U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

68–558—PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–1086 

WELFARE REFORM: A NEW CONVERSATION 

ON WOMEN AND POVERTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from Iowa ................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Adair, Vivyan, Elihu Root Peace Fund associate professor of women’s studies, 

Hamilton College, Clinton, NY ........................................................................... 6 

Brown, Kay, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC .................................................... 9 

Berlin, Gordon, president, MDRC, New York, NY ................................................ 11 

Moore, Wes, author of ‘‘The Other Wes Moore,’’ Jersey City, NJ ........................ 13 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Adair, Vivyan: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Berlin, Gordon: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Brown, Kay: 

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

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

Grassley, Hon. Chuck: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Moore, Wes: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

COMMUNICATIONS

Alternatives to Marriage Project ............................................................................ 81 

Annie E. Casey Foundation .................................................................................... 96 

Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire ........................................ 102 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) ........................................................... 108 

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. .................................. 116 

Every Mother is a Working Mother Network ........................................................ 124 

Goodwill Industries International® ....................................................................... 131 

Legal Momentum ..................................................................................................... 137 

LIFETIME (Low-Income Families’ Empowerment through Education) ............. 140 

NETWORK ............................................................................................................... 148 

9 to 5, National Association of Working Women ................................................... 158 

Romero, Diana, PhD, MA, et al. ............................................................................. 168 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law ................................................ 173 

Women of Color Policy Network of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner 

Graduate School of Pubic Service ....................................................................... 178 

(1) 

WELFARE REFORM: A NEW CONVERSATION 

ON WOMEN AND POVERTY 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stabenow, Menendez, and Grassley. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Bill Dauster, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Diedra Henry-Spires, Professional Staff; 

Randy Aussenberg, Intern; and Amber Roberts, Intern. Republican 

Staff: Becky Shipp, Health Policy Advisor; and Mark Hayes, Health 

Policy Director and Chief Health Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

The Prophet Isaiah exhorts us: ‘‘Share your food with the hungry 

and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need 

them, and do not turn away.’’ 

Today, we look at fighting poverty in America. On the eve of its 

expiration, we examine the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, otherwise known as TANF. TANF is a key part of 

America’s social safety net, and it is all the more important in hard 

economic times like these. 

Last week, the Census Bureau told us that poverty last year was 

the highest since 1994. Last year, nearly 4 million more Americans 

fell into poverty; more than a million of them were children. 

Poverty went up among all types of families: 2-parent households 

and single-parent households alike. But nearly one in every three 

households headed by a single woman is living in poverty. 

Today, we will discuss preventing poverty across the spectrum 

and will focus on the strong, but vulnerable women with dependent 

children who make up such a significant part of the TANF caseload. 

More than four out of every five TANF families with an adult are 

headed by a single woman, and seven in 10 of those mothers are 

caring for a child under the age of 6. In this great recession, TANF 

has not responded as other safety net programs have. TANF has 

not automatically expanded as food stamps and Medicaid did. It is 

time to take another long, hard look at TANF. 

2 

In the early 1990s, welfare was an open-ended system. It did not 

promote self-sufficiency, and it did not effectively serve most of the 

people in need. The 1996 welfare reform was a reaction to a broken 

system. The 1996 law moved us from the cash assistance welfare 

system to one that emphasized work and jobs. 

We created the TANF program as a flexible block grant for 

States. We maintained a safety net, but we also created a program 

that would provide child care, transportation, and job search support. 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 reinforced the new system. But 

the system was not built for a recession like the one that started 

in 2008. At the end of last year, fewer than 2 million families received cash assistance through TANF. That is 3 million fewer than 

received Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1994. 

Quite simply, a welfare reform system focused on jobs can work 

when there are plenty of jobs. But that kind of system poses harsh 

realities when the recession sets in. 

The time-loaded cash assistance and flexible TANF program has 

enabled many to transition into jobs and self-sufficiency. But there 

is also evidence that efforts to encourage State welfare-to-work innovations have not succeeded across the board. 

A safety net to fight poverty is only as good as it is in hard 

times. We have an opportunity to learn from these hard times. We 

can see what works and what does not, and we can build on that 

experience as we extend and improve TANF. 

