U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–870 WASHINGTON : 2019

JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY: LEGISLATIVE 

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE JOBS GAP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 9, 2018 

Serial No. 115–HR07 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

TERRI SEWELL, Alabama 

SUZAN DELBENE, Washington 

JUDY CHU, California 

GARY J. ANDRES, Staff Director 

BRANDON CASEY, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska, Chairman 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

TERRI SEWELL, Alabama 

JUDY CHU, California 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of May 9, 2018, announcing the hearing ............................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Jennifer M. Meek Eells, Executive Director, Stark Tuscarawas Workforce 

Development Board, OhioMeansJobs Stark and Tuscarawas Counties .......... 6 

Nisha G. Patel, Institute Fellow, Urban Institute ................................................ 12 

Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute ........................................................................................................................ 26

(1) 

JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY: LEGISLATIVE 

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE JOBS GAP 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Adrian Smith 

of Nebraska [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Wednesday, May 9, 2018 

HR–07 

Chairman Smith Announces Human Resources 

Subcommittee Hearing on Jobs and Opportunity: 

Legislative Options to Address the Jobs Gap 

House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Adrian Smith 

(R–NE), announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘Jobs 

and Opportunity: Legislative Options to Address the Jobs Gap’’ on Wednesday, 

May 9, at 10:00 a.m. in room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. 

This hearing will review policy proposals for reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. 

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

be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization may submit 

a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the 

printed record of the hearing. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

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

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to make a submission, and click on the link entitled, 

‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a 

Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by 

the close of business on Wednesday, May 23, 2018. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for 

written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 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. 

All submissions and supplementary materials must be submitted in a single document via 

email, provided in Word format and must not exceed a total of 10 pages. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose behalf 

the witness appears. The name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness 

must be included in the body of the email. Please exclude any personal identifiable information 

in the attached submission. 

Failure to follow the formatting requirements may result in the exclusion of a submission. All 

submissions for the record are final. 

3 

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

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

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

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

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available at 

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/ 

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

In April this Committee did a deep dive into the jobs gap, which 

is the difference between what employers need to keep the economy 

growing, as well as workers in the labor force. 

Building off our hearings last year, we held three separate hearings with witnesses representing local employer and Federal perspectives on a pressing challenge facing our country. Our economy 

has finally turned around, and there are millions of job openings 

across the country. 

From manufacturing to technology and even automotive, these 

industries have rebounded and are expanding. The problem is 

there is a workforce shortage. Employers tell us they need workers 

and, with some support, it is possible and, in fact, critical people 

on the sidelines can get back into the workforce. 

We heard it directly from Brian from Arizona, a young man 

caught up in the opioid crisis, cycling in and out of prison, who is 

now an electrician making $22 an hour. Brian said his job and the 

support of his employer turned his life around, while his employer 

said Brian was part of filling his need for workers in the growing 

home construction industry. They are an example of a remarkable 

win-win scenario. 

We heard it from David Ard of Gap about their This Way Ahead 

program, who said engaging disconnected and at-risk youth and 

young adults with their first job can be life-changing and shape 

their prospects for the future, regardless of industry. But we don’t 

have time to wait. As Glen Johnson of BASF said in a previous 

hearing, ‘‘We can no longer hit the snooze button on the jobs gap.’’ 

Our Committee has jurisdiction over a number of programs 

which serve people on the sidelines. But today we are focused on 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, TANF, 

which has the express purpose of supporting the neediest among 

us, and helping their families become self-sufficient through work. 

Yet when you take a good look at the TANF program now, there 

is a disconnect between the purpose on paper and reality on the 

ground. States are spending a combined $30 billion a year through 

TANF, and less than half those dollars are being spent on core 

work activities and supportive services which could be going to 

bridge the jobs gap and help American families move forward. 

We have an opportunity to revitalize and retrofit the TANF program to today’s economy and the needs of Americans who are on 

the sidelines. With TANF set to expire in September, this Committee must not stand down from its responsibility to re-authorize 

this program and help more Americans get back into the workforce. 

4 

In our last hearing, I was encouraged by the Ranking Member’s 

comments on the TANF program which suggested there may be 

space for a meaningful, bipartisan new course for the program. 

Mr. Davis, you said TANF is supposed to help parents work, but 

it is clear TANF is not doing quality workforce development with 

the array of services needed to get people past their barriers. I certainly hope we can work together on developing legislation to do 

this. 

So yesterday I released draft legislation to jumpstart the conversation. This draft legislation seeks to help more Americans 

enter and remain in the workforce by doing four things. 

One, expecting universal engagement and case management to 

address the needs of struggling families. 

Two, measuring work outcomes to hold States accountable. 

Three, refocusing TANF’s dollars on the truly needy, both in its 

allocation of funds to truly needy States, and spending on truly 

needy families. 

And four, using funds to support work and allowing States greater flexibility and customizing work—our work preparation activities to fit an individual’s needs for success. 

Overall, it strengthens program accountability, transparency, 

and oversight of Federal dollars. 

As lawmakers, we have an opportunity to make real change for 

the American people and the American economy. We must not continue the tradition of hitting the snooze button, as it has been said, 

on TANF re-authorization or the American families who are trying 

to get ahead. 

We know TANF is not living up to the expectations set for it. We 

have the start of a proposal to fix it, and my hope is my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle will not shy away from engaging. Helping 

struggling families and improving their outcomes is not a partisan 

issue. We know TANF can help address the jobs gap. Let’s do 

something about it. 

I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, 

for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I also 

want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

Over the course of this Congress our Subcommittee has heard 

from a number of witnesses about approaches that are working to 

connect people with good jobs in our communities. The successful 

strategies had a number of things in common. 

Rather than threaten to cut off food, housing, or health care, 

they approached people with respect and helped them overcome the 

structural barriers preventing them from getting good jobs. They 

measured their success in terms of the number of people they put 

on the road out of poverty, not in terms of the size of a pile of paperwork providing what those people did with every hour of every 

day. 

They helped people upgrade their skills and get work credentials. 

They provided supports like transportation and child care, so people could work. The programs we heard from had something else 

in common. They did not get any support from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. 

5 

That should be shocking, because one of TANF’s primary purposes is to help parents work and support their children. But it is 

not surprising, because TANF focuses on requiring States to document exactly what activities people are engaged in and penalizes 

them if too many are using their time to acquire skills or credentials. That is a strong incentive to reduce the number of people who 

get TANF, but it is not an incentive to help families get out of poverty. 

We also know that TANF is providing far fewer resources to support poor children and their families than it was 20 years ago. The 

Federal TANF grant has lost more than a third of its funding since 

TANF began in 1996. And States have diverted more than half of 

TANF funds to fill budget gaps, rather than serve TANF’s core purposes of supporting work, providing child care, and assisting poor 

families. Only one out of every five poor families gets help from 

TANF now, as compared to more than 60 percent who were helped 

20 years ago. 

We have just begun to review the detailed TANF proposals that 

the Chairman shared yesterday to understand how they would affect the poor children living with their parents and grandparents 

in our communities. Although there are provisions that I think 

make reasonable improvements to TANF, I am deeply concerned 

that the draft proposal creates clear winners and losers. 

I am troubled that the pattern of winners and losers closely 

tracks that in the new tax law, including targeting my home State 

of Illinois and other blue States that will lose substantial Federal 

funding. 

Further, the draft permits States to reduce their spending on 

poor children and families, which seems like a step in the wrong 

direction, given the already substantial decline in children in poverty being helped by TANF. These dramatic cuts are especially distressing when put in the context of recent Republican proposals to 

cut $17 billion from food assistance, $8.8 billion from housing, and 

$1 trillion from Medicaid, all harming poor families with children. 

Nearly three-fourths of current TANF recipients are children, 

usually living in poverty with their parents or grandparents. When 

we cut off TANF assistance and never provide it to parents and 

grandparents who don’t earn enough, the children in those families 

don’t have money to buy school supplies, or a safe place to live, or 

heat in the winter. 

