social programs. This study focuses on the management systems for social programs of states,

local governments, and nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Field research associates—typically teams of university based field research analysts—in a representative sample of twenty-one states are participating in this study. The overview analysis is being conducted by a core staff of management and policy analysts based at

the Rockefeller Institute. Funding for this research has been provided by the W.K.

Kellogg Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a

number of other private foundations. As the Principal Investigator for this study,

I have visited ten states this year to meet with the field researchers, state and local

government officials, and to visit local program offices and interview local workers—

eligibility workers, case managers, and other front-line workers.

In thirty years of observing welfare policy making and administration, I have

never seen a period of such rapid change. This is not the case in all states, but it

is the case—to varying degrees—in most states. In spite of the tendency for the

media to focus on the 5-year time limit for TANF cash benefits, our conclusion is

that the time requirement that matters most right now is more near-term. The biggest story so far in this respect is ‘‘Tomorrow Requirements’’—by that I mean upfront stronger signalling and enforcement of work and work-related participation requirements. Some people may not like this. But it is surely different now. Our reports from the field and my visits to state and local offices suggest that observers

need to get out of Washington and out of state capitals to examine these changes

at ground level. Yogi Berra once said, ‘‘You can observe a lot of things just by watching.’’ He was right.

In short, new policy bargains are being struck. The work emphasis is happening.

National policy has shifted from the ‘‘income strategy’’ of the seventies to an employment strategy that emphasizes services and sanctions in different ways and in different combinations in different states. One result is that some former recipients

and applicants who might previously have been aided are not receiving cash benefits

as employment-related strategies and other services are being expanded in many

states. In addition, welfare bureaucracies are being reinvented and given new

names. They are no longer even called ‘‘welfare’’ agencies. Semantically, we have

ended ‘‘welfare.’’

There is, as stated, diversity in how this is happening. Each state tends to put

its own spin on reform, and many states claim that reform was ‘‘invented here.’’

There is a window of opportunity for welfare reforms now due to several factors—

added funds, added interest, political stability, and tight labor markets in many

areas of the country. Moreover, there is a new political equilibrium about cash assistance for the poor in many states now that welfare is so visibly work-oriented

and is time limited. This political shift has taken welfare off national and state legislative agendas where for a long time it had been a flash-point social issue. But

state administrative systems still need to adapt to these policy and program

changes, especially in the areas of information systems and with regard to the application of financial incentives to local public and private agencies.

Basically what is happening is that, after several major national policy attempts

to do so, states are now converting what used to be ‘‘welfare systems’’ into ‘‘social

service systems’’ for poor people with children. This is a massive, complicated, uneven conversion process. But make no mistake about it, it is happening, although

faster in some states than others.

In human terms, there are both costs and benefits, both of which I believe we

need to measure better as stressed in this testimony in discussing information systems for social programs. Some families are being helped in new ways that raise

both their self-esteem and their living standards. On the other hand, some people,

many of whom were already working, are being subjected to stronger work and participation requirements which many social program advocates find objectionable.

However, these social policy requirements are not so much new as newly-enforced.

Following are ten generalizations based on our research to date:

1. The Personal Responsibility Act of 1996 is causing surprisingly large and extensive changes on a bipartisan basis in the signalling, organization and aims of social

programs for the poor in many states.

2. Especially important is what we call ‘‘second-order devolution,’’ whereby states

are assigning greater responsibility to local jurisdictions and groups of public, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. There is diversity in the way this second-order

devolution is occurring and in the organizational and institutional structures responsible for social programs for the poor.

3. The third point is an especially important one and is also surprising. We observe a new political equilibrium emerging on welfare and work in many states

which may over time detoxify these programs and make it possible for public and

68

nonprofit agencies to do more and work together better to deal with the problems

of the most disadvantaged poor children and families.

4. Most states are pursuing a ‘‘Work First’’ strategy for welfare (i.e., immediate

attachment to the labor force), which represents a shift from the education/humancapital investment strategy under the Family Support Act of 1988, which created

the JOBS program.

5. Another surprise is that states are devoting unexpected priority to what are

called ‘‘diversion’’ programs to prevent families from becoming cash assistance recipients. Although some of these diversion programs involve only one-time cash

grants in lieu of applying for continuing assistance, some states are using diversion

to expand their repertoire of short-term solutions to financial crises affecting families, such as immediate job search assistance, short-term services, and referrals to

other public or private agencies.

6. Many states are adopting stricter, faster, and broader enforcement procedures

to implement the job search, work, and other requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act. Frequently, these procedures are tied to conformity with the terms of

‘‘Personal Responsibility Agreements’’ or ‘‘Self-sufficiency Agreements,’’ which specify responsibilities related to work, job search, etc. • Sanctions are being both threatened and imposed earlier as these arrangements

have become more routinized and more serious. (HHS Secretary Donna Shalala recently referred to this as the ‘‘smoke out’’ effect; she made the point, with which

I agree, that it has turned out to be larger than was expected.) Based on a study

by the U.S. General Accounting Office, twenty-six states now are enabled to apply

sanctions to the full family as opposed to limiting them to the proportion of the benefit designated for the family head. • In some states benefit reductions are ratcheted up monthly for failure to comply

with work requirements, as in Arizona where for the first month of noncompliance

the benefit is cut by 25%, the second month by 50%, and the third month after failure to comply, the full benefit is ended. In order to reinstate the benefit, or a benefit

reduction, the adult recipient has to re-apply and there is a three-day special programming requirement for job search, counseling, etc. In other states, benefit reductions are ratcheted up for each violation of the work requirements, as in Delaware

where the benefit is reduced by one-third for each violation.

7. Reorganization efforts are underway in many states to assign the major responsibilities for administering TANF programs to employment bureaucracies, combined

with a related effort to change the signalling and culture of these programs to emphasize jobs and self-support. • Although some states have consolidated responsibilities and operations into one

agency and even a small number of divisions, many of these programs are spreading

responsibilities across a large number of entities. Sometimes this complexity is dealt

with by giving formal leadership to employment bureaucracies; sometimes it is managed through informal co-location (e.g., ‘‘one-stop’’) coordination mechanisms. Most

commonly, it is managed at the case level through the use of case managers. If

there is any clear tendency, it is to push these program responsibilities outward to

include more organizations and service providers in a wide variety of formal and informal ways, producing new linkages by referrals as well as by contracts.

• Privatization initiatives to turn TANF-related social program responsibilities

over to non-profit and for-profit groups are another important way states have

changed the signalling and procedures of a wide array of social and employment

programs to aid poor families. States and local agencies are also devising innovative

mechanisms for bringing the resources of private institutions—such as businesses,

charities, religious institutions, and advocacy organizations—to bear in pursuing the

goals of local social programs. These administrative changes mean that in some

states divisions between the public and private sectors are becoming blurred.

8. Increasingly, the key to implementing these and related reforms is developing

and operating information systems that can provide on-line, linked data for case

tracking and case management. These systems are also critical for knowing what

happens to people (pre- and post-program outcomes) affected by welfare reforms, including importantly the diverted population and people who leave the rolls. This is

an area of major need, which over time will be the key both to understanding what

happens to needy families under social programs and also will be the key to what

these programs ultimately become in their on-the-ground operations.

• Although many tasks and responsibilities are being passed down to local governments, local state offices, and private service organizations, their welfare information systems remain more accessible and responsive for state and federal reporting requirements than to local administrative and case management needs.

• We observe tension and confusion between local and central authorities about

what should be reported. It is increasingly clear that much crucial information

69

about the treatments people receive is not being captured, which is a real problem

as these treatments are becoming increasingly varied and complex. There is considerable disagreement across and within all levels of government over operational

measures of program performance.

• Many state information systems publish little more than aggregate caseload information. Whatever the local agencies are doing or accomplishing, not enough can

be learned about their activities from the data they are collecting and reporting.

9. Most states have not yet worked out financial penalties, rewards, or allocation

rules that are consistent with the goals of their new programs. Some of the existing

incentives imposed by states on local welfare agencies and contractors may in fact

work against program goals, such as when state budget allocations to local agencies

depend solely on the number of cases in an area or the number of long-term cases.

10. Although many states are encouraging program experimentation by allowing

selected counties or regions to apply different policies or administrative structures

from those used in the rest of the state—such as pilot privatization projects—few

states are making efforts to evaluate how these variations might affect program performance or outcomes.

I request that a brief description of the Rockefeller Institute’s ‘‘State Capacity

Study’’ be included in the record with this statement.

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

Mr. C

Mr. Weinberg.

OLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Nathan.

f

STATEMENT OF DANIEL H. WEINBERG, DIVISION CHIEF,

HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC STATISTICS,

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, U.S. DEPARMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. WEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I

want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to report on the Census Bureau’s efforts to collect the data necessary to

evaluate welfare reform. Evaluating the effects of changes in a

huge, national program like TANF is not easy. I want to focus on

the analysis of longitudinal microdata, that is, data that allow comparisons of the same individuals or families at two points in time,

more like a video than a snapshot, if you will.

This is the preferred approach to evaluation, when there is a nationwide change like the 1996 welfare reforms. Analysts used

prereform characteristics of a population group to control for preexisting differences among households and families. Analyses may

be as simple as examining changes in employment for specific demographic groups or as sophisticated as multiple regression that

takes account of people who leave the sample.

There will be only two sources of longitudinal data that will have

large enough samples for such analyses. The 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which we call SIPP, and

the SPD, Survey of Program Dynamics, the new survey created by

the welfare reform law.

In the interest of time, let me focus on the latter, the Survey of

Program Dynamics, or SPD, as we call it. The SPD data will provide information on spells of actual and potential program participation over a 10-year period, from 1992 to 2001. It will examine

the characteristics of people who participate in programs and the

economic consequences that changes in these programs have on the

well-being of recipients, their families and their children. And the

data will allow us to examine the characteristics of people who

leave welfare and their economic well-being.

70

Since the SPD is based on a representative national sample of

all households, inferences about the effects of welfare reform nationwide on families over time will be possible. The data collected

in the 1992 to 1995 period, using the SIPP for the same sample of

people will provide extensive background information. The SIPP

has more detailed data than any other national survey on program

eligibility, access to and participation in programs, transfer income,

in-kind benefits, and so forth.

Coupled with an extensive array of economic and demographic

data, such as employment and job transitions, and income and family composition, the data already collected will characterize the

prereform situation of households exceptionally well. Because the

SPD interviews the same people, analysts will have data for the

baseline prereform period, the reform implementation period in the

medium term, and through the 2001 postreform period. This design

will provide data for evaluating the effects of the 1996 welfare reform that has seldom, if ever, been available to assess other social

policy changes.

Now I’d like to give you an idea of where data collection for the

SPD stands. Once the legislation was signed in August 1996, we

determined that it was critical to collect income and program participation data as soon as possible from as many of the 1992 and

1993 SIPP panel households as we could find. Waiting too long to

contact these households would have run the risk of losing many

of them and missing too much going on in their lives.

We collected data for 1996 in April through June 1997 by administering a modified version of the March 1997 Current Population

Survey. I’m pleased to report that we found 82 percent of the SIPP

households and completed over 30,000 interviews. We are preparing for the release of these 1996 data which will take place in

the next few months.

However, these data only provide an extension of the baseline information. The key first look at postreform behavior will be collected in May and June 1998, using a brandnew questionnaire. We

developed this questionnaire in collaboration with other Federal

agencies and with Child Trends, Inc. The 1998 questionnaire includes many questions that focus specifically on welfare reform and

on child well-being, including a special supplement for adolescents.

We anticipate that these data, which will give the first picture

of the effects of welfare reform on individuals, will be available in

the summer of 1999. Along with the microdata from the SPD, the

Census Bureau will also be releasing basic descriptive statistics

that present the data in nontechnical ways.

The great interest of the research community in these data suggests to us that there will quickly be a number of more sophisticated studies of the effects of welfare reform. These researchers

will describe in detail what the Census Bureau will initially describe in summary form.

The chart attached to my testimony illustrates the kind of outcomes measures that analysts will be able to examine with the

SPD. I’ve given some examples there. In the interest of time, I’ll

skip that.

We’ve also begun work to develop our 1999 questionnaire, again

working with interested Federal agencies and Child Trends aiming

71

toward an improved questionnaire. Finally, we are examining how

best to present these data to the public to make analysis easier.

The opportunity to conduct the Survey of Program Dynamics is

an exciting one for the Census Bureau. It is also a sensible investment for the government, as it builds on the investment it already

has in the Survey of Income and Program Participation. The challenges are daunting, especially given the length of time we will

need to follow households, and especially since household cooperation with government surveys continues to decline.

You can be sure the Census Bureau will do its best to meet these

challenges.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]

Statement of Daniel H. Weinberg, Division Chief, Housing and Household

Economic Statistics, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee

to report on the Census Bureau’s efforts to provide the data necessary to evaluate

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as directed by that legislation.