One example of what works is the TANF emergency contingency 

fund. We created that fund in the Recovery Act. It helps States to 

meet increased demand for help. It also funded more than 250,000 

transitional jobs. These jobs are building good work histories, and 

these jobs are allowing many to learn and build skills. 

As of last week, 48 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands have been using this fund. In 36 States, DC, 

and the Virgin Islands, they have created jobs with the fund. 

States from Massachusetts to Alabama are clamoring for continuation of the fund. They want to create even more jobs. I have 

read dozens of testimonials from newly hired employees. They tell 

how these opportunities allowed them to meet their families’ needs. 

Many spoke to the value of the on-the-job training and the permanent job that followed for them. 

Last week, I hosted an economic development summit in Butte, 

MT. On that panel on job creation, Ray Kuntz, a small business 

employer, spoke about what the transitional jobs program has 

meant for his business. With wage assistance, he was able to bring 

on two additional employees; at first temporarily, and then permanently. He has provided work experience and training for many 

more. 

The TANF emergency contingency fund has been getting Americans back to work. The great recession and TANF’s upcoming expiration present us with an opportunity to build a system for all seasons. 

The policy details of encouraging work and economic mobility are 

important, but let us not lose sight of the basic principle, namely, 

America has to have a social safety net. 

3 

Needy families with children will fall on tough times, and we 

need to respond. Today’s hearing will be the first in a series on 

TANF and related programs. Congress must act quickly and cooperatively to extend the program, which expires in 9 days, on September 30. And then, as this committee prepares for a full reauthorization next year, we will explore this program’s strengths, its 

needs, and challenges for women, men, and children. 

So let us start to prepare for extending and improving TANF. Let 

us begin with a new conversation on women and poverty, and let 

us talk about how we can help those who need help and not turn 

away. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Grassley? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing, for inviting these witnesses, and to the witnesses for appearing as well. 

TANF needs to be reauthorized in the coming weeks to prevent 

the program from sunsetting entirely. The TANF program is in 

need of review. Like any program of this magnitude, this review requires making necessary improvements and course corrections in 

cases where a program is not meeting its intended goals. It might 

also require changes if the program is wasteful, inefficient, and 

where spending is exceeding what is appropriate. 

Given the importance of the TANF program, I had hoped this 

committee would have made more progress this year to review, reform, and reauthorize the TANF programs. But since that has not 

happened, I hope that we can pass a simple extension of the program with no changes, so that a more complete reauthorization 

process can take place in the next Congress. 

In the years leading up to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, there 

were 13 short-term extensions of TANF which created confusion in 

States and undermined the program’s effectiveness. I am hopeful, 

however, that Congress will address the reauthorization of the program next year. 

Welfare reform is sometimes characterized as one of the greatest 

domestic social policy accomplishments in our generation. Certainly, very few believe that going back to welfare as an entitlement and a lifestyle that often persisted generation after generation is a viable option. 

However, in the 15 years since welfare reform was at the top of 

the national agenda, the results of welfare reform are decidedly 

mixed. While the welfare caseload has been cut in half, the jury is 

out on whether the program has succeeded in lifting people out of 

poverty, now at the 14-percent level. 

Disturbingly, in light of those numbers, many of the best antipoverty programs, the so-called innovative welfare-to-work programs that were robust and widespread in the 1990s, are virtually 

nonexistent today. These were programs where employers worked 

in partnership with State welfare agencies to provide good entryVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:15 Oct 20, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\68558.000 TIMD
4 

level jobs for TANF recipients to help them get their start in the 

workforce. 

Even more disturbing, 56 percent of the work-eligible adults receiving welfare are reported as engaged in zero hours of work, education, job search, domestic violence counseling, substance abuse 

treatment, or work-related activities. So that is an appalling statistic—over half of the adults getting a welfare check reportedly are 

doing nothing. 

This means that more than half of the TANF recipients today 

who are otherwise able to work are just collecting a check. They 

are not reported as engaged in any activities designed to help transition from welfare to work. 

Now, in the current economic climate, you might be tempted to 

think that that is okay. But the current economic climate makes 

it even more important that TANF recipients have access to and 

are taking advantage of education and work readiness activities 

available to them. And the landmark welfare reform bill was intended to end this very type of welfare-dependent situation. 