Maya Angelou said—and I quote—‘‘I have learned that making 

a living is not the same thing as making a life.’’ We have an opportunity to reform TANF to help parents make a living. But we 

should also remember our duty to support parents, grandparents, 

and families in their effort to make a better life. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. And without objection, other 

Members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table. 

Ms. Jennifer Meek Eells, Executive Director of the Stark 

Tuscarawas Workforce Development Board at OhioMeansJobs 

Stark and Tuscarawas Counties. Thank you for being here. 

And next we have Ms. Nisha Patel, Institute Fellow at the Urban 

Institute. 

6 

And we also have Mr. Robert Doar, the Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. 

Our witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5 

minutes. All of your written statements will be included in the 

record. You will see the little light there, the yellow light. As I like 

to say, it is kind of like a flight. When you see the yellow light you 

need to kind of bring the flight in for a smooth landing. 

So, we will begin now with Ms. Meek Eells, and you may begin 

when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER M. MEEK EELLS, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, STARK TUSCARAWAS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, OHIOMEANSJOBS STARK AND TUSCARAWAS 

COUNTIES 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. My name is Jennifer Meek Eells, and I am the Executive 

Director for the Stark Tuscarawas Workforce Development Board. 

My workforce area is located in northeastern Ohio, with 

OhioMeansJobs centers located in New Philadelphia and Canton, 

home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. 

I have spent 30 years working in public assistance and public 

workforce, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs. My job 

as the Executive Director is to be an expert in the local labor market and in-demand jobs, to develop relationships with employers 

and business organizations in the community, as well as with community colleges and training providers. I know Canton and the region’s labor market and economy, and what types of training people 

need where a job is available at the other end. 

As a matter of fact, this week is In-Demand Jobs Week across 

the State of Ohio. My local workforce area is holding a job fair in 

New Philadelphia on Friday with 90 employers scheduled to recruit 

for open positions their companies have right now. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the 

jobs gap. I believe that what the State of Ohio, my local Workforce 

Board, and my local County Job and Family Services agencies are 

doing will address this gap. 

Much of what I understand this Committee has discussed over 

the past months is that people are being left on the sidelines. On 

July 1, 2016, Governor Kasich and the General Assembly implemented the Comprehensive Case Management and Employment 

program through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. 

This intensive case management program utilizes both TANF and 

WIOA funding to provide an array of services to TANF cash assistance recipients who are work-eligible and under the age of 24, as 

well as WIOA-eligible individuals under the age of 24. 

The program activities and performance outcomes are based primarily on the WIOA Title I youth program. Our OhioMeansJobs 

work centers have the core principles of one-stop service delivery 

with co-location and access to partner and community organizations that promote workforce training and employment programs. 

My Workforce Board is business-led and acts as a broker between 

employers in the community and job seekers, and is a magnet for 

7 

bringing together partners to provide not only training, but access 

to supportive services that individuals need. 

Workforce boards can’t do it alone. We need our TANF partner 

agencies, because they are experts in human service aspects of getting people job-ready. The only way we are going to be able to address this jobs gap is if we leverage the strength of both our human 

services and workforce systems. Through this intensive case management program, we have found that the TANF work participation rate and WIOA performance measures actually undermine the 

local workforce board’s ability to partner. 

TANF agencies in Ohio are very focused on meeting their prescribed participation rate. They don’t necessarily have the same 

goals as my Workforce Board does, because their jobs are to meet 

the rate, whereas my job is to get people skilled and into employment. If the programs had similar or the same outcome-based performance measures, that would go a long way in promoting partnership with TANF being complementary to the workforce system, 

and not just another separate program. 

We are able to use TANF and WIOA together, in spite of the government regulations being different, and that their oversight comes 

from two separate Federal agencies. But it has been difficult, and 

required a lot of effort to execute. The State of Ohio painstakingly 

created a service matrix to bridge the activities under WIOA to the 

participation allowances under TANF, and it has helped the case 

managers better identify how these two Federal programs can 

align. Much concern now is given to how we can make this all work 

together without missing our measures or having an audit finding. 

What would make our ability to bring people in from the sidelines 

more effectively is to make it easier for agencies and these funding 

streams to partner through program alignment around allowable 

activities and performance. 

I want to underscore this point about case management. Personcentered case management is important, and we need flexibility to 

customize activities to meet people where they are. That engagement, that relationship is the key to success. 

My OhioMeansJobs Center was able to assist Emily through a 

plan with her case manager to become a welder. Emily excelled as 

a student and had a great relationship with her case manager. She 

completed training in November 2016 and immediately found employment at a company in Canton as a welder for $15 an hour. As 

of this year, she now has a child, but she continues to work, and 

she has already gotten a raise and is making $16 an hour. 

Unlike many other anti-poverty programs, the case management 

program we have built in Ohio engages participants in meaningful 

employment and training activities. And the bottom line is this: It 

is a win-win. We are helping individuals in our community be successful and get back on their feet, and we are also providing a 

skilled workforce for our employers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meek Eells follows:] 

8 


33870A.001
9 


33870A.002
10 


33870A.003
11 

f 


33870A.004
12 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. Patel, you may begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF NISHA G. PATEL, 

INSTITUTE FELLOW, URBAN INSTITUTE 

Ms. PATEL. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify today on my insights on how to strengthen the TANF 

program. 

I have spent more than two decades designing and implementing 

programs to increase economic opportunities for low-income families. I previously served as the Director of the Office of Family Assistance, which is the HHS office that administers TANF. 

But as importantly, or maybe more importantly, I have spent 

much of my career talking directly with families. The voices of children and parents are too often left out of these conversations about 

solutions, but it is their experiences that inform my testimony 

today. 

I want to emphasize that the views I express today are my own 

and should not be attributed to any organization where I have been 

employed, their boards, or their funders. 

So first, some context. If our goal is to address child poverty, 

which I know the draft bill attempts to do—and as part of that we 

want to encourage parents to work—we have to recognize the realities that families face. There is a persistent negative and stigmatizing narrative about people who receive cash assistance that does 

not come close to matching the reality. 

In my experience, parents want to work because they want to set 

a good example for their children, and they want a better future 

for them. I heard this loud and clear just last month in my conversations with young parents in rural Garrett County, Maryland, 

on the West Virginia border, and just this past weekend with families from Los Angeles in Congresswoman Chu’s district who are a 

part of the Parent Voices group in California. 

But research shows that low-income parents often face challenges to entering the labor market and to retaining employment. 

It has been 22 years since Congress established TANF, and a lot 

has changed since then. We cannot expect a program designed in 

the economic, demographic, and scientific context of the mid-1990s 

and for an entirely different generation of families to be relevant 

and effective in 2018 and into the future. 

There are many problems with TANF and many points of view 

about how to fix them. But it does seem clear to me that there is 

room for bipartisan agreement. And in the interest of making efficient use of the Subcommittee’s time, I will focus on those areas, 

and I will focus on solutions that put children at the center and 

strengthen parents’ job opportunities. 

So, before I go to solutions, I want to share seven facts about the 

current state of TANF. 

Fact one, TANF provides income support to a small number of 

families, and primarily supports children. As I have often reminded 

people over the years, the F in TANF stands for families. Yet we 

somehow seem to keep leaving children out of the conversation altogether. Fewer than 1.4 million families receive TANF, and that 

13 

is compared to 8 million families with children we have living in 

poverty in this country. 

Half of those TANF cases are child-only cases, meaning there is 

no financial support that is provided to parents or sometimes the 

grandparents who are caring for children. More than 70 percent— 

70 percent—of people receiving TANF are children. Most of them 

are children under 12, and the largest share are children under 6. 

So, I just want to be very clear we are talking about little kids, or 

at least we should be. 

Fact two, the share of families who receive TANF has fallen 

drastically since 1996. 

Fact three, the support that these children receive is very mea- ger. In Mississippi, the maximum benefit for a family of 3 is $170 

a month. That is 42 bucks a week. 

Fact four, inflation has eroded the value of the block grant by 

over a third, as Ranking Member Davis shared. 