Evaluating the effects of changes in a huge national program like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children) is

not easy. Three kinds of information are critical to those investigating the effects

of this welfare reform—process information (providing background descriptions),

cross-section microdata (comparisons of different households at two points in time—

a ‘‘snapshot’’), and longitudinal microdata (comparisons of the same individuals at

two or more points in time—more like a ‘‘video’’). All three kinds are needed to understand the full effects of the welfare reform legislation.

The analysis of longitudinal microdata is the preferred approach when there is

a nationwide change like the 1996 welfare reforms. Analysts use pre-reform characteristics of a population group to control for preexisting differences among households. It is critical to know the pre-existing differences when evaluating post-reform

outcomes for the same people. This may be as simple as examining changes in employment for specific demographic groups, or as sophisticated as multiple regression

that takes account of people who leave the sample. Only two sources of longitudinal

data will have large enough samples for such analysis—the 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the Survey of Program Dynamics—the new survey created by the welfare reform law.

While the 1996 SIPP has a large sample size and will follow households for up

to four years, it suffers from the deficiency that data collection began in April-July

1996, while the reform took effect on October 1, 1996. One could argue that four

months of pre-reform information is sufficient for many analyses, and the SIPP does

try to collect retrospective program participation information. Some, however, are

skeptical, particularly those analysts who need a longer pre-reform period to accurately measure some initial condition, and particularly because many (if not most)

states had already begun to make changes under federal program waivers well before the beginning of the SIPP panel.

The other, and the best, source of longitudinal information will be the Survey of

Program Dynamics (SPD). The welfare reform legislation directed the Census Bureau to continue to collect data from members of the 1992 and 1993 panels of the

SIPP through the year 2002. These data will:

• Provide information on spells of actual and potential program participation over

a ten-year period, 1992 to 2001;

• Examine the characteristics of people who participate in programs and the economic consequences that changes in these programs have on the well-being of recipients, their families, and their children; and

• Examine the characteristics of people who leave welfare and their economic

well-being.

Since the SPD is based on a representative national sample of all households, inferences about the effects of welfare reform on families over time will be possible.

The data already collected in the 1992 and 1993 panels of the SIPP, which form

the basis of SPD, provide extensive baseline (background) information from which

to analyze the effects of welfare reform. The SIPP has more detailed data than any

other national survey on program eligibility, access to and participation in proVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
72

grams, transfer income, and in-kind benefits. Coupled with an extensive array of

economic and demographic data (such as employment and job transitions, income,

and family composition), the data already collected will characterize the pre-reform

situation of households exceptionally well. Other SIPP data of special interest here

include those on (1) education and training, (2) marital, fertility, migration, and program participation histories, (3) family relationships within the home, (4) work

schedules, child care, child support, support for non-household members, (5) medical

expenses and use of health care services, and (6) child well-being.

Because the SPD interviews the same people, analysts will have data for the baseline pre-reform period, the reform implementation period, and the medium-term

(through 2001) post-reform period. This design will provide data for evaluating the

effects of the 1996 welfare reform that have seldom, if ever, been available to assess

other social policy changes.

Now I’d like to give you an idea of where data collection for the SPD stands. Once

the legislation was signed in August 1996, we determined that it was critical to collect income and program participation data as soon as possible from as many of the

1992 and 1993 SIPP households as we could find. Waiting too long to contact these

households would have run the risk of losing many of them and missing too much

going on in their lives. To get into the field quickly, we could not use a custom-designed questionnaire. We collected data for 1996 in April-June 1997 by administering a modified version of the annual March 1997 Current Population Survey

(CPS) demographic supplement. We supplemented the questionnaire with a few new

questions designed to collect summary 1995 data for the 1992 SIPP panel (who were

last interviewed in January 1995). I am pleased to report that we found 82 percent

of the SIPP households, and completed over 30,000 interviews.

We are preparing for the release of 1996 data, which will take place in the next

few months. However, these data only provide an extension of the baseline information. The key post-reform information will be collected in May and June 1998 using

a new questionnaire. We developed this questionnaire in collaboration with other

federal agencies and Child Trends, Inc.; an interagency working group reviewed the

questionnaire to ensure that the appropriate issues were covered. The 1998 questionnaire includes many questions that focus specifically on welfare reform and child

well-being. We anticipate that these data, which will give the first picture of the

effects of welfare reform, will be available in the summer of 1999. Along with the

microdata from the SPD, the Census Bureau will also be releasing basic descriptive

statistics that present the data in non-technical ways. The great interest of the research community in these data suggests to us that there will quickly be a number

of more sophisticated studies of the effects of welfare reform. These researchers will

describe in detail what the Census Bureau will initially describe in summary form.

I must note that funding does not support continued interviewing all of the 30,000

households, however. We, therefore, reduced the number of households to be interviewed to about 19,000 in 1998, including all low-income households and nearly all

households with children (excluding only those at the highest income levels).

We have also begun work to develop our 1999 questionnaire, again working with

interested federal agencies and Child Trends, aiming toward an improved questionnaire. Finally, we are examining how to best present these data to the public to

make analysis easier. Along those lines, I would like to mention a contract we have

with the University of Wisconsin. Their project team is attempting to describe all

state programs, both pre- and post-reform, along a set of common dimensions (descriptive factors), such as whether applicants are sent on job interviews immediately, whether sanctions are strictly enforced, whether child care services are fully

available, and so forth. These characteristics could then become explanatory variables in investigations of outcomes using survey data—for example: Are job placements higher in states that provide child care? Are earnings higher in states that

emphasize immediate job placement? Also part of the Wisconsin project is a pilot

study to see if such data can be collected at the county level.

The attached chart illustrates the kinds of outcome measures that analysts will

be able to examine with the SPD. Specifically, the SPD will measure:

• Program eligibility and participation for the full range of transfer programs, not

just cash welfare;

• Money income, in-kind benefits, and services received from programs;

• Employment, earned income, and income from other sources;

• Family composition and changes therein; and

• Outcomes for children including key features of their environments.

The opportunity to conduct the Survey of Program Dynamics is an exciting one

for the Census Bureau. It is also a sensible investment for the government as it

builds on the investment it already has in the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Yet the challenges are daunting, especially given the length of time we

73

1Paper prepared for Statistics Canada Symposium XIV, ‘‘New Directions in Surveys and Censuses,’’ November 1997. Contact: Daniel H. Weinberg, HHES Division, US Census Bureau,

Washington DC 20233–8500. This paper reports the general results of research undertaken by

Census Bureau staff. The views expressed are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the views of the Census Bureau or the U.S. government. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Evan Davey and Stephanie Shipp for their comments and suggestions and

the SPD Team for doing all the work described herein; they bear no responsibility for any errors

that remain.

will need to follow households, especially since household cooperation with government surveys continues to decline. You can be sure that the Census Bureau will do

its best to meet these challenges. I invite you and others to keep track of our

progress by visiting the special SPD web site: http://www.sipp.census.gov/spd/. I am

also attaching for the record a copy of a paper on the Survey of Program Dynamics

presented last November at a Statistics Canada Symposium.

Examples of Measures Collected by the Survey of Program Dynamics 1998–2002

Research Area Example of SPD Measure

Program eligibility and participation ................. Number of months receiving cash welfare

Amount of cash welfare received

Did family later return to welfare after leaving the program?

In-kind benefits and services received ............... Amount of food stamps received

Number of months using government-supplied

child care services

Employment, earned income, and other income Earnings

Number of months with earnings

Amount of child support received

Job-related health insurance

Family composition and changes therein .......... Marital event (marriage or divorce)

Childbirth

Outcomes for children including key features of

their environment.

Poverty status

School-related information such as changes in

behavior and participation in extracurricular activities

f

Contact with absent parent

A SURVEY OF PROGRAM DYNAMICS FOR EVALUATING WELFARE REFORM

DANIEL H. WEINBERG, VICKI J. HUGGINS, ROBERT A. KOMINSKI, AND CHARLES T.

NELSON U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 1

ABSTRACT

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

eliminated the main United States welfare program, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with another program providing welfare

support in the form of block grants to states. Part of that law directed the Census

Bureau to field a survey, whose purpose is to collect the data necessary to evaluate

the impact of this change. To carry out that directive, we are conducting a Survey

of Program Dynamics (SPD). The SPD will simultaneously describe the full range

of state welfare programs along with social, economic, demographic and family

changes that will help or limit the effectiveness of the reforms. We will collect data

for households previously interviewed from 1992–1994 or 1993–1995 by the Survey

of Income and Program Participation for each of the six years from 1996 through

2001.

Key Words: welfare, surveys, evaluation

This paper will

• describe the need for a new survey focused on providing the data necessary to

adequately evaluate recent United States welfare reform legislation,

• describe the origin, purpose, status, and plans of the Survey of Program Dynamics, and

• discuss some technical issues we must resolve in the future.

74

2Since changed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

3The NSAF has quite respectable samples in 13 states, with a supplementary sample in the

balance of the U.S. The survey has a sample size of about 35,000 households, with low-income

households oversampled; the interview mode is computer-assisted telephone interviewing. A

major focus of the survey is health outcomes. For more details on the NSAF, see Brick et al.

(1998).

I. WHY IS A NEW SURVEY NEEDED?

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed legislation passed by Congress, and

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 became Public Law 104–193. This comprehensive legislation has extensive implications for many programs. The law • eliminates the open-ended federal entitlement program of Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC), • creates a new program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF), which provides block grants for states to offer limited cash assistance, • makes extensive changes to child care, the Food Stamp Program, Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) for children, benefits for legal immigrants,2 and the Child

Support Enforcement program, • modifies children’s nutrition programs, • reduces the Social Services Block Grant, and • retains child welfare and child protection programs.

The law also directs the U.S. Census Bureau to carry out a new survey to permit

researchers to evaluate the impacts of the new law. Why would a new survey be

needed?

Three kinds of information are critical to those investigating the effects of this

welfare reform—process information (providing background descriptions), cross- section microdata (allowing comparisons of two points in time—‘‘snapshots’’), and

longitudinal microdata (allowing pre-post analysis of the same individuals). All

three kinds are needed to understand the full effects of the welfare reform legislation.

Process or descriptive information provides the context to interpret information

about welfare recipients or former recipients. Examples of process information are

the kinds of support services offered by welfare agencies (e.g., child care, transportation vouchers, job search assistance), characteristics of the welfare agency itself

(e.g., cases per case worker), benefit levels, restrictions on client behavior (e.g.,

whether a teenager must live with her parents), and so forth.

There will be several sources of such information. First is the information that

states must report about their programs to the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS). These reports are likely to have only the minimum necessary to satisfy the requirements of the legislation and therefore will probably be

insufficient on their own for research purposes. Nevertheless, one can use this basic

‘‘tracking’’ information to tell some basic stories. Two other sources of descriptive

information seem more promising, however. The first is an effort, funded by the U.S.

Census Bureau through DHHS, taking place at the University of Wisconsin. The

project team will attempt to describe all state programs, both pre- and post-reform,

along a set of common dimensions (descriptive factors). These would then become

explanatory variables in investigations of outcomes using survey data. Also part of

this project is a pilot study to see if such data can be collected at the county level.

A parallel effort is underway at the Urban Institute (UI) as part of their Assessing

New Federalism Project (ANFP).

Cross-section microdata can be and has been used to evaluate the effects of program changes. Most typically, researchers compare average characteristics of a population group (e.g., the percent of welfare recipients working) at two points in time.

Two sources of cross-section microdata will be available—the March Current Population Surveys (CPS), and the National Survey of American Families (NSAF), being

conducted by Westat as part of the ANFP project in 1997 and possibly again in 1999

or 2000.3 Because of the many variants of welfare and new forms of household support established by the states as they revise their assistance programs, survey organizations will have to make changes to existing survey questions to collect the relevant data.

The analysis of longitudinal microdata is the preferred approach when social experiments cannot be used to evaluate program changes, as with a nationwide

change like the 1996 welfare reforms. Analysts use pre-reform characteristics of a

population to control for preexisting differences among households when evaluating

post-reform outcomes for the same people. This may be as simple as examining

changes in employment for specific demographic groups, or as sophisticated as multiple regression that takes account of self-selection and sample attrition. Only two

75

4More details about the SIPP can be found in U.S. Census Bureau (1991); a third edition is

currently being prepared.

sources of longitudinal data will have large enough samples to analyze—the 1996

panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the new Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD)—the new survey directed by the welfare reform

law.

While the SIPP has a large sample size and will follow households for up to four

years, it suffers from the deficiency that data collection began in April-July 1996,

while the reform took effect on October 1, 1996. One could argue that four months

of pre-reform information is sufficient for many analyses, and the SIPP does try to

collect retrospective program participation information. Some, however, are skeptical, particularly those analysts who need a longer pre-reform period to accurately

measure some initial condition, and particularly because many (if not most) states

had already begun to make changes under federal program waivers well before the

beginning of the SIPP panel.4

On the other hand, the SPD, based on a sample of households first interviewed

in February-May 1992 or 1993 to be followed until 2001, will provide a convincing

set of baseline data, assuming as we must that differential attrition will not vitiate

the usefulness of the data collected. The rest of this paper describes the SPD in

more detail.