Fact five, as the Chairman noted, in 2016 under half of TANF 

funds were used for core benefits and services. 

Fact six, many States’ spending priorities move TANF downstream, away from prevention. This puts young children at risk of 

harm and deprivation and can have negative impacts on their development. 

Fact seven, there is a lack of focus on employment and training 

that is linked to good jobs. Most good jobs require at least some 

training beyond high school, but nearly 40 percent of parents of 

children on TANF do not even have a high school education. 

So now for the solutions. Five solutions. 

First, make child poverty reduction an explicit goal of TANF, and 

require the spending to be targeted to low-income families. For example, target the spending to those families at 200 percent of poverty or below. 

Second, set a floor for spending on core benefits and services. 

And by that, I mean employment and training, cash assistance, 

and child care. 

Third, prohibit States from claiming non-governmental, thirdparty expenditures as maintenance of effort. This allows States to 

reduce their own spending on programs to address child poverty. 

Fourth, expand education and training to create access to good 

jobs. 

Fifth, support demonstration projects focused on employment 

outcome measures, as well as on whole-family approaches that 

focus simultaneously on achieving parental employment outcomes 

and child well-being outcomes. 

In conclusion, any changes to the program have to keep our eyes 

on the prize, which is children living in poverty. I very much appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in this issue and the opportunity 

to speak with you today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patel follows:] 

14 


33870A.005
15 


33870A.006
16 


33870A.007
17 


33870A.008
18 


33870A.009
19 


33870A.010
20 


33870A.011
21 


33870A.012
22 


33870A.013
23 


33870A.014
24 


33870A.015
25 

f 


33870A.016
26 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Doar, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW IN 

POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. DOAR. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Davis, and Members of the Committee. My testimony this morning 

is informed by almost 20 years of working in social services programs in New York State and New York City. 

By taking steps to improve TANF, this Committee dedicates 

itself to making a good program even better. TANF has demonstrated how to replace welfare with work, while providing a safety net for families facing difficult circumstances. This remains true. 

Nonetheless, even good programs can be improved. And TANF 

could be, by recommitting itself to the principles that made it successful: Effective work engagement activities that move applicants 

and recipients toward regular earnings with a focus on employment 

as the primary desired outcome. 

After more than 20 years, TANF can improve by refocusing the 

program on engagement to help more Americans enter and remain 

in the workforce. 

Many States have exploited loopholes to get around the work requirement while diverting TANF funds for other purposes. TANF 

has an opportunity to fix this problem by limiting spending on assistance to families below 200 percent of the poverty level. It 

should do so. And while States should enjoy some flexibility in how 

they use Federal funds, they must be sure to keep their eyes on 

the prize, and prioritize programs that will help TANF recipients 

into work. 

TANF should revitalize its work requirement by expecting universal engagement and incorporating outcome measures that focus 

on what matters most: Moving individuals into sustainable work. 

It should also make an affirmative statement about the value of 

case management. Key decisions about services and benefits should 

be made at the local level, and case workers should have access to 

a wide range of tools, including programs funded beyond TANF, because different families face different challenges. 

Reforms that focus on measuring outcomes are also critical to 

TANF’s success. TANF would do well to enact dashboard alerts 

that will catch the attention of the Department of Health and 

Human Services when certain States report too many work-eligible 

individuals with zero hours of participation in work-related activities. 

In the work participation rate, the current outcome measure, 

which is then exploited by State manipulation, could be replaced 

with measures centering on unsubsidized employment after an individual leaves the TANF rolls, which would better reflect successful transitions to employment. 

While I have concerns about TANF agencies’ ability to ensure 

that former enrollees remain employed months down the line, some 

form of job placement and retention measure is a welcome innovation. 

Transparency and accountability are critical in order to shed 

light on States’ engagement of their caseload, and ensure that they 

27 

are moving toward desired outcomes. And I applaud the direction 

of the draft bill in advancing these values. I—however, I do have 

some concerns about outcome measure that I believe are worth 

raising. 

Employment is an appropriate outcome, because TANF aspires to 

grow capacity to reduce dependency. But the program also must 

make engagement of current recipients, an important goal in and 

of itself, beyond its role in leading to earnings down the road. 

As a former Administrator of TANF in New York, I know that 

State flexibility is a cornerstone of its success. But that doesn’t 

mean there shouldn’t be limitations. States must be held accountable for engaging their caseload with activities that really do lead 

to work, and they should answer to Federal Administrators to ensure that this is the case. This should include tracking enrollee attendance, as well as reporting on how State initiatives are achieving core TANF objectives. 

While it would be good for each State and the Federal Administration to negotiate performance targets that allow States some 

flexibility, in the absence of a work participation rate States should 

be required to provide baseline measures to ensure that incremental improvements can be compared to current outcomes. 

Any reform should also maintain current funding for the TANF 

program. As I mentioned, TANF isn’t the only show in town. Nearly all families receiving TANF assistance are also receiving Medicaid and SNAP benefits, just to name a few. And while TANF, 

after adjusting for inflation, now spends about two-thirds of what 

it did in 1996, Federal spending on programs like Medicaid, SNAP, 

the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Refundable Child Tax 

Credit have greatly increased. 

Effectively, we have moved from funding non-work to making 

work pay. The current funding structure has been a key to TANF’s 

unique success, and any accounting for its decrease in value must 

acknowledge the array of other programs that assist low-income 

Americans. 

Finally, the process for allocating resources to each State should 

be done in a way that targets poverty more directly and more fairly. And to its credit, the discussion draft makes progress on this 

point, as well. Each State’s share of funding should be determined, 

at least in part, by their current levels of poverty. 

When this Committee focused on work in the 1990s, we saw 

great reductions in poverty and improved outcomes for children 

and families. It is time to reaffirm those principles, and I think this 

proposal moves us in the right direction. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doar follows:] 

28 


33870A.017
29 


33870A.018
30 


33870A.019
31 


33870A.020
32 


33870A.021
33 

f 


33870A.022
34 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I appreciate your insight and 

your testimony and expertise. 

Ms. Meek Eells, in your testimony you talk about the difference—the different performance measures used in WIOA and 

TANF, and how the different measurement systems make it difficult to coordinate and make the best use of those resources. 

We often talk about—it has been said that we need to put the 

human back in human services. And do you think that aligning 

these outcome measures across programs will lead to better case 

management? 

And can you tell us what aligned measures in case management 

look like on the ground, from your experience? 

Go ahead. You want to turn on your microphone there. 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Thank you. Yes. I think what we have experienced in the past with some of the issues between the work participation requirements around TANF and the workforce performance pieces that are tied to WIOA is that when we are working 

with a TANF-eligible individual, many times they have a work site 

to go to, or they have a participation requirement that is 20 or 30 

hours a week. And that may interfere with, really, what is their 

barrier to employment they may need to be working with a case 

manager to have removed. 

So, for example, someone may need to be working on a GED, but 

they only have so long to be able to do that. Or somebody might 

be at a point where they really need to be doing intensive job 

search, but under TANF there are restrictions on how long they 

can engage in that activity. 

So, a lot of times, when we are trying to do more intensive work 

with an individual to address the barriers, remove the barriers, 

and also to make sure that they are in something that is going to 

make them more job-ready, the TANF work participation requirement that drives that funding mechanism is really a deterrent for 

getting at the root of really what is involved to remove the employment barrier with that individual, and then helping that family 

prosper. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Doar, as a former practitioner who successfully helped get 

folks on TANF back to work in New York, both at the State level 

and in New York City, I know you agree that flexibility aspects of 

TANF are important. 

Certainly New York City is different from rural Nebraska, as 

anyone can imagine. But given the ways in which some States have 

diverted TANF dollars to other purposes, which you have pointed 

out, it might make sense to put up some guard rails, so that funds 

are focused on the core purpose of TANF that I think everyone has 

touched on here. 