No one source of information will be complete. A full picture of the effects of welfare reform will emerge only after many years and complementary studies using

these different sources.

II. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY OF PROGRAM DYNAMICS

Why would a new longitudinal survey that focuses on welfare issues be needed?

For particular agencies, a series of focused single-purpose surveys or experiments

can serve many of their specific program evaluation needs. But if the research community were to rely solely on highly focused data collection, there would inevitably

be major gaps. Only an omnibus data collection vehicle can provide the basis for an

overall evaluation of how well welfare reforms are achieving the aims of the Administration and the Congress. This requires a survey that casts a wide net, one that

simultaneously measures important features of (1) both reformed and unchanged

welfare programs, and (2) other important social, economic, demographic and family

changes that will either help or limit the effectiveness of the reforms. Further, ideally such a survey should be in place before reforms are effective to allow adequate

assessment of baseline circumstances.

Several years before the passage of the actual legislation, DHHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, responsible for the food stamps program) invested

substantial resources in having the Census Bureau develop such a survey. They

hoped they could fund and field such a survey to meet their needs to understand

the effects of anticipated public policy changes on the population. In these planning

activities, several design features emerged as essential. The survey should

• Measure

—program eligibility and participation for the full range of welfare programs;

—money income, in-kind benefits, and services received from programs;

—employment, earned income, and income from other economic sources;

—family composition; and

—child outcomes including key features of the environments of children (because

reforms may have positive or negative consequences for children through these intervening mechanisms);

• Be a large, longitudinal, nationally representative study that measures changes

in each of these areas and allows the identification of interrelationships linking

these changes;

• Include baseline data for a period before the initiation of reforms;

• Continue to collect data throughout the period of reform to monitor the process

of change; and

• Collect data for the period after the states implement the reforms.

Section 414 of the welfare reform law specifically directs (and funds) the Bureau

of the Census to: continue to collect data on the 1992 and 1993 panels of the Survey

of Income and Program Participation [SIPP] as necessary to obtain such information

as will enable interested persons to evaluate the impact of the amendments made

by Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

of 1996 on a random national sample of recipients of assistance under State programs funded under this part and (as appropriate) other low income families, and

in doing so, shall pay particular attention to the issues of out-of-wedlock birth, welVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
76

fare dependency, the beginning and end of welfare spells, and shall obtain information about the status of children participating in such panels.

To comply with this directive, the Census Bureau is carrying out the Survey of

Program Dynamics (SPD) with two primary goals: • Provide information on spells of actual and potential program participation over

a ten-year period, 1992 to 2001, and • Examine the causes of program participation and its long-term effects on the

well-being of recipients, their families, and their children.

The data already collected in the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels will provide extensive baseline (background) information from which to figure out the effects of welfare reform. SIPP is a longitudinal survey of households, interviewed at least nine

times at four-month intervals, and followed if they moved. The SIPP collects more

detailed data than any other national survey on program eligibility, access and participation, transfer income, and in-kind benefits. Coupled with an extensive array

of economic and demographic data (e.g., employment and job transitions, income,

and family composition), the SIPP will serve to characterize the pre-reform situation

of households quite well.

Further, the Census Bureau worked closely with policy agencies to develop and

field topical modules that enhance the value of the basic SIPP data. Modules of special interest here include those on (1) education and training, (2) marital, fertility,

migration, and program participation histories, (3) family relationships within the

home, (4) work schedules, child care, child support, support for non-household members, (5) medical expenses and use of health care services, and (6) child well-being.

By interviewing the same households in the SPD, analysts would then have data

for the baseline pre-reform period, the reform implementation period, and the medium-term post-reform period. Researchers require these data to assess short-term

and medium-term consequences and outcomes for families and individuals. The use

of both panels will also double the size of certain groups of interest, subject of course

to our ability to recontact households in the two panels and their willingness to participate. (Because the funding provided is not sufficient to interview all households

in both panels past 1997, we will subsample after 1997; see section IV.)

The topics that the SPD will cover are an extension of those covered by the SIPP,

but placed in an annual context using guidance from such annual surveys as the

March supplement to the Current Population Survey, the Panel Study of Income

Dynamics, and the National Longitudinal Surveys.

III. SPD STATUS AND PLANS

Current plans are for data to be collected for each of the six years from 1996

through 2001. This will provide panel data for ten years (1992–2001) when combined with the 1992 SIPP panel data (and nine when combined with the 1993 SIPP

panel data). Our original plans were to have an instrument ready to field concurrently with welfare reform. Because President Clinton vetoed the legislation twice

during 1995, we put our plans on hold. Consequently, we were unable to pretest the

SPD questionnaire and could not field the survey we had designed in 1997.

Nevertheless, we felt it critical to fill the data gap between the end of the SIPP

observations and the start of the basic SPD observations. To do so, we designed the

SPD with three fundamental sections:

(1) the ‘‘bridge’’ survey which will provide the link between the 1992 and 1993

panels of the SIPP and the SPD;

(2) the 1998 SPD which will use the core instrument already developed to collect

annual retrospective data starting in 1998; and

(3) the 1999 (and later) SPD which will include a child well-being module starting

in 1999; its content may vary from year to year.

SPD ‘‘Bridge’’ Survey

It was critical to collect income and program participation data in spring 1997 for

calendar year 1996 from as many of the 1992 and 1993 SIPP households as we

could find, as too long a gap ran the risk of losing too many households and missing

too much going on in their lives. Data for 1996 were collected in April-June 1997

by administering a modified version of the annual March 1997 Current Population

Survey (CPS) demographic supplement, with a few new questions designed to collect

summary 1995 data for the 1992 SIPP panel (who were last interviewed in January

1995).

Eligible for the SPD sample were all SIPP persons interviewed in the first wave

of the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels and still being interviewed at the end of the

panel. We decided not to try to find all persons in the 1992 and 1993 panels who

left the survey (attrited) before the end of the SIPP because of the difficulty and

77

5See James (1998). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the SPD incentive is underway.

6For more information on the design process for the SPD, see Hess and Rothgeb (1998).

7We have not yet finalized this questionnaire.

cost involved in trying to find those people (who had already declined to participate

even after repeated attempts to interview them) and because we felt that most analysts would need as much baseline data as possible. Use of population controls will

reweight the remaining sample cases to represent the U.S. population.

Finding people who move is critical to the success of any longitudinal survey, particularly one as focused on the low-income population as SPD. Naturally, SIPP has

developed many time-tested procedures that will help. But the automated questionnaire instrument must permit such tracking as well. Luckily, the CPS implemented

a ‘‘mover module’’ in January 1997 to track people leaving formerly interviewed CPS

households. This was crucial to the SPD especially given the time that had elapsed

since the last interview, though the CPS approach did not fully meet the needs of

the SPD. We tracked most, though not all, movers and we will attempt to interview

in 1998 those that we know about but could not interview in 1997. We also tested

the use of a $20 monetary incentive for low-income households in an attempt to reduce nonresponse to the Bridge survey; as the Census Bureau has shown that such

an incentive was successful in reducing nonresponse to wave 1 of the 1996 SIPP

panel.5

1998 SPD

During the first half of 1997, the University of California at Berkeley translated

the instrument developed in 1995 6 into computer code; UC-Berkeley is the developer of the CASES authoring language used for computer-assisted Census Bureau

surveys. We carried out a pretest in October 1997 using 400 retired 1996 CPS

households in four of our regional office locations. From this test we will have a

good idea of how well the instrument does in an operational environment. We also

will test the use of a self-administered adolescent questionnaire using audio cassettes to obtain information from youths 12 to 17 years old. Preliminary indications

are that we may have to shorten the questionnaire to fit within our time constraint.

Using the fully developed computer-assisted personal interview instrument, annual data collection will occur once each year in May and June, with annual recall

for the preceding calendar year. The survey will include a set of retrospective questions covering 1997 for all persons aged 15 and older in the household. The topics

covered are

• Basic demographic characteristics, including

—educational enrollment and work training,—functional limitations and disability, and—health care use and health insurance;

• Basic economic characteristics, including

—employment and earnings,—income sources and amounts,—assets, liabilities,

and program eligibility information, and—food security;

• Information about children, including their

—school enrollment and enrichment activities,—disability and health care use,—

contact with absent parent,—care arrangements, and

payment of child support of their behalf; and

• two self-administered questionnaires,

—a short question sequence for adults focusing on marital relationship and conflict and a depression scale, and

—a relatively lengthy questionnaire for adolescents aged 12 to 17 focusing on such

issues as family conflict, vocational goals, educational aspirations, crime-related violence, substance use, and sexual activity, (developed in collaboration with the Child

and Family Research Network).7

1999 SPD and later

Work has begun on identifying the topics for a child well-being module to be

asked in 1999 or later. We plan to focus on elements that allow analysts to measure

changes from pre-reform periods or that illuminate other mechanisms affecting outcomes. One possibility is to collect data on where the children have lived and the

reasons for any absence from the parents. Also under investigation are question

variants to address the changing nature of welfare programs in the 50 states and

the District of Columbia.

IV. TECHNICAL ISSUES

This section deals with four technical issues that affect the administration and

usefulness of the survey—the need for subsampling due to budget constraints,

78

8The microdata from the SIPP surveys are already available on-line at the Census Bureau’s

web site (www.census.gov) through the ‘‘Surveys On-Call’’ program; plans are underway to provide the data as well through FERRET (the Census Bureau’s Federal Electronic Research and

Review Extraction Tool, which already provides the CPS microdata to users). 9 Researchers will be able to analyze drop outs by comparing the prior year’s data file with

the current one.

weighting and database development, the collection of supplementary data, and the

use of administrative records.

Subsampling. It is clear we cannot interview all households in the 1992 and 1993

SIPP panels in 1998. The response rate to the 1997 Bridge survey was good, given

the time that had elapsed since the prior interview—81.7 percent—yielding a sample of 30,125 interviewed households. The budget for the survey, $10 million per

year, will allow us to complete interviews with about 17,500 households in 1998,

given the projected length of the interview. Our current plans are to

• Sample with certainty

—all households with income less than 150 percent of poverty, and

—all households with incomes between 150 percent and 200 percent of poverty

with children;

• Subsample at 80 percent

—all households with incomes above 200 percent of poverty with children;

• Subsample at 50 percent

—all households with incomes between 150 percent and 200 percent of poverty

without children; and

• Subsample at 26 percent

—all households with incomes above 200 percent of poverty without children.

Subsampling will be based upon household characteristics as of the Bridge survey.

Weighting and database development. Three objectives will influence our thinking

on SPD data products and weighting. We want to

• Provide longitudinal data to evaluate the effects of welfare reform;

• Release a data product as soon as possible after collecting the 1997 Bridge data;

and.

• Focus our scarce resources on just the products that our users need most.

The first product the Census Bureau will release is a public use microdata file.

This will include data from the 1997 Bridge data, longitudinal weights to poststratify up to a January 1993 cohort, and codes to link the SIPP and SPD Bridge

data. We will release it as a research file with appropriate caveats. The weights will

be crude, but should suffice for preliminary research purposes. Researchers always

have the option of making additional weighting or imputation adjustments as they

deem necessary for their specific analyses.

We realize that users of the longitudinal data might have a hard time figuring

out how to use data from three separate surveys (SIPP, CPS, and SPD) simultaneously in a longitudinal analysis. Our challenge is therefore to create a longitudinal data set with annual data from all three survey instruments (SIPP, CPS, and

SPD) in a consistent format.8 Our current plans are as follows. The Census Bureau

will release two files each year after 1998 and later SPD data have been collected,

processed, and weighted. The files will include and provide appropriate weights for

households responding to the latest interview. The first file will include (1) the SIPP

1992 and 1993 panel data covering 1992–1994 and 1993–1995 respectively, (2) the

1997 bridge data covering 1995–1996 (1992 panel) or 1996 only (1993 panel), and

(3) the 1998 and later SPD data as originally collected and edited (covering 1997

and later). The second file will attempt to create a consistent set of annual measures

for each year of data (a ‘‘common format’’ file), to simplify the analyst’s chores; this

file will probably use the ‘‘least common denominator’’;—the CPS—as the common

data format.9

These longitudinal products are conceptually the same type of products that we

have issued for the SIPP since its inception. Usually, one defines a longitudinal cohort as all the people interviewed (or for whom data was imputed) in every interview within the period of interest. For example, the 1993–1997 SPD longitudinal cohort will be all those people interviewed from February 1993 through the 1998 SPD

interview (May-June 1998). The control date will be as of the beginning of the cohort period (February 1993 for this example). This creates a nationally representative longitudinal cohort for the population as of the beginning of the cohort period.

We expect the weighting adjustments will compensate for differential nonresponse.

Supplementary data. As noted earlier, the University of Wisconsin will create a

complementary data base of state and county welfare program characteristics to

match to the SPD data. County-level matches must remain confidential, and reVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
79

searchers would have to work on that matched data set at the Census Bureau under

Special Sworn Employee status to maintain respondents’ confidentiality.