In Ms. Patel’s written testimony, she suggests some guardrails 

which mirror those of the discussion draft. For example, adding 

child poverty reduction as an explicit purpose; putting a floor on 

spending on core benefits and services; and limiting the funds to 

families under 200 percent of poverty. This leads me to believe 

there is room for some bipartisan work on improving TANF. 

Are these the type of guardrails that will help TANF be more focused on helping struggling Americans enter and remain in the 

35 

workforce? And is the program at a point in time that these and 

other changes are needed? 

Mr. DOAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that we are. I think there 

is bipartisan agreement from both conservatives and liberals that 

dollars devoted for the very needy in TANF are not being spent on 

the very needy, and that would be the existing caseload. 

And so, given the job situation and the concern about bringing 

people into employment, we need to impose certain—I think you 

used the phrase guardrails—but restrictions on the use of TANF 

dollars, so they truly are devoted to the most in need in the various 

States. That is not to say that what we have done in the past is 

all bad, it is just that I think we have gotten away from focusing 

on the most in need, and I think if the—if this legislation moves 

in that direction, that would be a good thing. 

Chairman SMITH. Very good. Well, it has been interesting, 

learning how and what some States have done, in terms of diverting some honorable expenditures. 

Mr. DOAR. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Don’t get me wrong. But probably at the expense of the neediest among us. I mean, it is astonishing to me 

that these dollars have been diverted the way they have been, 

so—— 

Mr. DOAR. Right, and the measurement has been allowed to be 

manipulated, so that States are able to satisfy the effective work 

participation rate without really engaging the core caseload. And 

that is a problem. 

Chairman SMITH. And are checking the box without being as effective as we—— 

Mr. DOAR. Right, through various manipulations, either the 

caseload reduction credit or the maintenance of effort requirement 

that has allowed States to what is called buy down their rate, and 

then I think avoid having to engage families and—families that are 

in need of additional attention. 

Chairman SMITH. Very good. Thank you for your responses. And 

I now recognize Ranking Member Davis for 5 minutes for any questions he might have. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of the 

witnesses for their testimony. 

Ms. Patel, in my congressional district nearly one in four children live in poverty. In the State of Illinois cash assistance provides an abysmal 25 percent of the Federal poverty level, leaving 

poor children in abject poverty. Nationwide, TANF is now only 

serving 20 percent of poor children, as opposed to over 60 percent 

when TANF began. Is there evidence that increasing the number 

of poor children receiving TANF assistance and increasing the 

amount of their benefits give them a better chance at what we 

would call a good life? 

Ms. PATEL. Yes, thank you for the question, Ranking Member 

Davis. Absolutely. We have a body of research that shows that investing resources in young children, especially—so, for example, 

there is research that shows that as little as an additional amount 

of $3,000 a year for young children makes a big difference in their 

future earning outcomes, so their earnings as adults. And so that 

36 

is an investment in them right now, as young children, but also in 

our future workforce. 

And I actually want to applaud the State of Nebraska, which was 

one of the few States, the Chairman’s State, which has increased 

its benefit level, which—it did so in 2015 for families on TANF, and 

I think out of recognition of this. 

And so even that small amount of money can make a huge difference to children who are living in deep poverty. So absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me—when parents—let’s say a family might lose 

their TANF assistance, if this should happen, how does that negatively affect the children? 

Ms. PATEL. I mean, losing even that meager amount of assistance, you know, that—that is the difference between being able to 

pay for laundry detergent, pay for school shoes, pay for school supplies, pay for clothes that are—we all—you know, I think many of 

us take for granted being able to afford things, but it negatively affects children’s development, and that lack of access to resources 

and financial stress also impacts parents’ mental health. 

When parents are stressed, that impacts children and it impacts 

their relationship with their children, which can impact children’s 

development, which—you know, that matters for that family, but 

it also matters for society as a whole, right? We can either invest 

resources on the front end or we can pay a lot more on the back 

end, when families end up in crisis, when families end up potentially with physical and mental health issues, when children end 

up, you know, neglect stems from lack of basic needs. 

So not being able to have money to pay for food, shelter, and 

clothing—75 percent of cases in the child welfare system are neglect. And so it would be wise, I think, to try to avoid that by providing at least some basic income support, particularly to families 

with young children, on the front end. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Doar, you suggest that in some instances the poorest or the 

neediest individuals are not in the pipeline, or not connected to get 

to services. How do we improve that, to try to make sure that those 

with the greatest need are the ones who are being served first? 

Mr. DOAR. We can improve that by holding States accountable 

and by finding a way to monitor engagement in some casework, 

some activity that the agency is attempting to engage with recipients of assistance that leads to work. And we—I think there has 

been an ability of States to avoid that with the remaining caseload, 

and that has been a shame, because the remaining caseload is 

often individuals and families most in need. 

And while in the beginning maybe we had very high caseloads, 

and we could help many, many people, as Nisha said, who wanted 

to go to work and could go to work and proved that they could go 

to work, now we have a slightly different caseload. And I think 

that a program designed 20 years ago maybe needs to address and 

get us back to addressing that core group that is in need of, I 

think, much greater engagement. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Walorski for 

5 minutes. 

37 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses for being here today to share your perspective on the jobs 

gap. 

I worked on SNAP for 2 years on the Ag Committee, serving as 

the Chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee when the Committee was 

conducting a comprehensive, top-to-bottom review of the program. 

I am grateful to now serve on the Ways and Means Committee, 

where we have been examining and working to improve programs 

like TANF and MCBE. 

TANF, SNAP, and the other programs that make up government’s safety net are essential for giving people who have fallen on 

hard times a chance to get back on their feet. Some programs, like 

MCBE, help try to prevent people from falling to begin with. 

One thing that has stood out to me as I have looked over these 

programs over the past couple of years is the power of human 

interaction. 

We heard earlier this year from a young man who battled opioid 

addiction and stints in prison, but turned his life around once 

somebody stood beside him who believed in him and gave him a job 

and a sense of family. 

Last year we heard from a bright young lady who overcame 

homelessness and self-doubt that had built up after a few attempts 

at college, until she had a mentor beside her in a job training program who checked on her and talked her through tough times. 

There is no one path into poverty, I know that. It is a Rubik’s 

cube of issues and it is tough to solve on your own. Some can, but 

having someone alongside seems to help improve the odds. 

I introduced a bill this year, along with my fellow Hoosier, Senator Todd Young, to do just that. It is called the Coordinating Assistance for TANF Recipients Act. It sets aside money for demonstration projects to improve case management for TANF recipients with rigorous evaluation on the back end to make sure they 

are delivering good outcomes. 

The TANF discussion draft, which was released yesterday, puts 

an emphasis on case management, which I think is a step in the 

right direction. I look forward to working with the Chairman as we 

continue to refine the bill. 

Ms. Meek Eells, you are on the ground in Ohio. I was fascinated 

by your testimony. Can you talk more about case management 

strategies that you think are most effective? 

And I was listening to you with great intent, because you seemed 

to be going down the road that I have gone down, discovering that 

we are going to have to re-engage people. These are not just numbers, they are not just folks being added to a database. These are 

real people that need real help with real humans. Can you speak 

to that, and what you are doing in casework in Ohio case management? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Yes, thank you. I think the issue around 

case management is so important, because, you are right, people 

can’t just be handed off. They are not just a number. 

I think we are finding that individuals—as we are working with 

them—you establish that relationship and that rapport, and then 

they are more likely to share more information about themselves 

that may get down to the real root of why they are having difficulty 

38 

finding or maintaining employment. That is what we want to get 

at. 

And so, when we are looking at, again, barrier removal, we need 

to drill down to see if there is a family issue, is the individual having issues with mental health, or drug addiction, alcohol addiction, 

so that we can provide services and connect that individual with 

services that will help them. 

But the main piece about case management is we are not just 

handing off, we are not just making a referral to an agency. That 

case manager is tied to that individual, and they are working with 

them for that progress. Because, let’s face it, it’s a scary thing to 

admit that you need counseling or that you have an issue that 

needs to be addressed. And when we are working with families in 

this nature, it is about the children and making sure that that family is stable. 