Administrative Records. One final hope is that administrative records can enhance

the SIPP and SPD survey data to provide an even broader and long-run picture of

the pre- and post-reform economic situation of the survey households. For example,

Summary Earnings Records from the Social Security Administration for all respondents providing Social Security Numbers (SSN’s) could provide a good way of validating and extending the survey earnings reports (as would matches to income reports provided to the Census Bureau from Internal Revenue Service tax records).

One potentially useful development would be to establish a nationwide tracking

system for welfare recipients based on SSN; such a system could be used to facilitate enforcement of the five-year lifetime assistance limit in the new legislation. We

could then append location information and possibly benefits received to the survey

data for welfare participants, even for those attriting from the sample.

A few other alternatives present themselves. If the SPD can collect employer

name and address successfully, a match to the Standard Statistical Establishment

List can provide the key to links with business data for those in the sample who

are working. If states collect and keep consistent caseload data using SSN’s, and

their laws permit sharing such information with the Census Bureau, that’s another

possibility for enhancing the data files. Finally, we could match summary financial

data about welfare and related expenditures of local and state governments using

the household’s residential location. (Of course, researchers must use confidential information at Census Bureau headquarters or one of its Research Data Centers.)

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The opportunity to do the Survey of Program Dynamics is an exciting one for the

Census Bureau. It is also a sensible investment for the government as it builds on

the investment it already has in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Yet the challenges are daunting, especially given the length of time we will need

to follow households, and as household cooperation with government surveys continues to decline.

REFERENCES

Brick, Michael et al. ‘‘Analysis of Nonresponse and Coverage Adjustment Procedures for a

Dual Frame Survey,’’ Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium XIV, Ottawa, 1998.

Hess, Jennifer and Jennifer Rothgeb. ‘‘Measuring the Impact of Welfare Reform: Issues in Designing the Survey of Program Dynamics Questionnaire,’’ Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium XIV, Ottawa, 1998.

James, Tracy M. ‘‘Results of the Wave 1 Incentive Experiment in the 1996 Survey of Income

and Program Participation,’’ 1997 Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the

American Statistical Association, 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation Users’ Guide, Second Edition

Mr. C

Mr. Rolston.

, Washington DC, 1991.

OLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Weinberg.

f

STATEMENT OF HOWARD ROLSTON, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. ROLSTON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, it

is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the role of research as one

critical element in the success of welfare reform.

This Subcommittee played a key role in making evaluation activities integral to TANF. To illustrate how ACF is using the authority and funding provided by Congress, I’ll describe our State

evaluation activities, including both what we’ve already begun to

learn, and what we can expect to learn in the future.

A central focus of ACF’s evaluation approach is to develop reliable, credible information about how different strategies are workVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
80

ing, in order to inform the State policy choices that TANF flexibility provides, and to inform the public and the Congress as to

how welfare reform is progressing.

I want to mention that the State evaluations I’ll discuss today

are only one part of a broader strategy to develop research and to

disseminate it. Over the past 20 years, the application of experimental approaches to studying the effects of welfare reform has

proven to be enormously important in determining what is effective

and what is not.

In authorizing the Department to fund the continuation of a

number of pre-TANF waiver evaluations, Congress provided the vehicle for obtaining the earliest reliable information on the effectiveness of different State welfare reform strategies on such key goals

as decreasing welfare dependency, increasing employment and

earnings and total family income, and strengthening family structure.

ACF has funded nine States to continue their evaluations with

only minimal change, and an additional eight States to modify

their evaluations. The main questions that the waiver evaluations

answer is, ‘‘What has the totality of the change in State policy

brought about?’’ But there’s another equally important area of

study which examines decisions States need to make about the

parts of their programs.

For example, over the last several years, it has become clear that

many recipients do work, but that their work is sporadic. In addition, many of these families continue to have incomes that are

quite low.

As a part of the creativity that is coming about from a flexible

work-focused system, many States are now experimenting with

what are frequently called ‘‘postemployment services’’ in order to

increase employment persistence in family income. I think you’ve

heard about some of these from earlier witnesses. Rigorous evaluation can tell us which of these approaches are effective in achieving

these goals.

In turning to what we’ve learned so far, I want to stress that it’s

too early to draw inferences with a high degree of confidence. However, the following lessons are suggested. First, most State evaluations indicate significant impacts on the proportion of recipients

and former recipients who are employed. These impacts range from

modest to quite large, as high as 15 percentage points, depending

on the reform intervention and the population subject to it.

Second, States are dramatically increasing the mandatory aspect

of work programs. Sanctions are much more common than anyone

would have predicted. For example, in Delaware, nearly half of participants were sanctioned for failure to cooperate, and in Florida,

31 percent.

Third, although States are getting out the message that welfare

reform is occurring, and despite State efforts to simplify and explain their programs, many recipients don’t have a clear understanding of the new rules. For example, in one State, almost 90

percent of participants knew they were under a time limit, but only

about half knew how to calculate when 1 month counted toward it.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. It was true under AFDC also.

81

Fourth, to date, studies confirm earlier research on the effect of

more generous earnings disregards. They appear more effective

than other policies being evaluated in raising family income for

single-parent families. This was most dramatically illustrated in

Minnesota, where work incentives were a very central feature of

the State’s reforms.

More generous disregards also appear to be increasing the employment of single parents, but they probably also increase the

length of time and the total amount of welfare received over time,

although the welfare received is essentially now a smaller earning

supplement. So far, there is confirmation of previous research that

the effects of more generous disregards on earnings are mixed,

stimulating participants who would not have worked or worked

only a little to earn more, but also stimulating those who have

worked more substantially to earn less than they would have.

Finally, the effects of family income of the common package of

welfare reform, which combines more stringent work requirements,

more generous disregards and time limits are not clear. At this

point, most programs appear not to have increased or decreased average family income by much. More generous programs combining

high benefits with generous disregards and no time limits appear

to do much more to increase family income, but probably also increase governmental costs over the short run.

These early lessons illustrate how the results of our evaluations

hold promise to be highly informative to policymakers at all levels

of government. Our perseverance in carefully evaluating State programs can make a major difference in the extent to which the goals

of welfare reform are realized.

I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Howard Rolston, Ph.D., Director, Office of Planning, Research

and Evaluation Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today

to discuss the role of research as one critical element in the success of welfare reform. This Subcommittee played a key role in making research and evaluation activities integral to TANF. To illustrate how ACF is using the authority and funding

provided by the Congress, I will describe our state evaluation activities, in terms

of both what we have already begun to learn and what we can expect to learn in

the future.

A central focus of ACF’s welfare reform research and evaluation strategy is to develop reliable, credible information about how different strategies are working in

order to inform the state policy choices that TANF flexibility provides. This information can also inform the public and the Congress about how welfare reform is progressing.

A key to developing this wealth of information is through the use of experimental

evaluations of outcomes. These evaluations can shed light on whether state reforms

are meeting the goals of TANF as set forth in the statute—providing assistance to

needy families with children, ending dependence through increasing employment

and marriage, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging two-parent

families.

My testimony today will focus on current evaluations of state programs, primarily

of existing state waiver demonstrations, and future areas to consider for evaluations. I also will share some of our early lessons from these current evaluations. But

before beginning this discussion I first would like to take a quick, broader look at

other research activities funded by ACF.

The waiver evaluations are only one part of a broader welfare reform research

and dissemination effort taking place in ACF. Last year, for example, we were able

to fund nine projects (from over 100 applicants) that are examining a variety of key

82

issues in welfare reform, including implementation of tribal TANF programs, identification of problems and solutions in implementing TANF in rural areas, and a

study of different diversion programs that states are operating.

In addition, we are making careful investments to ensure that knowledge gained

through evaluation is widely disseminated in formats that program operators find

accessible, including the very important Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) ‘‘How-to Guide’’ entitled Work First, How to Implement an

Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare Reform.

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS OF STATE PROGRAM INNOVATIONS

Over the past twenty years, the application of experimental approaches to studying the effects of welfare reform has proven to be enormously important to finding

out what is effective and what is not. Because of its proven track record, in almost

all cases ACF and the state agreed on an experiment as part of the approval of its

waiver demonstrations begun prior to enactment of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. States randomly assigned families either to

continue receiving welfare under the old AFDC rules, the ‘‘control group,’’ or to another group that received welfare under the reform regime, the ‘‘experimental

group.’’

In authorizing the Department to fund the continuation of these evaluations

under TANF, Congress provided the vehicle for obtaining the earliest reliable information on the effects of different state welfare reform strategies in meeting the objectives of TANF. ACF has funded nine states to continue their evaluations with

only minimal changes and an additional eight to modify their evaluations.

Since most of the nine states are continuing waiver policies into TANF with minimal change, by comparing the experimental and control groups over time in a state,

we can reliably determine the causal effect of a state’s reform effort on such key

outcomes as welfare dependency, employment and earnings, total family income,

and family structure. And by looking across states, we can begin to compare the relative effectiveness of different strategies in achieving the various goals of reform.

The ability to look across states is enhanced by the fact that the nine states embody significantly different approaches to key policy decisions. For example, they include states with a variety of time limits: states with strict and standardized time

limits, states with individualized time limits, states that prescribe work after a time

limit, states that eliminate the benefit of the entire family, states that only remove

the benefit of the adults and states with no time limits.

The outcomes in the studies described above primarily concern adults. To better

measure the effects of welfare reform on children, we created a team of twelve

states to think collectively about what outcomes, both positive and negative, they

thought their reforms might produce. We also included researchers to inform the

team on how best to measure these outcomes.

We now have been able to fund five of these states to add a common core of child

outcome measures to their evaluations—Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa and

Minnesota. Because these states represent varying approaches to welfare reform,

the results will produce rigorous information on how different reform policies affect

children.

A LOOK AT FUTURE EVALUATIONS

The main question that the waiver evaluations answer is, ‘‘What has the totality

of the change in state policy brought about?’’ But there is another equally important

area of study to examine decisions that states need to make about the parts of their

programs, if they are to invest their TANF and state funds most effectively.

A particularly important example that illustrates this kind of evaluation is the

increasing efforts by states to improve job retention and advancement. Over the last

several years, it has become clear that many welfare recipients do work, but their

work is sporadic with substantial periods of unemployment and dependency interspersed with work. In addition, many of these families continue to have low incomes. We have learned a lot over the last twenty years about ways that are most

effective to move recipients into work, and most states have moved to ‘‘work first’’

approaches, in part based on that knowledge. Now we need to turn our attention

to learning about how to keep individuals employed more persistently, and how to

raise working families’ income.

As part of the creativity that is coming from a flexible, work-focused system,

many states are now experimenting with what are frequently called ‘‘postemployment services’’ in order to increase employment persistence. For example,

some states are working with employers to provide mentors to individuals with little

work experience; others are providing opportunities for skills enhancement for

83

former recipients who show their commitment to work; and others are addressing

access to health insurance. Rigorous evaluation can tell us which of the approaches,

or the details of them, are actually effective in increasing employment and earnings.

This example suggests how, if we continue to work with states to ensure that the

evaluations we fund answer their most pressing program design questions, we have

a tremendous opportunity to learn which strategies really achieve the goals of welfare reform. And this kind of learning can play a critical role in the success of state

welfare reform efforts.

WHAT WE HAVE BEGUN TO LEARN

In turning to what we have learned so far from these waiver demonstrations, I

want to stress that it is too early to draw inferences with a high degree of confidence. Our ability to learn from the evaluations will certainly grow over time.

Nonetheless, based on the information we have now, the following lessons are suggested.

1. Most state evaluations indicate significant impacts on the proportion of recipients and former recipients who are employed. These impacts range from modest to

quite large, depending on the reform intervention and the population subject to it.

Among the states at the higher end of the range, the proportion of participants

working in the last quarter of follow-up was 8 to 15 percentage points higher for

the welfare reform group than the AFDC control group.

2. States are dramatically increasing the mandatory aspect of work programs. As

with time limits, states have implemented a variety of policies for sanctioning individuals who fail to comply with program requirements, including eliminating a portion of the grant, eliminating the entire grant, and progressive reductions for repeated instances of failure to comply. These sanctions, including whole family sanctions, are much more commonly applied than anyone would have predicted. For example, in Delaware nearly half of the participants were sanctioned for failure to cooperate, and in Florida the sanction rate was 31 percent for the welfare reform

group compared to 7 percent for the control group.

3. Although states are getting out the message that welfare reform is occurring,

and despite state efforts to simplify and explain their programs, many recipients do

not have a clear understanding of the new rules. For example, they may know that

there’s a time limit, but do not have a good idea of how months are counted toward

it. Thus, in one state almost 90 percent of participants knew they were under a time

limit, but only about half understood the circumstances under which a month counted. This is not a new phenomenon since recipients seldom understood AFDC rules

either.

4. To date, the studies confirm earlier research on the effectiveness of more generous earnings disregards. Earnings disregards appear to be more effective than

other policies being evaluated in raising family income for single parent families.

This was most dramatically illustrated in Minnesota where work incentives were a

very central feature of the state’s reforms.

In theory, more generous disregards should increase the employment of single parents, and it appears likely that this is happening in current state reform efforts.

At the same time, they probably also increase the length of time, and amount of

welfare received over time, although the welfare received is now essentially a smaller earnings supplement. For example, again in Minnesota, under its demonstration,

which had no time limit, both duration and amount of welfare were significantly increased. But even in states with time limits and tough work requirements, welfare

duration prior to the exhaustion of the time limit was not reduced.

Previous research suggested that the effects of more generous disregards on earnings are mixed, stimulating participants who would not have worked, or worked

only a little, to earn more, but also stimulating those who would have worked more

substantially to earn less than they would have. The results in Minnesota seem to

confirm this with average earnings increasing substantially for long-term urban recipients, but declining substantially for two-parent families (especially women).

5. The effects on family income of the common package of welfare reform, which

combines more stringent work requirements, more generous disregards and time limits, are not clear. At this point, most programs appear not to have increased or decreased average family income by much, although undoubtedly, these averages

mask the fact that some families have experienced positive effects and some have

experienced negative effects. More generous programs combining high benefits with

generous disregards and no time limits appear to do much more to increase family

income, but probably also increase governmental costs at least in the short run.

Thus, over an 18-month follow-up period Minnesota reduced poverty by nearly 15

84

percentage points for long-term urban recipients, but increased welfare costs by

about 8 percent.

CONCLUSION

These early lessons, I believe, illustrate how the results of our evaluations hold

the promise to be highly informative to policy makers at all levels of government.

Our perseverance in carefully evaluating the results of these shifts in states’ programs can make a major difference in the extent to which the goals of welfare reform are realized.

I would be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. C

Ms. Blum.

OLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Rolston.

f

STATEMENT OF BARBARA BLUM, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH

FORUM ON CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND THE NEW FEDERALISM, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHILDREN IN POVERTY

Ms. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. It’s a very great pleasure to appear before you today to

discuss ways in which Congress can be well and timely informed

of effects attributable to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

As my written testimony indicates, obtaining information is complicated now by the dynamics of devolution, which encourage variation in policy and practice among States and localities. Understanding what information will be available, when it can be obtained and how it can be accessed is critically important.

Congress has a responsibility to govern well for all its citizens.

Since welfare participants are among this country’s most vulnerable citizens, and since two-thirds of these participants are children, this Subcommittee’s concerns about the effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program are commendable.

My observations for this hearing are, in summary: First, findings

exist from earlier research that create parameters for understanding the degree to which the welfare reforms of 1996 have

changed the welfare equation. Are the demographics of the TANF

population different from those of the AFDC population, as analyzed by Bane and Ellwood? Do modest investments still produce

modest returns, as MDRC’s experiments have almost uniformly

shown? Are interventions for teen parents having greater success

in achieving employment and earnings than in the past? How are

the long-term participants faring as compared to the supported

work participants in the early eighties? Are financial incentive

components continuing to produce significant positive effects?

Answers to these questions are important and can help us understand the workings of TANF and other welfare-related changes

across States and localities.

Second, there is highly relevant information emerging, as you’ve

heard, from the waiver experiments. Implementation and impact

findings from these projects should be carefully analyzed to discover the effects of States’ efforts in the early nineties, to test time

limits, family caps, financial incentives, school mandates, and other

85

program requirements. These findings will help us understand results that will be emerging in other States implementing now similar changes.

Third, there are areas in which research efforts should be expanded. They include learning about child outcomes, which has

been discussed a lot today, studying the experience of substance

abusers in the TANF Program, tracking the impact of the Reconciliation Act on the immigrant populations, studying implementation issues, and assessing the status over time of those denied access to or leaving the TANF Program.

Fourth, early information about the systemic effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on

State and local policies and programs will be available through research from the Rockefeller Institute and the Urban Institute. But

more attention should be paid to fostering such well-designed implementation studies at the State and local levels. These can highlight how changes are actually being implemented.

Fifth, State capacity to use administrative data is important, because these data provide snapshots of client well-being, and allow

us to see trends over time. State management information system

capabilities need to be strengthened, and confidentiality issues resolved to enable research that will provide timely and accurate information.

Sixth, large data sets need to be enhanced so that they are representative of State or local populations and can be usefully mined.

The Census Bureau’s initiative, the survey of program dynamics, is

of particular importance.

Seventh, impact studies should be encouraged to study promising

programs as they emerge, and funds should be provided for their

development and execution.

Finally, systematic ways to archive and share information about

research initiatives should be fostered. The Welfare Reform Academy at the University of Maryland hosts monthly satellite broadcast conferences on various topics of welfare reform, and has convened an expert panel to evaluate current research efforts. The inventory of projects created by the Congressional Research Service

on behalf of this Subcommittee is very useful. The data base developed by the Research Forum on Children, Families and the New

Federalism is another resource providing access to extensive information about recent and current research projects.

But while facilitating the collection and exchange of research information is critical, the experience of the Research Forum during

the past 14 months indicates that much more is needed. Many opportunities exist to improve research design, to facilitate coordination among researchers, and to develop a consensus about appropriate use of research methods.

Most of all, researchers need to be encouraged to address questions of relevance to policymakers and practitioners. Our ultimate

goal should be the ability to provide extensive and understandable

information to policymakers like yourselves, to researchers, to practitioners, to funders and to the media.

Knowledge is power, and in this instance, power to make informed decisions.

Thank you very much.

86

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Barbara Blum, Director, Research Forum on Children,

Families and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty

WHAT WILL WE KNOW AND WHEN WILL WE KNOW IT?

Subcommittee members have expressed an interest in learning from the Administration and from state and local administrators about how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 is being implemented, and from representatives of the U.S. Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, HHS/ACF, and the Research Forum, of ways in which Congress can

be informed about the effects of recent changes in welfare and related policies.

Certainly, the 1996 statute that created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) and modified many aspects of welfare policy has profound implications for

millions of our citizens and immigrant residents.

The statute’s thrust to devolve decision-making to state and local levels is stimulating great variation in program design at the state and local levels. The increased

requirements for work participation and the imposition of time limits create challenges for state and local staff as well as for the TANF participants. Changes in

food stamp and other benefits for immigrant populations are likely to have a huge

impact on hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Thus, understanding what information will be available, when it can be obtained,

and how it can be accessed is critically important. Congress has a responsibility to

govern well for all its citizens. Since welfare participants are among this country’s

most vulnerable citizens and 8.8 million—or two-thirds—of these participants are

children, this subcommittee’s concerns about the effects of PRWORA and TANF are

commendable.

Earlier Relevant Research

In examining what information will be available, the backdrop of earlier research

findings should be kept very much in evidence. This is true for several reasons.

First, during the 1980s a significant number of analyses and experiments began to

produce information that improved our understanding of the welfare population and

the effects of various interventions. Second, findings from this early research constitute a template against which changes produced by PRWORA can be compared.

Third, the earlier research findings have frequently raised additional questions that

need to be answered in order to make further progress in designing new interventions.

Research accomplishments in the 1980s included analyses of the dynamics of the

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) population by Bane and Ellwood,

which provided new information about the heterogeneity of the welfare population

and about client characteristics which were correlated with duration in the caseload.

Experiments fielded by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation

(MDRC) in eight states studied a range of interventions (i.e. job search, community

work experience programs (CWEP), grant diversion, education, training). These

projects were rigorously designed using randomized samples to measure the impact

of a specific intervention or sequenced combinations of interventions.

The results of the experiments consistently showed modest benefits from modest

investments in the tested interventions. Employment and income gains were reported for the experimental groups, along with modest reductions in welfare costs

and dependency.

It was also the case that impacts were largest for those least well off. That is,

employment and income benefits and welfare savings were greater for members of

experimental groups who had had the least prior work experience, and lowest grade

completion.

The experiments also showed that job search, when well administered (as in

Riverside’s Greater Avenues for Independence—GAIN—program) could be a very effective intervention for moving participants into the workforce. Education and training require a significant investment over time; thus, impacts were not identified in

the near term. Nevertheless, given the very low levels of educational attainment by

many welfare participants (a recent national survey shows 64% of welfare recipients

not completing high school) and the skill demands of today’s workplace, the outcomes achieved in well designed education and training programs like Comprehensive Employment Training (CET) should not be dismissed.

Three earlier experiments have addressed teen parents and dependency. New

Chance was designed by MDRC to study the impacts of a comprehensive services

intervention on mothers and children. The Learning, Earning and Parenting ProVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
87

gram (LEAP), an Ohio experiment evaluated by MDRC, provided financial incentives and disincentives based on the teen parent’s school attendance. The Teen Parent Demonstration (TPD), evaluated by Mathematica, imposed mandates on teen

participants that triggered financial sanctions for non-compliance.

A comprehensive review of findings from these three projects, sponsored by the

Joint Center on Poverty Research (JCPR), MDRC, Mathematica, and the Research

Forum demonstrated the difficulty of making a difference among the teen parent

population. While LEAP and TPD produced better school attendance, findings from

all three projects were disappointing. Particularly important is evidence in New

Chance that obtaining a GED had no effect on subsequent employment and earnings.

Two other experiments are cited because each showed positive impacts for a distinct welfare group. The first, MDRC’s Supported Work, was an experiment with

structured work experience designed to increase demands on the worker over time.

In this experiment, very disadvantaged women who were long term welfare recipients benefited significantly.

The second, the New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP), evaluated by Abt

Associates, Inc. is a program designed to increase income from employment with

child support incentives. The women were required to establish paternity as a condition for participation. Employment and income gains as well as savings to the state

were significant.

Research in the 1990s

During the 1990s, a new wave of research developed reflecting the interest of

many states to institute changes through waiver authority. Authorization of these

waivers was granted subject to HHS approval of a rigorous evaluation. Thus, today

we are the beneficiaries of a significant number of research projects studying program components—such as time limits, family caps, and financial incentives—now

being implemented in new TANF programs.

Most of these more recent research projects are included in a database that has

been developed by the Research Forum with support from the Annie E. Casey, Russell Sage, Edna McConnell Clark, and Chase Manhattan Foundations. The Research

Forum, hosted at the National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University

School of Public Health has three purposes, all relevant to the changes in social policy that we are discussing at this hearing. They are: • To encourage rigorous, comparable, and policy-relevant research as a means of

monitoring and evaluation; • To promote collaboration among researchers, funders, policymakers, state and

local program administrators, and practitioners; • To facilitate the exchange of research-based information among key stakeholders.

To support the third purpose, a database accessible through an interactive web

site—http://www.researchforum.org—has been designed to include extensive information about research projects that meet three criteria. They are large scale and

frequently multi-site; they have been designed by social scientists who are recognized as having contributed to the field; and they are relevant to TANF. (Other

projects not meeting all of these criteria will be included later this year in an abbreviated form.)

Currently, 35 research projects are included in the database (see listing, p.13–14).

Of these, 22 include impact research (see listing, p.15). Twenty-five are implementation studies, 20 of which are linked to impact studies (see listing, p. 16). In addition,

the database includes 20 descriptive or analytical studies (see listing, p. 17).

Most important, the research projects in the database can be sorted by components being evaluated. The major components include:

• Changes in Child Support

• Changes in Eligibility

• Educational Activities

• Employment Activities

• Family Caps

• Financial Disincentives/Sanctions

• Food Stamps

• Program operations/implementation

• Program Requirements

• Support Services

• Time Limits

Important information about these components is emerging and will continue to

emerge during the next several years. For example, a number of states are testing

time limits.

88

Early findings from implementation and descriptive/analytical studies in some of

these states are already available. Early impact findings are available for sites in

Florida, Connecticut, and Delaware; descriptive/analytical studies have been completed in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin.

Schedule of Project Reports on Impacts on Time Limits

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Florida ....... Interim ..... Interim ..... Interim ..... Final ......... ...................

Connecticut Interim ..... Interim ..... Interim ..... ................... ................... Final

Vermont ... ................... Interim ..... ................... ................... ................... Final

Delaware ... Interim ..... ................... ................... ................... ...................

In addition to NYCAP, a number of projects are testing financial incentives (see

listing, p 18). Of particular interest are Canada’s Self-Sufficiency experiment and

Minnesota’s Family Investment Program (MFIP). In both instances, there is an impressive take-up by participants, suggesting that more sophisticated approaches to

supplementing wages should be explored. (I stress this because I believe we are all

seeking for ways to ensure that working families have sufficient subsistence to provide food, shelter, and clothing for their children.)

Projects in the database may be searched and analyzed according to the program

components previously cited, as well as other the other project characteristics, such

as the sites studied, outcomes assessed and organizations involved.