So, the case management process that we have engaged in, I 

know in my local area we have worked with our mental health and 

recovery services board very closely when we kicked this off. I 

wanted our case managers to have some type of foundational basis 

for what they are doing. So, we engaged in what is called the TIPS 

model—Transitions to Independence Process model—where we are 

looking at emotional and behavioral underlying pieces that we need 

to work on. 

So, again, I think that, rather than just handing somebody off 

and making a referral and still expecting them to work, you know, 

in a participation aspect for 20 or 30 hours a week, that is not getting these people off the sidelines. 

Our employers are hungry for people. And we have people who 

want to work. But they can’t work if they are experiencing all this 

trauma, and they are never getting over that. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. So, do you use outcome measures like what 

this discussion draft is talking about, like job placements and those 

kinds of things, as you look overall at your program in Ohio? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Yes, that—— 

Mrs. WALORSKI. What would those be? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. The foundational basis for the comprehensive case management program in Ohio is the WIOA Title I performance metrics for youth. So, we are looking at employment after 

the second quarter, after the fourth quarter. We are looking at skill 

gains. We are looking at those types of measures that are very directly related to employment. We are looking at training completion. We are looking—— 

Mrs. WALORSKI. We are going to run out of time. But I thank 

you so much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I will add that we are going to 

go to two-to-one questioning here, given the attendance. So, with 

that, I will recognize Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of 

you for being here today to share your testimony. 

I am from the State of Michigan, and we are no stranger to this 

issue and the need for finding ways to close that jobs gap. But like 

most Americans, I was very thrilled to see last week that the national unemployment is down to 3.9 percent. That is the lowest unVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:35 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 033870 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\33870.XXX 33870
39 

employment rate since 2000, and marked the 91st consecutive 

month of job gains, which is just tremendous news. 

Businesses across the Nation are expanding, hiring new employees, and increasing wages. In my district, for example, Oakland 

County has a 3.4 percent unemployment rate; Livingston County is 

at 3.5 percent; and Ingham County is at 4 percent. And if I had— 

I mean it has just gotten so much better in Michigan, and this is 

wonderful news. 

As I travel across my district and visit with job creators, one 

thing I hear time and time again is the challenge that they are 

having filling the open positions, which is probably a good problem 

to have. The economy is starting to perk now, and now we have 

to find people to fill these positions. And while many are willing 

to provide training, flexibility benefits, and competitive salaries, 

they still have difficulties for some reason filling the openings. 

So, it is extremely important that as we talk about the 6 million 

people who have left the workforce that are still on the sidelines— 

to understand that there is something else going on here. And we 

have to figure out how to address that so our economy can continue 

to grow. Otherwise, we have a great opportunity, and we are missing out on it. 

So, in our last hearing we heard testimony from groups and organizations who aggressively are looking for new ways, innovative 

ways to address this jobs gap issue. And one of them was an employer in my district, one that employs many constituents in my 

district, Fiat Chrysler. And they found that, based on their testimony, a high rate of absenteeism, in many cases, was often related 

to problems finding stable child care. So, they did something innovative. They developed a partnership with the United Way to help 

working parents secure reliable child care. 

And so, Ms. Meek Eells—I hope I pronounced that right—okay. 

Have you found that child care is something individuals in your 

program need help with? And is that a supportive service that you 

provide? Or do you partner with the TANF agency to do so? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Okay. In Ohio, yes, our TANF agency also 

oversees the subsidized child care program. So, we have a very 

close relationship with our TANF County Job and Family Services 

agencies. But it is really interesting that you asked about child 

care, because in my area also, child care providers are in demand. 

One of the things that we are doing with a contracted provider 

called the Early Childhood Resource Center is we are working with 

them to refer TANF work-eligible individuals that are interested in 

getting into early care and education. And what we are doing with 

the Early Childhood Resource Center is we are enrolling the interested TANF work-eligible indidivuals in a 9-month program 

through this case management umbrella, and they are getting a 

CDA, a child development associate credential. And that is a stepping stone for them to then work in a child care setting. 

And so that has really been a great program for us so far. I think 

we are in the fourth cohort with that program. And we are having 

a lot of success with individuals getting through that 9 months of 

both training and work experience. That is how you get the CDA 

credential. 

40 

And so, again, it is not about having somebody just gain some 

skills at a work site for 20 or 30 hours a week. It is about incorporating training with that work experience, so that they have an 

opportunity to have a job at the end of this. So, we are killing two 

birds with one stone. We are providing an opportunity for people 

to work, but we are also filling the need for our child care centers 

and some of our in-home providers to have qualified and talented 

child care workers. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you would agree that this is an important—that 

child care is an important piece of this legislation, or should be. 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Child care is critical. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Definitely. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is conspicuously missing right now from the 

draft bill, but I am looking forward to working with the Chairman 

and the Committee to address that issue. 

We have a limited amount of time. I want to talk to you about 

apprenticeships, too. I recently visited Clarkston Oakland School 

Technical Campus to learn more about their efforts to get students 

involved in the apprenticeship program. As someone who runs a 

workforce, Ms. Meek Eells, or a development board, can you speak 

to the value of apprenticeships, and maybe provide an example of 

how they might work? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Apprenticeships are extremely valuable. 

What I can say there is we have had some of our trade union and 

apprenticeship providers come in and talk with our youth program 

providers because that is one thing, too, that I think we have been 

missing is our young people, overall, need to be better connected 

and understand what an apprenticeship is, and how they can get 

training and credentials without having any debt and, again, fill 

some of these in-demand jobs in the skilled trades. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Doggett. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am encouraged by your remarks and that of each of our witnesses this 

morning focusing on how we can assure that the Federal funds 

that have already been appropriated are directed toward helping 

people get into the workforce and meaningful jobs. 

I believe that—I reflect on several years ago, when I was serving 

as the Ranking Member here and met directly with then-Chairman 

Ryan in this Committee, asking that we do more to see that the 

States use the dollars that they get for work, for child care, the 

other core purposes. I recognize that it is unlikely, under a Republican Administration, we will see more Federal resources devoted 

to helping people escape poverty, but we ought to at least assure 

that the dollars that we have been spending achieve those core purposes. 

My concern is that—I would agree with the rhetoric that TANF 

has become a giant welfare program, and that some people can’t 

get off the dole. It is just my contention that the people that can’t 

get off the dole are some Governors and some legislators, largely 

Republican Governors in the South, who use money that we all 

41 

agreed was going to go to help people get from welfare to work, and 

instead they use it for most everything else. 

And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we can accomplish—I 

haven’t—since your discussion draft just came out a few hours ago 

and we weren’t involved in preparing it, and haven’t had a chance 

to review it thoroughly, but I can accomplish the objective that I 

have in a bill with a single page, and that is to simply require— 

for Texas, require Texas to do what Nebraska does; require Michigan to do what Ohio does, in terms of using the resources from the 

Federal Government for work purposes. 

In Texas we are meeting the needs of about 4 percent of poor 

children, 4 out of 100, through TANF. And at present we use about 

15 or 16 percent of the monies that the Federal Government sends 

down to Texas to get people into the workforce, about $.15, $.16, 

near last—dead last, I think. The other portions of the money go 

for other things, or they are used to plug State budget gaps. Sometimes they are used to enable tax cuts. They are used to do anything, other than to accomplish the original congressional objective, 

which is to help people get not just a dead-end job where they get 

a few hours and they are cut after a few months, but a path to 

work out of poverty. 

And if that is the objective of your bill, I think you are going to 

find a willingness to work with you to achieve that objective, because that is what welfare-to-work was all about. I voted for it in 

the Clinton Administration. 

Unfortunately, I think it has largely been a failure in both protecting children who cannot work—that was the whole purpose of 

the old Aid for Dependent Children program—some impaired individuals, but those who could work are not given the opportunities 

under the law to get the education and training they need, and we 

are not monitoring the success of this program based on how many 

people really did get out of poverty, as Chairman Davis said, and 

how long did they stay out of poverty. 