Publications

It is also possible to estimate when specific reports will be published. Here, for

example, are projections for reports that researchers have shared with the Research

Forum. These projections are entered into the database and currently available

through the web site:

April 1998

• Canada’s Self Sufficiency Project: 18-month Impacts

June 1998

• Evaluation of ‘‘To Strengthen Michigan’s Families’’: Sixth Annual Report

• Postemployment Services Demonstration: Final Report on Implementation

July 1998

• Canada’s Self Sufficiency Project: Report on SSP Plus

November 1998

• Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary Impact Findings

December 1998

• Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Implementation Report on Policies

and Practices of Individual Sites

• Arizona EMPOWER Process Study: Interim Report

January 1999

• Vermont Welfare Reform Evaluation Project: Final Report

June 1999

• Arizona EMPOWER: Cost-Benefit Analysis Final Report

• Evaluation of ‘‘To Strengthen Michigan’s Families’’: Seventh Annual Report

July 1999

• Canada’s Self Sufficiency Project: 36-month Impacts

December 1999

• Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Early Impact Results, by Site

• Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Implementation Follow-up Report, by

Site

• Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Reports on Ethnographic Reports and

Community Institutions, by Site

89

January 2000

• Evaluation of ‘‘To Strengthen Michigan’s Families’’: Final Report on Eight Years

of Demonstration Operations and Cost-Benefit Study

June 2000

• Evaluation of ‘‘To Strengthen Michigan’s Families’’: Eighth Annual Report

December 2001

• Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Final Impact Results (Individual and

Aggregate)

• Arizona EMPOWER Impact Study Draft Report

April 2002

• Arizona EMPOWER Demonstration Final Evaluation Report

• Arizona EMPOWER Impact Study Final Report

• Arizona EMPOWER Process Study Final Report

Gaps in Current Research

One aspect of the database that is seldom discussed relates to how it helps to

identify gaps in what is being studied on scale. Several areas are quite evident:

Child Outcomes: Children comprise about two-thirds of welfare caseloads, yet welfare research projects have seldom incorporated direct assessments of their wellbeing. Embedded in MDRC’s National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies

(formerly JOBS) is an important set of studies on child impacts; one of which is an

observational study of parent/child interactions. Results of these studies will be

available in about six months.

The Department of Health and Human Services has worked extensively with

twelve states to stimulate interest in evaluating child outcomes. Funds have been

provided to five of these states to support this work on child outcomes. Much more

needs to be done.

Substance Abuse: Currently, the National Center on Addiction and Substance

Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), with support from the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, is planning an experiment. This is the single large scale effort planned

to examine an intervention for TANF participants who are substance users. Despite

generous foundation funding, the sample size of this project will be relatively small,

and child outcomes may not be addressed. Yet, we know that individuals abusing

drugs comprise one of the most problematic groups in our TANF population and

that effects of this parental condition on children should be better understood.

Immigrants: This population is subject to the earliest and most extensive changes,

yet only the Urban Institute’s New Federalism project and a few other more modest

projects are currently studying impacts related to PRWORA changes.

Rural Issues: While urban areas deserve attention, we also should be studying

rural areas, particularly those with high concentrations of population on welfare (i.e.

Fresno County, California with 220,000 TANF participants out of 660,000 total population).

Systematic Follow-Up of Those Who Leave the Rolls: Except for the Urban Institute’s New Federalism project very little work is being done across states or on a

large scale to follow individuals longitudinally. Efforts by individual states and the

Hudson Institute in Milwaukee provide only limited information about the effects

of exits on children.

Areas of Research Development/Research Tools

Having described in broad strokes what we will know and what we will not know,

it is important to examine not only when but how we can learn more.

Implementation Studies

One avenue to understanding what is or is not happening will be to pay attention

to implementation studies as they emerge. Frequently we have created strong Federal and state statutes, setting appropriate policy direction, but have failed to see

those policies translated into practice. That can be understood, since change is hard

to achieve and involves many levels of political structure and of management. Nevertheless, since PRWORA institutes change of a magnitude seldom proposed and

since it will influence the lives of so many families, knowing what is and is not

being achieved is essential to understanding the end effects.

As identified earlier, some of the implementation studies are part of research

projects that also evaluate the impact of specific program components such as time

90

limits and family cap. Such studies can be extraordinarily informative in suggesting

ways in which these interventions can be more effectively implemented.

In a few instances, implementation or process research will be differently cast.

For instance, the Rockefeller Institute project directed by Richard Nathan is studying the states to identify the degree and nature of change attributable to PRWORA.

This work and the work undertaken by the Urban Institute in its New Federalism

Project will provide invaluable ‘‘advance notice’’ of what is going on generally, while

reflecting the variations that PRWORA encourages.

Implementation studies have in the past been delegated to a lesser status than

other types of research. During this period of dynamic change, new value needs to

be attached to this genre of research. Important work has been initiated by the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the University of Wisconsin to mobilize a

diverse and distinguished group of researchers in order to foster attention on the

contributions of well-designed implementation studies during a period when, for instance, creating a controlled experiment is not feasible or when information is needed in the short term.

Administrative Data

In this era of computerized management, it seems clear that some of the most

timely and accurate information about PRWORA should come from links between

administrative data sets. In some states, this potential is developing very well; in

many other states, capacity remains quite weak. (This is one instance in which variation may not be desirable.) It is clear that, in order to even partially answer certain basic questions, more extensive data links are needed. A few examples: • TANF match with Unemployment Insurance (UI) and/or wage reporting systems will identify that portion of the TANF caseload moving into jobs with benefits. • TANF match with the Internal Revenue Service records would give information

on tax paying and income status. • TANF match with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would give information on wage level achieved as well as the EITC supplement. • TANF match with Child Support Enforcement (CSE) would show whether some

custodial parent income is provided to supplement other sources of income. • TANF match with Medicaid and Food Stamps would show what benefits are

continued after termination of cash benefits. • TANF match with the protective and foster care system would identify problems

affecting children (obviously constructed with confidentiality safeguards).

Confidentiality and capacity issues need to be addressed in order to fast-forward

the use of administrative data.

Large Data Sets

There are some opportunities to mine the major data sets—for example, the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), Panel Study of Income Dynamics

(PSID), National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), Current Population Survey

(CPS)—but there may be greater opportunities to examine how these data sets have

been constructed and to address issues of sample size within states, coverage of program participation, and assessment of child and family outcomes.

For example, the Census Bureau is extending two existing panels of SIPP in order

to monitor the effects on families of the devolution of welfare policy. The result, entitled the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD), is a large, longitudinal, nationally representative survey of program participation over a ten-year period, starting prior to

and ending after the enactment of TANF. Attention will be given to measuring the

effects of these new policies on the well-being of individual recipients, their families,

and their children.

Impact Studies

As a former state administrator and then, subsequently, president at MDRC, I

want to make a personal pitch to support impact research, particularly randomized

studies. The current ferment will settle down; some exemplary initiatives will be

recognized. These should be tested at the earliest time possible.

My own experience has been that controlled experiments yield far superior information. Future work should foster such rigorous research initiatives.

In Conclusion and to Recapitulate

• First, findings exist from earlier research that create parameters for understanding the degree to which PRWORA has changed the welfare equation. Are the

demographics of the TANF population different from those of the AFDC population

as analyzed by Bane and Ellwood? Do modest investments still produce modest returns? Are TANF strategies able to move individuals with low educational and emVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:27 Oct 27, 1999 Jkt 058826 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\58826 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
91

ployment experience into the workforce? Are interventions for teen parents having

greater success in achieving employment and earnings than past interventions?

How are the long-term participants faring as compared to Supported Work participants? Are financial incentive components continuing to produce positive effects?

Answers to these questions are important and can help us understand the workings of TANF and other PRWORA changes across states and localities.

• Second, there is relevant information emerging from the ‘‘waiver experiments.’’

Implementation and impact findings from these projects should be carefully analyzed to discover the effects of states’ efforts in the early 1990s to test time limits,

family caps, financial incentives, school mandates, and other program requirements.

These findings will help us understand results that may emerge in other states implementing similar changes.

• Third, there are areas in which research efforts should be expanded. They include: learning more about child outcomes, studying the experience of substance

abusers in the TANF program, tracking the impact of PRWORA on the immigrant

population, studying implementation issues in rural areas, and assessing the status

of those leaving the TANF program.

• Fourth, early information about the systemic effects of PRWORA on state and

local policies and program will be available through work at the Rockefeller Institute and the Urban Institute. More attention should be given to fostering such welldesigned implementation studies at the state and local levels; these can highlight

how well changes are actually implemented.

• Fifth, state capacity to use administrative data is important because these data

provide ‘‘snapshots’’ of client well being and allow us to see trends over time. State

management information system (MIS) capabilities need to be strengthened and

confidentiality issues resolved to enable research that will provide timely and accurate information.

• Sixth, large data sets need to be enhanced so that they are representative of

state or local populations and can be usefully mined. The Census Bureau’s initiative, the Survey of Program Dynamics, is of particular importance.

• Seventh, impact studies should be encouraged as promising programs emerge,

and funds should be provided for their development and execution.

Finally, systematic ways to archive and share information about research initiatives should be fostered. The Welfare Reform Academy at the University of Maryland hosts monthly satellite broadcast conferences on various topics of welfare reform and has convened an expert panel to evaluate current research efforts. The inventory of projects created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on behalf

of this committee is very useful. The database developed by the Research Forum on

Children, Families, and the New Federalism is another resource.

But, while facilitating the collection and exchange of research information is critical to providing information, the experience of the Research Forum on Children,

Families, and the New Federalism during the past fourteen months indicates that

much more is needed. There exists many opportunities to improve research design;

to facilitate coordination among researchers; and to develop a consensus about research method, terms, and definitions, comparability in research questions, and

common outcomes. Most of all, researchers need to be encouraged to address questions of relevance to policy makers and practitioners.

Our ultimate goal should be the ability to provide extensive and understandable

information to policymakers like yourselves, to other researchers, to practitioners,

to funders, and to the media. Knowledge is power—in this instance, the power to

make informed decisions.

Project List

Title Evaluator

A Better Chance Evaluation ................................................................. Abt

Alabama ASSETS Evaluation .............................................................. Abt

Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration ........................ Abt

Assessing the New Federalism ............................................................. Urban Institute

Big Cities Confront the New Politics of Child and Family Policy ..... Columbia SSW

Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project ......................................................... SDRC

Confronting the New Politics of Child and Family Policy in the

U.S..

Columbia SSW

Connecticut’s Job’s First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project .......... MDRC

Devolution of Welfare: Assessing Children’s Changing Environments and Effects on School Readiness.Yale

Devolution, Welfare Reform, and Wellbeing Study ............................ Columbia SSW

92

Project List—Continued

Title Evaluator

Florida Family Transition Program (FTP) Evaluation ...................... MDRC

Fragile Families Project ........................................................................ Columbia/Princeton

GAIN Evaluation ................................................................................... MDRC

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Evaluation ................................... Mathematica

JOBS–PLUS Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families.MDRC

LEAP Evaluation ................................................................................... MDRC

Minnesota’s Family Investment Program (MFIP) Evaluation .......... MDRC

Monitoring States’ Welfare Reforms .................................................... GAO

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (formerly

JOBS).

MDRC

New Chance Demonstration ................................................................. MDRC

New Hope Project .................................................................................. MDRC

New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Evaluation .............. Abt

Newark Young Family Study (sub-study of Teenage Parent Demonstration Program).Columbia/NCCP

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ..................................................... MDRC

Postemployment Services Demonstration ........................................... Mathematica

Project on Devolution and Urban Change ........................................... MDRC

State Capacity Study ............................................................................ Rockefeller Inst.

State Policies and Practices Regarding Substance Abuse, Medicaid,

and the Employment Needs of Welfare Recipients.

CASA

State Policy Documentation Project ..................................................... CBPP

Substance Abuse, Economic Self-Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform .. CASA

Teenage Parent Demonstration Program ............................................ Mathematica

To Strengthen Michigan’s Families (TSMF) Evaluation ................... Abt

Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project Evaluation .......................... MDRC

Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families: A

Multi-City Study.

U Chicago

Welfare Reform: States’ Early Experiences with Benefit Termination GAO

Project List

[Impact Studies]

Title Evaluator

A Better Chance Evaluation ......................................................... Abt

Alabama ASSETS Evaluation ....................................................... Abt

Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration ................. Abt

Assessing the New Federalism ..................................................... Urban Institute

Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project ................................................. SDRC

Connecticut’s Job’s First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project .. MDRC

Florida Family Transition Program ............................................. MDRC

GAIN Evaluation ........................................................................... MDRC

JOBS-PLUS Community Revitalization Initiative for Public

Housing.

MDRC

LEAP Evaluation ........................................................................... MDRC

Minnesota’s Family Investment Program (MFIP) Evaluation ... MDRC

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (formerly

JOBS).

MDRC

New Chance Demonstration ......................................................... MDRC

New Hope Project .......................................................................... MDRC

New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Evaluation ....... Abt

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ............................................. MDRC

Postemployment Services Demonstration .................................... Mathematica

Project on Devolution and Urban Change ................................... MDRC

Substance Abuse, Economic Self-Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform.CASA

Teenage Parent Demonstration Program .................................... Mathematica

To Strengthen Michigan’s Families (TSMF) Evaluation ............ Abt

Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project Evaluation ................... MDRC

93

Project List

[Implementation Studies]

Title Evaluator

A Better Chance Evaluation* ....................................................... Abt

Alabama ASSETS Evaluation* ..................................................... Abt

Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration* ............... Abt

Assessing the New Federalism ..................................................... Urban Institute

Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project* ................................................ SDRC

Connecticut’s Job’s First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project* MDRC

GAIN Evaluation* ......................................................................... MDRC

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Evaluation ........................... Mathematica

JOBS–PLUS Community Revitalization Initiative for Public

Housing.