So if we can make that the focus, I think we have the basis for 

meaningful welfare reform. I don’t think—and I understand this is 

one part of your bill—that you can accomplish that and get a State 

that has been on the dole under this program for so long and is 

so accustomed to using the money for anything else other than 

what it is intended for just to substitute for prior State programs, 

I don’t think you can accomplish that by simply requiring a match. 

And again, you need to look no further than Texas and other 

States. Texas was offered 100 cents on the dollar to provide health 

care for its poor people through Medicaid. It didn’t want to have 

anything to do with that program. And so, simply having a matching program will not get us where we need to be. Texas will continue diverting money and will not accept new Federal dollars to 

help its people escape poverty. 

Ms. Patel, I did want to ask you about education opportunities 

under existing law, and whether additional flexibility is needed if 

the goal is to really move people into long-term, well-paying jobs. 

Ms. PATEL. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman. Absolutely. 

I mean, one of the challenges—and I—you know, as the Director 

of the Office of Family Assistance, we worked with every State in 

42 

the Nation, all of the tribes and territories. We consistently heard 

from States, from people of all political stripes, that the education 

and training limitations in TANF are a problem. 

So, within TANF, under current law—in Ohio they would like to 

have people, you know, get education and training for in-demand 

jobs that employers aren’t able to fill right now, but people can only 

receive up to—States can only count up to 12 months of vocational 

educational training. So, if it is a 2-year degree, forget it. There is 

no incentive for States to provide that training, right, because it 

doesn’t count toward the work participation requirements. And 

only 30 percent of the caseload that is counting toward those rates 

can be in vocational educational training, so that is another limitation. 

And then the other issue that I hear consistently from administrators is that it is an administrative nightmare. It is a bunch of 

bean counting and paperwork, which—taking all that staff time is 

taking taxpayer money that perhaps could otherwise be spent on 

paying for education or training. So it is a real problem. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and if we 

can just note for the record—I know time is up—Ms. Meek Eells 

is nodding very affirmatively on these issues. 

Chairman SMITH. I noticed that. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And I am sure has had similar experience in 

Ohio with both of them. 

Chairman SMITH. Very good. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, I—there is valuable input here, in response from our witnesses. I wish we had unlimited resources of 

time. So—but in the interest of time, we will move forward, and 

I think have further opportunity for responses. 

Next, we recognize Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I take a 

step sideways, and sort of—I wanted to first get my head around 

not only just TANF, but what resources are there for our brothers 

and sisters—let’s use the threshold—that are at 200 percent poverty and below? 

Mr. Doar, I believe the Institute a couple of years ago tried to 

do an articulated list of State, local, private, different types of resources that were parts of our community that were meant to help 

our brothers and sisters who we refer to as poor. 

Mr. DOAR. There are a lot. And sometimes, when we talk about 

only one program, we miss the full picture. And Medicaid is, by far, 

the largest and has grown dramatically. SNAP is also large. Food 

stamps, it has grown dramatically. You, Congress and the Administration just recently added significant new dollars to child care, a 

block grant available to the States. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So—— 

Mr. DOAR. Then there is civil society, States, and localities. 

I think it is not about insufficient amounts of effort with regard 

to dollars. In this case it is about insufficient attention to a particular group that we are not engaging successfully enough. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I want to circle back to that. I have a fixation that technology, the ability to do case management, the ability 

to—a fractured system, where I have an administrator of this proVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:35 Apr 18, 2019 Jkt 033870 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\33870.XXX 33870
43 

gram, an administrator of this program, an administrator of this 

program, and—are you seeing any States or localities that are 

doing a quality job creating almost a single portal? 

Mr. DOAR. Yes, there has been a lot of effort put forth to sort 

of have no wrong door, and interoperability, where applicants and 

recipients of various forms of assistance can get connected to all of 

what they are eligible for. 

My concern is that there hasn’t been enough attention to also 

getting them connected to a path toward employment. And—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But that should be the sort of holistic circle. 

Mr. DOAR. That should be an objective for all of the programs. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I can give this more—and I don’t mean 

this as an anecdote, because it is actually something we are working on—we have Goodwill Industries in Arizona. It is actually huge 

in Maricopa County. They do a terrific job in job training programs, 

but they were seeing in their data—that they had this unusual 

outlier. People would finish the job training and then not show up 

for the job interviews. And when there was some survey work done, 

it was transportation issues. 

It turns out an organization like Lyft basically said, ‘‘We will 

take care of it, and we will do it for a fraction of the cost, and we 

will give you a geotag that we actually dropped them off at their 

job interview.’’ And so, what I am starting to—when I am speaking 

of sort of a holistic, I mean more than just programs. 

It is—there is technology out there that can help us in our coordination of transportation, of getting to the medical appointment, 

to actually child care and the documentation of everything from a 

babysitting co-op to subsidized child care. 

Mr. DOAR. When we had—we had Goodwill in New York, also. 

They were a job placement program. And we were very generous 

with transportation assistance. And my view is that when a TANF 

program is forced to engage people and guardrails are put up with 

regard to the spending, they are going to come up with solutions 

like that to get back to the core objective, which is to help people 

get into work. But they have been allowed to not have to think that 

way. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes, but—and maybe—and I know, Mr. 

Chairman, you are working on a discussion draft and mechanisms. 

I have sort of a passion of—is it—do we need to do a little more 

thought work on—could TANF also be sort of that hub of coordination of the different benefits, and also of community organizations 

for the cascade of how we help someone make it back into society? 

If you actually look at our unemployment data—and, you know, 

being someone that fixates on some of the line items, there are 

wonderful things happening in our society. 

Mr. DOAR. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We are seeing data that marginalized populations from the last decade are finding jobs. Felons are finding 

jobs. Long-term unemployed are finding work. So how do we find 

our brothers and sisters who, either because of child care, of certain types of disabilities, of whatever the impairment may be—and 

my fear is we have sort of a fractured system, where we are competing against each other. 

44 

Mr. DOAR. Well, I think that we want all the programs to be focused on that. And I think if you put it all in TANF, I think that 

wouldn’t necessarily be right. Not everyone needs—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, no, I—let’s—I am just—who is the traffic controller? You know, and that is where—you used the term 

sort of single portal. 

Mr. DOAR. It is—the State Commissioner of Social Services 

often has the largest role, has the largest programs under their 

bailiwick. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I know I am slightly over time, but if I 

wanted to do some research and see who is doing it the best in our 

society, which State, which community has done it most elegantly? 

Mr. DOAR. I can give you some ideas on that. I am sure Nisha 

and—we all could. 

Chairman SMITH. You will have the opportunity to respond 

later. I certainly appreciate your feedback, though. 

Next, we have Mr. Reichert for 5 minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. From Schweikert to 

Reichert. That is a little confusing. 

[Laughter.] 

I am just an old retired cop who happened to end up in Congress, 

the oldest of seven kids, grew up in a home of domestic violence, 

ran away from home. And I think you will find that a lot of people 

on this dais have—you know, we all have a story. And so I think 

it is good for you to know a little piece of that from me, because 

we do understand, you know, the complicated problem that we are 

trying to deal with, not only from this dais, as professionals, but 

also from personal experiences in our own lives, and in our own 

community. 

But I have added up the years. I did this in the last Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Chairman. I have added up the years of experience here on our witness panel, and I wasn’t very good at math 

in high school, but it looks to me like we have about 70 years of 

experience. On the last panel we had 50 years of experience. And 

so, as an old cop, I want to go back and just kind of try to figure 

out where we have been and where we are—you know, where we 

are today and where we are headed. 

So, 30 years ago, in your case, Ms. Meek Eells, did you have performance measures 30 years ago? And 20 years ago? I am assuming that the other two witnesses had some performance measures. 

I was, in 1972, on patrol, and my sergeant had performance 

measures for me in 1972. As the sheriff I was part of the committee 

in King County, in Seattle, to end homelessness in 10 years. And 

that happened—it started in 1997. Of course, we were unsuccessful. It is worse today. 