MDRC

LEAP Evaluation* ......................................................................... MDRC

Minnesota’s Family Investment Program (MFIP) Evaluation* MDRC

Monitoring States’ Welfare Reforms ............................................ GAO

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (formerly

JOBS)*.

MDRC

New Chance Demonstration* ........................................................ MDRC

New Hope Project* ......................................................................... MDRC

New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Evaluation* ..... Abt

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration* ........................................... MDRC

Postemployment Services Demonstration* .................................. Mathematica

Project on Devolution and Urban Change* ................................. MDRC

State Capacity Study ..................................................................... Rockefeller Inst.

Substance Abuse, Economic Self-Sufficiency, and Welfare

Reform*.

CASA

Teenage Parent Demonstration Program * ................................. Mathematica

To Strengthen Michigan’s Families (TSMF) Evaluation* .......... Abt

Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project Evaluation* ................. MDRC

Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families:

A Multi-City Study.

U Chicago

Projects marked with ‘‘*’’ are linked to impact studies.

Project List

[Descriptive Studies]

Title Evaluator

A Better Chance Evaluation ......................................................... Abt

Assessing the New Federalism ..................................................... Urban Institute

Big Cities Confront the New Politics of Child and Family Policy.Columbia SSW

Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project ................................................. SDRC

Confronting the New Politics of Child and Family Policy in the

U.S..

Columbia SSW

Devolution of Welfare: Assessing Children’s Changing Environments.Yale

Devolution, Welfare Reform, and Wellbeing Study .................... Columbia SSW

Fragile Families Project ................................................................ Columbia/Princeton

Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Evaluation ........................... Mathematica

Monitoring States’ Welfare Reforms ............................................ GAO

Newark Young Family Study (sub-study of Teenage Parent ..... Columbia/NCCP

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ............................................. MDRC

Postemployment Services Demonstration .................................... Mathematica

Project on Devolution and Urban Change ................................... MDRC

State Capacity Study ..................................................................... Rockefeller Inst.

State Policies and Practices Regarding Substance Abuse, Medicaid,.CASA

State Policy Documentation Project ............................................. CBPP

Teenage Parent Demonstration Program .................................... Mathematica

Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families:

A Multi-City Study.

U Chicago

94

Project List—Continued

[Descriptive Studies]

Title Evaluator

Welfare Reform: States’ Early Experiences with Benefit Termination.GAO

Project List

[Projects Studying Financial Incentives]

Title Evaluator

A Better Chance Evaluation ......................................................... Abt

Alabama ASSETS Evaluation ....................................................... Abt

Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Demonstration ................. Abt

Assessing the New Federalism ..................................................... Urban Institute

Canada’s Self-Sufficiency Project ................................................. SDRC

Confronting the New Politics of Child and Family Policy in the

United.

Columbia SSW

Connecticut’s Job’s First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project .. MDRC

Florida Family Transition Program (FTP) Evaluation ............... MDRC

GAIN Evaluation ........................................................................... MDRC

JOBS–PLUS Community Revitalization Initiative for Public

Housing.

MDRC

LEAP Evaluation ........................................................................... MDRC

Minnesota’s Family Investment Program (MFIP) Evaluation ... MDRC

Monitoring States’ Welfare Reforms ............................................ GAO

National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (formerly

JOBS).

MDRC

New Hope Project .......................................................................... MDRC

New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Evaluation ....... Abt

Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ............................................. MDRC

Postemployment Services Demonstration .................................... Mathematica

Project on Devolution and Urban Change ................................... MDRC

State Policy Documentation Project ............................................. CBPP

Substance Abuse, Economic Self-Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform.CASA

To Strengthen Michigan’s Families (TSMF) Evaluation ............ Abt

Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project Evaluation ................... MDRC

Government Grants to NCCP in Past 2 Years

Amount Title Project Period

$100,000 .......................... Child Care Research Partnership ......................... 9/30/95 – 9/29/96

$100,000 .......................... Child Care Research Partnership ......................... 9/30/96 – 9/29/97

$136,000 .......................... Child Care Research Partnership ......................... 9/30/97 – 9/29/98

$200,000 .......................... Child Care Research Partnership Affecting Welfare Recipients & Low Income Working Families.

9/30/97 – 9/29/98

$35,000 ............................ Process Evaluation Pronect (thru University of

Wisconsin).

10/1/97 – 9/30/98

$103,000 .......................... State Welfare Reform Demonstrations and Infant & Toddler Care (thru Teacher’s College).8/1/96 – 7/31/97

$13,000 ............................ Child Health and Development Programs in the

Context of Welfare Reform.

f

9/30/97 – 9/29/98

Mr. MCCRERY [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Blum.

Mr. Levin.

Mr. LEVIN. Well, simply to say thank you very much. This is a

wonderful note upon which to end this hearing. The belief that

95

knowledge counts is critical. I think all of you have suggested to

us and everybody that before we reach final conclusions, we should

have as many facts as we can.

I’m glad we provided the money for these programs. I’m glad

there’s a lot of private research going on. And, the more the better,

because this effort is worthy of it.

I have been somewhat discouraged to ask some questions, since

your testimony has suggested that we had better ask a lot of questions as these programs continue to unfold.

Thanks.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Matsui.

Mr. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. McCrery.

Ms. Blum, 50 different States now have programs. And in California, some counties have a lot of flexibility. What are we really

looking at? When we had, obviously, the Family Support Act of

1988, which is actually a work first program as well, but some people may not have read it, we had one program. And we were able

to collect data, we were able to analyze it.

Obviously, there were some flaws in it. I thought in terms of the

fund for the work program, we shouldn’t have had such a tough

match for States, particularly when they were in a recession.

Ms. BLUM. Right.

Mr. MATSUI. They never really got to it until about 1994. I think

once they started getting to it, that’s when we started seeing

progress, and that’s why in 1996, we started to see some progress

on it.

Nevertheless, it’s over. It’s gone. How are we going to collect the

data and how are we going to analyze these different programs?

And I’ll ask you this, also, Dr. Rolston. Because you’ve got so many

programs now, how do you say, this is working. Because there is

so much flexibility with various States and various counties, like

in California. Perhaps you can help us with this.

Ultimately, we’re going to need, 1 year from now or 2 years from

now, an evaluation. And my State may work well, some other State

may not work well. Maybe my State won’t work well, but maybe

New York will.

How do we evaluate it?

Ms. BLUM. You and I certainly agree on the Family Support Act,

entirely.

Mr. MATSUI. Exactly.

Ms. BLUM. However, in answer to your question, I think my written testimony highlights the difficulty that you are suggesting. We

are going to have to take our evaluations down to the local level.

I think that can be good, because we’ll really understand community effects.

I was in your State about 3 weeks ago, and heard about Fresno

County, where there are 660,000 people in the county, 220,000 on

the rolls, with an agricultural economy. Now, we have to understand that that county is going to operate very differently from an

urban area. And I think the research community is hard at work

now, trying to understand how to move their work down to the

community level. I also think administrative data become extraordinarily important.

96

But we also can look at measures, child poverty measures will

tell us a story, wage levels at the local level will tell us a story.

We have to start thinking, it seems to me, very differently. And of

course, Dick Nathan has been thinking about this for a long, long

time.

Mr. MATSUI. Maybe I can ask you, Dr. Rolston. How are you, I’m

assuming you’re in charge of collecting the data and coming up

with some conclusions on this, is that my understanding? Yes.

Well, that’s good. I’m glad we have somebody in charge at HHS

who’s going to be held responsible and accountable. Maybe you

don’t want to have that word, but at least accountable for the collection of data, so 2 years from now, when we sit down with you

or you appear before us, we’re going to be able to say, is it working,

and you’re going to be able to give us hard evidence that it is or

isn’t working, or these are changes that could be made.

Now, tell me how, what’s your methodology? It certainly is not

going to go to some welfare office and say, geez, everybody’s really

excited, they wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and say,

I want to go to work. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re

talking about data.

How are you going to do this?

Mr. ROLSTON. I guess the reason I don’t actually say I’m in

charge of it is because, I think it’s like many other areas. There’s

no single person in charge of it. As Barbara described, there are

a lot of people who have to do this. There isn’t going to be a single

study that’s going to answer the question.

There’s going to have to be a multiplicity of studies that answer

a variety of questions. I think some of it’s going to be triangulation

of a lot of different approaches.

I mean——

Mr. MATSUI. Triangulation? I don’t understand that. I don’t even

understand that from Dick Morris.

Mr. ROLSTON. This is a very significant piece of social legislation,

and I don’t think there is a way to do a single study that will in

any definitive way answer what is the effect of welfare reform in

Omaha versus Los Angeles versus some place else.

At the same time, I do think there are tremendous opportunities.

One of our best methods of learning, we’ve learned over the last 20

years, is through experiments. A number of people have alluded to

them.

Mr. MATSUI. But I think what Ms. Blum is saying, though, is

that, you see, this is just the problem. In a way it’s kind of clever,

and I know you’re not suggesting it’s clever, but it’s very clever. Because you can’t hold anybody accountable any more.

Mr. ROLSTON. Well, no, I——

Mr. MATSUI. Well, no, no, because now it’s at the local level. So

it’s a supervisor or it’s a city council member or it’s the mayor.

How do we do this? Ms. Blum is talking about poverty rates. Is

that a major factor?

Mr. ROLSTON. Yes, I think——

Mr. MATSUI. Because poverty hasn’t gone down. So we’re saying

all wonderful things about this bill, but childhood poverty hasn’t

gone down. So how could we say it’s wonderful if that’s not the

case?

97

Mr. ROLSTON. Well, first of all, child poverty hasn’t been measured after TANF. The latest data are from a prior period.

Mr. MATSUI. We only have some anecdotal information. But the

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which I think most people

feel is pretty objective, has said childhood poverty may have gone

up a little bit.

Mr. ROLSTON. But that’s through 1996, it’s not——

Mr. MATSUI. I understand that. I understand that. You’re right.

Mr. ROLSTON. But I’m certainly not at all trying to absolve myself or others from responsibility. I think we all have important——

Mr. MATSUI. I’m not suggesting you are.

Mr. ROLSTON [continuing]. Responsibilities to learn this. I’m saying——

Mr. MATSUI. I’m not suggesting you are. I’m just saying the bill

maybe lent itself to that.

Mr. ROLSTON. I think we’re doing a number of studies that will

tell us a lot about which different kinds of policies are effective,

what the effects are on employment, on earnings——

Mr. MATSUI. OK.

Mr. ROLSTON [continuing]. On child poverty and other things.

Mr. MATSUI. How does that help us, how does that help us as

policymakers, though? If the program is working in Fresno but not

in San Francisco, what will that tell us? I mean, how do we deal

with that nationally?

Mr. ROLSTON. Well, I think it will be partly from the perspective

of understanding the effects in various places of different kinds of

policies, understanding how widespread those policies are. Certainly, studies like the data collection the Census is doing also can

be very helpful in understanding these things.

It will produce a data base that researchers will be able to use,

but it won’t produce a definitive answer.

I think to come up with an analogy, if we dramatically change

the way that we financed highways, for example, you wouldn’t

learn about the effects of that from one study. You’d learn about

it by studying a lot of different things in a lot of different places

and then trying to pull it together.

Mr. MATSUI. And that’s why we have a national highway program, because it’s so difficult to analyze unless you have a national

program. But we don’t now. I mean, we have a different program

for the highway system, which is a national program, than we do

for children. I guess what I’m saying, and I know my time is running out, what we really need from you is a road map.

I’d like to sit down with you maybe and find out, what are the

criteria you’re going to use to talk about the success or failure of

this program once you collect your data 3 years from now, so that

we can sit down and compare that with, whenever we meet or

whenever you provide that information to us or me, and we can

say, you’re right, this program really is working well.

And then I can say, I made a mistake. But if it’s not—see, we

need criteria. And we can’t do the criteria after we collect all the

data and say, well, this is the way we want to analyze this to make

it fit our preconceived belief. Are you doing that now? Is that the

kind of work you’re doing to try to give us some idea of whether

this thing will be successful or not?

98

Mr. ROLSTON. We’re trying to do a number of different things.

What concerns me about what you’re asking is that you expect that

a single study from a design——

Mr. MATSUI. No.

Mr. ROLSTON [continuing]. That we could say, these are the values and if these are the successes——

Mr. MATSUI. You know, you were here—

Mr. ROLSTON [continuing]. And I don’t think it will—

Mr. MATSUI [continuing]. You were here when we questioned Dr.

Golden. The only thing I’m asking right now at this moment is

that, if you have some data to say this is a wonderful program,

produce it. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t be talking about what

a wonderful program this is. And I don’t think we can say that

right now. I can’t say it’s a bad program, because I don’t have data

to back that up. And you don’t have enough data to say it’s a good

program.

What we need to do is take a deep breath and step back and let

time work its will. And you need to collect data and try to come

up with the criteria. Because I’m telling you that nothing has

changed over the last 3 years from my perspective in terms of what

I consider the potential problems of this bill to be.

If we hit a recession, it’s going to be pretty cataclysmic for a lot

of communities and a lot of—this is my opinion. Now, maybe I’m

wrong. And if I’m wrong, I need the data when you collect it to tell

me I’m wrong, that these time limits really won’t have the adverse

effect that I felt it should or would when I went before the House

and gave my statement. That’s all I’m saying.

Mr. ROLSTON. We would certainly be glad to sit down with you

and talk to you about the kinds of measures that we think are important in terms of assessing and the kinds of things——

Mr. MATSUI. But what, let me ask you this, because you’ve been

doing a lot of work on it. Is childhood poverty, is the poverty rate

for children a significant factor in this, the national rate? Is it significant?

Mr. ROLSTON. I think it’s a significant factor.

Mr. MATSUI. OK, and so that would be one of your criteria.

Mr. ROLSTON. I think the child poverty rate is one of the things

that a lot of people will measure by. I think there will be differing

views, and it will be complicated to figure out what the bill contributed to, for a lot of the reasons that people have, you yourself

have——

Mr. MATSUI. Like the economy right now, right? You can’t compare 1982 with 1998.

Mr. ROLSTON. Right, but scientists can work with data to try to

parse out those factors.

Mr. MATSUI. I really appreciate this, and thank you.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Coyne.

Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nathan, based on your research to date, what impact is the

‘‘work first’’ strategy being pursued by most States having on the

kinds of jobs former welfare recipients get? In other words, what

kind of impact has that switch made, that is, the work first concept?

99

Mr. NATHAN. Mr. Coyne, I appreciate the question. And I think

the job this panel has, which is a complicated one, is to try to give

a good sense of what we can know and when we can know it and

how we can link up different studies. And our study is on institutions, using people in 21 States, college professors primarily, to

look at how administrative systems are changing.

We are analyzing that data now. As I highlighted in my chart,

these are early findings from 21 States, which includes most of the

big States in this data set.

I would say, in interpreting the data at this stage, that the time

limit and the signaling is being changed as welfare caseworkers

have said. I find I learn a lot by talking to the caseworkers, now

called case managers, asking questions such as, What are you

doing?

The signaling is different. The work-first emphasis of this law,

which is stronger than it’s been before, is saying work, immediate

attachment to the labor force is the emphasis. You’d better get to

it, because you have only so much time, unless you’re in the 20-

percent exemption group. Lots of States are using maintenance-ofeffort money and the 20-percent exemption in ways that are important in our institutional research.

But I do think that even economists—I’m a political scientist, but

even to economists, Lord Keynes said this—signals matter. The

way an economy signals to people, the way businesses, the way

government signals to people influences behavior. I believe that

this law is having surprisingly big signaling effects which we’re already beginning to pick up in our research, bigger than a lot of people expected.

Mr. COYNE. OK, well, that’s fine. The concept will be work first,

but can we expect from that that if they go to work and don’t get

additional training and education, that they’ll really get the good

jobs, the jobs that would pay a living wage, and in addition to that,

enough money to pay for health care benefits?

Mr. NATHAN. Well, I hope our research will, as Howard Rolston

said, give you information to pass judgment on. There is a lot more

to be said on your question, which is a very good one, where the

previous panel, which I thought was an excellent panel, talked

about how programs are now looking at upgrading and job retention and using the TANF money in ways that provide quite concentrated service packages designed to help people make it and

stay in and move up in the labor market.

Now, we hope in our research over the next 3 years to be able

to tell you more about that. Because that’s a big issue, as to whether the strategy of just putting people to work is enough. I hope our

research and the research on institutional change and administrative behavior will give you the kind of information you should have

to decide whether this work-first signal is too harsh. Many people

say it isn’t. Indeed, that may be what people conclude.

But our job, as this panel has said, and we’re institutional, administrative researchers, is to give you good, clear, honest, and impartial information to decide whether the signaling is too strong or

whether it’s helpful. And I can tell you what my opinion is, but I’d

much rather work through our research and have the research enable people to reach their own conclusions.

100

Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Matsui.

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

Dr. Rolston, I just want to make sure, so I have a clear understanding of this, HHS is the lead agency in the collection of data

and trying to put together the analysis of the success of this program. I remember when Secretary Shalala appeared before the full

Ways and Means Committee, I believe it was last year sometime.

And I asked her, I said, do you have the capability, the wherewithal, the staffing, to collect the data, so we can find out if this

program worked or didn’t work, or was kind of in a gray area when

it’s fully implemented and after we’ve had a lot of information. And

she said certainly, or something to that effect.

Now, are you the individual that we’re to look to for this information, or is it HHS or tell me who it is. Because I want to be able

to really hold that person accountable 3 years from now or 2 years

or 6 months from now as this thing develops. Is that you?

Mr. ROLSTON. Well, I work for Olivia Golden, there are also other

parts of the Department involved in this, like the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. So I’m certainly not responsible for all of it. I’m not trying to duck this——

Mr. MATSUI. Who is? Who is? Give me——

Mr. ROLSTON. The Secretary, I guess, is.

Mr. MATSUI. The Secretary is? Wait 1 minute. Come on. Who at

the staffing level, who’s going to collect the data?

Mr. ROLSTON. Me and others. I’m just telling you, I’m not——

Mr. MATSUI. You and others. Who else? Can you give me three

or four other people that have your stature in the Department—

I want all three of you, I want all four of you.

Mr. ROLSTON. Pat Ruggles, Deputy——

Mr. MATSUI. Are you the lead on this? You’re the one who is

going to be coordinating this?

Mr. ROLSTON. I would say we work together, her office and my

office and other offices——

Mr. MATSUI. No, look, you’ll have to excuse me for interrupting

you, but I just want to know who is going to be in charge of this

when it’s all said and done. Because this, to me, this is the ball

game. This is very, very important. I need to know, to my satisfaction, on behalf of my constituents, and probably the 32 million people of the State of California, with Pete Stark, and others, who are

concerned about this, how we’re going to make sure this program

works, and if it doesn’t, what adjustments we’re going to make.

And how we’re going to be able to really deal with the whole

issue of getting people from welfare to work. Now, I want to know

who’s going to be responsible for making sure that that data are

available to us. Now, it was August 1996 when that bill passed.

We’re 2 years, almost 2 years beyond that now.

Who in the Department is in charge of what I just suggested, or

what I just requested?

Mr. ROLSTON. Mr. Matsui, I’m doing the best I can to answer. I

certainly feel a great responsibility. But for example, in the last appropriation bill, the Congress appropriated $5 million to look at

people who are leaving welfare. That’s certainly a very important

investment in a very important question.

101

Mr. MATSUI. Is that you?

Mr. ROLSTON. No.

Mr. MATSUI. Well, who is it? Come on, give me a break.

Mr. ROLSTON. Patricia Ruggles—I’m sorry, I can’t give you——

Mr. MATSUI. Well, can I make a suggestion? I’m going circular

right now, so will you do me a favor? Maybe you ought to discuss

this in your interdepartmental discussions, interagency, if it even

gets to the White House, and find out who’s going to be in charge.

When we have a trade bill, somebody is in charge, right? When we

have a health care bill, somebody is in charge.

Why can’t we do it for children? Why can’t we do it for this issue?

Can we do it for this issue?

Mr. ROLSTON. I can only tell you that I am not responsible for

the entire activity. I’m responsible for part of it that——

Mr. MATSUI. OK, I won’t go any further, but will you do me a

favor? Will you bring that up with whomever your boss is and then

see if we can get this kind of data? Because I’m afraid 1 year from

now we’re going to have this same discussion and nobody’s going

to be held accountable for it. And then we’re going to say, oh, well.

Mr. ROLSTON. I can just say, we feel a deep sense of accountability for——

Mr. MATSUI. Then find somebody.

Mr. ROLSTON. Nobody is passing the buck here. I feel accountable——

Mr. MATSUI. The only way government works, the only way government works is if somebody is in charge, OK? Thank you.

Mr. MCCRERY. Dr. Rolston, is your department working with a

specific authorization of money from the Congress under the welfare bill that was passed?

Mr. ROLSTON. Yes.

Mr. MCCRERY. You’re getting money specifically for that?

Mr. ROLSTON. There was money that was in the bill. The Congress has elected to appropriate it through another mechanism, but

it comes essentially from what was included in TANF.

Mr. MCCRERY. And it’s specifically for research?

Mr. ROLSTON. Research and evaluation on a broad variety of topics, most of which have been mentioned today.

Mr. MCCRERY. And Dr. Weinberg, is that true, too, for the Census Bureau?

Mr. WEINBERG. The money for the Survey of Program Dynamics

was appropriated in the welfare reform legislation directly, yes.

Mr. MCCRERY. And in your opinion, is it a good idea for us to

specifically appropriate money for research and evaluation by the

Census Bureau?

Mr. WEINBERG. That’s really beyond my pay grade. I really——

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCCRERY. Well, it’s not beyond your pay grade. I mean,

you’re——

Mr. WEINBERG. The proper way for Congress to appropriate

money is really up to Congress. That’s all.

I appreciate getting an extra $10 million, but whether that’s the

right way to do it is really up to you to decide.

Mr. MCCRERY. Well, I appreciate your deference to our authority.

However, we cannot make informed decisions unless we have the

102

opinion of folks like you, and that’s what I’m asking for, is your

opinion as to whether this is money well spent. If it’s not, we can

take it back.

Mr. WEINBERG. No, I think it definitely is money well spent.

Mr. MCCRERY. That’s all I wanted to know.

Mr. WEINBERG. It leverages money that was already spent in

ways that make this a very productive investment.

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Nathan, I’m told, I wasn’t here for your testimony, but

I’m told that you wanted to discuss postprogram data a little more

indepth, and I’m willing to give you a couple of minutes to do that

if you’d like.

Mr. NATHAN. I very much appreciate that. What I want to say

about that, and as I listened this morning to Assistant Secretary

Golden and to the two previous panels, I’m struck by the fact that

many States are doing studies like the Maryland study, which the

Chairman mentioned this morning, where State governments are

providing data and money to researchers to see what happens to

people who exit from welfare or from TANF systems.

I was in Mississippi doing our research the week before last.

Millsaps College in Mississippi has money from the State and data

from the State to study what happens to people who exit from their

TANF work program. In fact, it’s very interesting, because the

agency people, and often we don’t think in this way, although Barbara Blum does, that people in human service agencies care a lot

about keeping their business going. They’re a little worried that as

the rolls go down, they’re not going to keep their work force and

keep their rolls.

So in many States, what I’m——

Mr. MCCRERY. A shocking revelation.

Mr. NATHAN [continuing]. Finding is that State agencies and

State workers are very concerned to find out what’s happening to

people, why they’re leaving. Do they already have income, do they

get jobs, what is happening to them? I have a temporary assignment now at the General Accounting Office. What GAO is going to

do, and we were talking about this earlier with Howard Rolston

and others, is gather data from all the States that are doing these

kinds of studies. Many of them are well-designed studies of postprogram conditions, of people who exit from the TANF assistance

systems.

I am going to use our network in 21 States to the fullest extent

we can to find out what kind of data will be available to you, to

your Subcommittee, and to the people who are interested. I’m delighted that this Subcommittee is interested to have a panel on research, and what we can learn, and how we can help you think

about what’s happening under this law and what that means in

terms of how you might want to change it or view it in the future.

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you very much.

I appreciate all of you coming today and giving us the benefit of

your experience and your opinions and your research.

The reason that we included money in the bill specifically for research is so that we policymakers might be better informed as to

the results of our policies. We who fashioned the welfare reform bill

did it for the purpose of trying to better our society, and to better

103

the lot of those who had been on our, some of our welfare programs

for long periods of time. And we didn’t see that they were making

much progress.

We hope this is a better way. We don’t know that. And I’ll be the

first to admit that. This is an experiment. And we have lots of experiments going on at local levels and State levels. I happen to

think that’s good, not bad. Because we can learn from those experiments.

I have faith in the local, and I know there are two examples of

Sacramento and somewhere else in California.

I have faith in that local organization. So if they’re failing, they’ll

look toward San Francisco that’s succeeding, and maybe adopt

some of the things they’re doing. I don’t know. But that was part

of the whole thinking that we were going to expand the number of

experiments around the country, so that we might learn from

those.

But certainly, in my view, and I think as illustrated by the testimony today, we don’t have enough data yet. We don’t have enough

experience with this new approach yet to draw any conclusions. So

I’m pleased to hear that there is research going on by, in a number

of different quarters, public and private, and we look forward to

hearing from all of you and others in the future, when we perhaps

can draw some more conclusions.

Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

Æ