What are we doing wrong? We had performance measures. We 

are looking at performance measures. We have programs in place. 

People need help. What else do we need to think about? I mean 

where—we are—program after program after program, money after 

money after money. I want to help people, too, but I want to really 

be able to help people. Anybody on the panel—— 

Mr. DOAR. Mr. Reichert, I think we have done a good job at providing an enormous array of material aid to struggling Americans. 

45 

We have not done as good a job at helping them move into employment and earn their own success. 

Now, we have done—some of that has done well, but it is not as 

good as it should be. And TANF, while it had a good beginning, has 

faded a little bit in that objective of getting people to work with the 

existing caseload it currently has. 

So I think we are good at providing aid, we are not so good at 

helping people get the skills and get into employment as we would 

like to be. And I think we have to work on that. 

Mr. REICHERT. I was really interested, Ms. Patel, in your comments about prevention, because it really goes back to the family 

foundation, in my opinion. 

Where have we fallen apart here? I know that TANF penalizes 

married couples. So what is your idea of prevention? To me, it is 

growing the family, strengthening the family. 

Ms. PATEL. Yes. I would say a couple of things. I mean, one is 

just that investment of income on the front end, so families don’t 

spiral into crisis, right? And I think it is—employment is super important, education and training are important, but they are not 

enough. So family stability—— 

Mr. REICHERT. We have children that are growing up—young 

people now—that don’t have, as we heard in the last panel, soft 

skills. 

Ms. PATEL. Right. 

Mr. REICHERT. Whatever—I mean, in my generation, of course 

you can tell it has been a while—we grew up—even in the situation 

I described, we were taught to work hard, to persist, and keep on 

going. What has happened with our young people not even learning 

soft skills, how to show up on time for work, for crying out loud? 

Ms. PATEL. Yes, you know, it is interesting. What we have been 

calling soft skills for a while now, the brain science—as I mentioned a lot has changed in 20 years. So behavioral and brain 

science have evolved. 

And so, one of the things that some of the most cutting-edge organizations are doing is this movement from not just case management to much more of a coaching model, where we look at what 

motivates individuals’ behavior. How do we help them? So the word 

that is being used is kind of a technical—— 

Mr. REICHERT. We have to break the cycle, though. So the 

young people you are working with will have a family. We can’t let 

this continue to—you know, they have a family, they need to teach 

the soft skills, right? The so-called soft skills. 

Ms. PATEL. No, absolutely. And one of the ways that we do that 

is through new methodologies. And actually, there is an organization right in your district, the Children’s Home Society in Washington State, that is using some of these methodologies that are 

based in brain science, and they are working in an intergenerational way to get at exactly what you are talking about, 

right? They are working with the parents, but also with the young 

children, simultaneously. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes, I just think we have a very, very deep, 

deep, deep problem that we are not really, you know, sinking our 

teeth into. 

46 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. I think, too, if I could offer just quickly, in 

Ohio we have had the opportunity to work through Health and 

Human Services with Mathematica. And one of the things that 

they are working with us on is kind of a brain science model called 

Goal4 It!TM. And what it does is it really looks at goal-setting, and 

incorporates the case management around that, so that people are 

kind of re-learning the soft skills, and they are accountable for 

what is happening in their lives. 

So again, the case management piece is really a foundational 

piece for transition. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Next, I recognize Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Ms. Patel, yesterday the Republicans on this Committee released 

a discussion draft to make changes to TANF. While we have had 

a limited time to review this draft and thoroughly analyze its impacts, one thing is clear: The proposal involves shifting dollars from 

one State to another, and it is shifting those dollars from States 

that may have invested significant TANF dollars in helping families with basic assistance, work support, work activities, and child 

care. 

My State of California is a prime example. California has made 

significant investments in providing this cash assistance, work support, and child care. And as a result, it has reduced the percentage 

of children in poverty. But the sheer number of children that are 

in poverty is actually the greatest number in the whole United 

States. It is 1.8 million children. And yet, if the shift occurs, then 

the Federal share of TANF dollars could be cut by nearly $420 million. 

Now, I believe more money should be invested in TANF. Actually, TANF has lost one-third of its value, because it has not been 

adjusted for inflation since 1996. I think we have to reduce child 

poverty rates in every State, but not by taking money from one 

State and giving it to the other. 

So, Ms. Patel, can you discuss what potential impacts on California would be if this proposal is passed, and TANF dollars are 

given to other States? 

Ms. PATEL. Yes, and I only had a few hours to look at the proposed legislation, but the—you know, what I will say is while California isn’t perfect, it actually currently does the best job of any 

State of actually reaching children in poverty with TANF. And so, 

I would fear that these kinds of cuts would mean that California 

might go from being one of the best to being one of the worst, in 

terms of children who are so poor that they qualify for TANF. 

And you know, I would worry if California had to make those 

over $400 million in cuts they would have to slash the core benefits 

and services that we are talking about: Slashing cash assistance, 

slashing employment and training, slashing child care, which could 

mean that children would be harmed and deprived of basic needs, 

and parents deprived of the opportunity to get the skills they need 

to get those good jobs we have all been talking about. 

You know, I was looking at the press coverage from this last 

week. California is traditionally a State that has invested in its 

people. That is probably why it is now the fifth—last week, this 

47 

just happened, right? It is now the fifth-largest economy in the 

world. It would really be a shame to see them disinvest in people. 

And given its size, because the population is so big, California— 

what happens in California impacts the entire Nation. There is 

such a large share of vulnerable children there. I had the privilege 

of—I mentioned in my opening statement of talking with parents 

who were part of Parent Voices. I was in Los Angeles over the 

weekend. 

And one of their big areas of focus right now is trying to get California to do what Nebraska did, to actually increase the level of the 

TANF benefit, given the extremely high cost of living. And a cut 

like this could set back years of progress for those families, who, 

when I speak with them, all want to work. They just need a little 

extra help while they try to get their foot on that first rung of that 

ladder out of poverty. So, it gives me serious concern. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. Well, thank you for that. And I would like to follow up with talking about cash assistance. TANF is the only Federal program that provides cash assistance to low-income families, 

yet most TANF funds no longer actually go toward cash assistance. 

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States 

are spending only 24 percent of TANF dollars on cash assistance. 

In fact, States are overwhelmingly transferring these funds to 

other programs such as child welfare, child care, juvenile justice, 

and transportation. 

So, can you tell us why cash assistance is a critical support for 

low-income families, why it is important to lift children out of poverty, and what steps the Federal Government could take to 

incentivize States to invest more money in cash assistance? 

Ms. PATEL. Yes. I mean cash—you know, while there are other 

programs, cash provides the ultimate autonomy for families. And 

if we want families to, you know, be able to kind of—some people 

like the word self-sufficient. I would say be economically secure. 

Families are best positioned to make the decisions about how 

best to meet their family needs every day, and cash is the only way 

to pay for basic things like rent, like diapers, like shampoo, laundry detergent, kids shoes, school supplies, gas to get to work. Families can’t use SNAP or other benefits to pay for those things. You 

get a flat tire and you have to go to work. How are you going to 

pay for a new tire? So, it is the only way that families can meet 

these basic needs. 

I think the focus should be on children. Parents also have to pay 

for books, for learning materials. And together, these kinds of educational tools I think many middle-class families take for granted— 

right? You want kids to be in sports and have a uniform, or have 

new sneakers, but you also need health care, nutrition, and stable 

housing. All of these things together impact children’s development. 

But as I mentioned before, the financial burdens that cause parental stress end up negatively impacting children and the relationship between parents and children. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. And next I recognize Mr. LaHood 

for 5 minutes. 

48 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here today, and for what all of you do in 

your own capacities on this issue. 

Mr. Doar, I want to start with you. My understanding is right 

now States are spending about a third of TANF dollars on what we 

would consider core assistance, and work support activities focused 

on helping individuals find employment. However, many States 

seem to be doing very little to help welfare recipients move into 

work. 

Meanwhile, we have what I would describe as a jobs gap, and our 

economy right now is flourishing. You know, the statistics that are 

quoted often, we have 6 million unfilled jobs, the lowest unemployment in 20 years, roughly. And so, there are many opportunities 

out there. 

Over the last three hearings, this Subcommittee has heard from 

employers across the country and across industries that are facing 

a shortage of workers, welders, nurses, technicians, truck drivers. 

And our investment in TANF is obviously meant to support work. 

And I want to make sure that TANF dollars are being used for 

their intended purposes—and I think that is part of what this 

Committee is looking at—and that States aren’t taking advantage 

by diverting funds to fill State budget holes or other purposes. 

And you alluded to this a little bit in your opening. What is your 

sense on how States are using TANF dollars now, and whether 

those dollars are really going to support work? And what should we 

be doing, from a public policy standpoint, to ensure this? 

Mr. DOAR. So, the fiscal incentive that the States have by moving people into employment that leads to a lower caseload, and 

then being able to take those excess Federal dollars that used to 

be spent on benefits and original caseload and invest it in other 

things is a good thing. I like the idea that States can have some 

flexibility with dollars they save by helping people move to work. 

It looks, though, now as if they—that has gone a little too far, 

and that there are not enough dollars being redirected or focused 

on the remaining caseload, which may have more difficult and significant issues than the caseload that existed in 1995. It needs a 

little additional effort. 

So, my sense is that it would be a good thing if the Congress 

could impose greater restrictions on the use of dollars. The limitation to families under 200 percent of poverty is a good idea. And 

so, my sense is that—now, I come from a State, New York, that invests a lot and does a lot. But you know, even we could be a little 

more focused on the existing caseload. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And you would say that recommendation, the 200 

percent, is the first step to taking that. Are there any others? 

Mr. DOAR. I think that is a good one. I think that is a pretty 

solid one. 

The other way, the one thing I worry about is if you don’t have 

a performance measure that you are going to hold States accountable for, with potential penalties on engagement—in other words, 

that there is going to be—you are going to hold accountable on how 

many hours or how many activities, or something that you are 

doing with each and every one of the adults on your caseload— 

States will not do what they need to do. 

49 

And so I think that would be the second thing, is to have—not 

just be about placement employment, but also on some requirement, some—you know, I am from the State, but I think sometimes 

it is good to hold us accountable and make us have to do that paperwork reporting that asserts to the Federal Government that we 

did what you asked us to do, which was to focus on engaging people in need in activities that will lead to work. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I got you. 

Ms. Meek Eells, do you have any comment on that? 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. Well, again, I think that over time the performance metrics have changed quite significantly from the aid to 

dependent children days to the TANF days that we are in now. 

I think that States do all they can, especially Ohio. We are doing 

all that we can to better engage these individuals and make sure, 

again, around the focus with case management, because we are 

spending dollars, but we want those dollars to be spent wisely. So, 

to help somebody transition, we want to be working with those that 

are the most barriered and helping those individuals overcome 

what it is that is keeping them from employment. 

I know with WIOA, when WIOA was passed in 2014, there were 

guidelines placed that wanted us to work with those that are more 

barriered, both adults and youth. So I think that in transitioning 

TANF, we do need to have some State requirements that are focusing on those that are most in need. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I next recognize Mr. Rice for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you. I come from South Carolina, and South 

Carolina is doing well. The economy is lifting South Carolina like 

it is lifting the rest of the country. I have eight counties in my district. Most of those counties are also experiencing this buoyant lift 

of our economy. The economy’s GDP growth is above 3 percent, 

which a lot of people said we wouldn’t get back to. And a number 

of unemployment claims are at 50-year lows. Unemployment itself 

is at 20-year lows. 

Yet I have three counties in my district, three of my eight counties, that have—they have struggled for decades. In fact, Dillon 

County, South Carolina, President Obama, when he was running 

the first time, stopped there and stopped at an old school and put 

a little child in his lap and talked about how, you know, these people had been left behind. 

Well, that same county, Dillon County, South Carolina, the State 

of South Carolina just opened the Dillon Inland Port, which is a 

place where trucks coming down I–95 can pull off the highway and 

offload, rather than having to drive all the way into the middle of 

South Carolina and down to the port and—creating traffic and pollution, and all these other things. And if they get there by 5:00 in 

the evening, it will be on the ship the next day. 

Now, what that does is it attracts exporters and importers. I 

opened one of these in Greer about 3 or 4 years ago, and it is creating—no, excuse me, 5 years ago—it has created 3,000 jobs. So, 

this one in Dillon County has already created 1,100 jobs. 

50 

We have employers screaming for employees, right here in the 

middle of these three very impoverished counties. These counties 

have unemployment rates that are at least 50 percent higher than 

the State average. They are—average income, median family income is two-thirds of the State average. Thirty percent of the people live in poverty, twice the State average. They have declining 

populations, because people historically have had to leave because 

there wasn’t anything there for them. 

So given all of that, and given that we have three fine technical 

schools in my district, two of which serve these three counties—and 

you can go for free; it is not, you know, that tuition is a barrier, 

they are free. And their placement rates are 100 percent in what 

these things—I mean in welding and electrical and plumbing and 

machining, there is a 100 percent placement rate. And you know 

what the problem is? They can’t get people to sign up. 

It is a fascinating thing. Opportunity has been restored. Education is provided. And they can’t get people to sign up. 

So here is my question. How do you break this generational 

cycle, this feeling that, you know, you should rely on government 

assistance to take care of you? How do you break that and get people to recognize—I don’t think they trust—when we say, ‘‘There are 

opportunities for you,’’ they don’t believe there are opportunities for 

them. How do you break that cycle and get these people re-engaged? 

Mr. DOAR. By imposing a requirement on those who receive assistance that they need to do something in return for receiving that 

assistance like participating in an activity that could lead to work, 

like going to work, like going to training and education, having 

that expectation embedded in the programs. That is one way. 

There are other ways involving promoting stronger families, 

doing a better job in education. But it is part of—the Members are 

absolutely correct. In efforts to fight poverty, the strong economy 

and the availability of jobs is tremendously helpful. It is a great 

thing. And it is happening. Employers are reaching out and hiring 

people they didn’t hire before. But we also have to have our benefit 

and assistance programs helping by encouraging and pushing people who are receiving assistance who could work into employment. 

Ms. MEEK EELLS. I would offer also that what we are seeing 

through, again, a more intensive case management process is that 

we are working with individuals. As Nisha had mentioned, it is a 

deterrent when a State looks at the parameters for work participation. 

I think, when we allow people to have an opportunity to go to 

training and not worry that it is not going to meet a Federal requirement, that we need to work with those families, and especially 

with our younger people, to understand that there is an opportunity here that is unreal, that you can get some very short-term 

training—I mean LPNs, 14 months, you are making $18 to $20 in 

my area. Other trainings that may take 2 years, but still, you are 

coming out with very little debt and you are making, you know, 

really, really good money, especially in the trades and the skilled 

trades. 

So I think that with the case management aspect of working 

with families and individuals who certainly need a job, but they 

51 

also need an opportunity to really sit down with somebody to explain what is available in the market, what training do you need 

to secure that opportunity, what is it going to pay, these are the 

things that the workforce are expert in, and that is one of the nice 

things that we have seen with this blending under our comprehensive case management program, is we have a workforce flavor to 

this, but it encompasses so much more than just putting somebody 

on a job site working for 20 or 30 hours a week. It is really intensely looking at that person’s skills, their interests, their abilities, their barriers, and bringing it together, meeting them where 

they are, and helping them to move forward. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you to all of our witnesses. Your insight, and certainly the expertise that I mentioned earlier is valuable. 

This is a conversation that is ongoing, as we address meeting the 

needs of the neediest among us, as I mentioned earlier. And I appreciate the conversation that we have already had. I look forward 

to more. And certainly, if you would like to add to your testimony 

in writing, feel free to do so. 

And please be advised that Members will have 2 weeks to submit 

written questions to be answered later in writing. Those questions 

and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. 

With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