If we were to ask the average American how many adults on welfare should be doing something to qualify for welfare, I think the 

answer from the American people would be, ‘‘all of them.’’ If we 

asked the American people how many people on welfare should the 

States be engaging in productive work-related activities, I think 

the answer from the American people would be ‘‘all of them.’’ 

During today’s hearing, we will learn from the GAO about the 

States’ reaction to the modest refinement of the work requirements 

included in the Deficit Reduction Act. Their report, done at my request, reveals the States have done practically everything they 

could think of to meet the DRA requirements, except actually engaging work-eligible adults in meaningful activities to help them 

enter the workforce. 

So it seems to me that we have two threshold questions going 

into next year’s debate on TANF. Do we want to continue to try 

to motivate States either through vigorous accountability or increased flexibility? 

Or do we want to acknowledge the TANF program, as conceived 

over a decade ago, is no longer relevant and modify the program 

accordingly? 

The makeup of TANF caseloads has changed dramatically. Take, 

for example, the increase of TANF child-only cases. Child-only 

cases are those where the adult is not receiving cash welfare and 

the assistance is aimed solely for the assistance of the child. These 

types of cases are increasingly becoming a larger and larger percentage of the welfare caseload. 

The reason that this is important is that it is not clear whether 

these children are best served under the current system. For example, we worked on a bipartisan bill 2 years ago that allowed States 

to establish kinship care options for youth in foster care. It might 

be that some of these children in child-only welfare cases could be 

better served in a permanent kinship care arrangement. 

Another issue is the fact that a significant amount of TANF 

spending is unaccounted for. In 2009, States spent $6 billion on 

uncharacterized activities. As a result, it is not known what these 

5 

funds were spent on. So that is an unacceptable situation. We need 

to have better accounting on how States are spending this money. 

We hear from States that much of the TANF block grant goes to 

support child protection and child welfare programs. If that is the 

case, Congress should exercise due diligence and provide appropriate oversight on the use of those funds. 

Due to the fact that the demographics of the TANF caseload have 

changed and the fact that a major use of the TANF block grant is 

going toward services not directly associated with basic cash assistance, it might make sense to recalibrate TANF to meeting the 

changing population served by the program. 

So we are facing big challenges with this program, and Congress 

needs to take a hard look at the program and determine what 

needs to get done. That is a big undertaking for next year, and this 

committee hearing is contributing to that effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, I will turn to our witnesses. First, we are pleased to have 

here with us this morning Vivyan Adair, who is the Elihu Root 

Peace Fund associate professor for women’s studies at Hamilton 

College. Ms. Adair will be followed by our second witness, Kay 

Brown, the Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

at the Government Accountability Office; followed by Mr. Gordon 

Berlin, president of MDRC; and, fourth, we will turn to Wes Moore. 

I am also pleased to say I think that Senator Menendez will be 

introducing Mr. Moore. 

Why don’t you do that now, Senator? Do you want to do that 

now? We will get to him a little later, but you can introduce him 

now. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first, for holding 

this important hearing and, secondly, for this opportunity. 

I am pleased to introduce a fellow New Jerseyan to the committee, who is from Jersey City, NJ. He has an extraordinary story 

to tell that I think will be very insightful for the committee, a 

unique perspective on the issue at hand. 

His name is Wes Moore. He is the author of the book called ‘‘The 

Other Wes Moore.’’ It has received national attention for what it 

says about hope and despair, and poverty in the inner city. And it 

is a riveting story of an exploration of poverty in America. It tells 

two tales of the inner city. 

One is the tale of the Wes Moore that I have the pleasure to introduce today, a respected investment banker, a Rhodes scholar, a 

former aide to Condoleezza Rice, a man who reached for every opportunity to lift himself out of the quagmire of drugs and violence 

around him. The other is the tale of another Wes Moore, who chose 

to reach for a gun and ended up wanted for killing a cop. And there 

are fundamentally two different paths, how they chose their paths, 

what opportunities were presented, and the difference they made. 

And I think it is a great opportunity to have a real insight into the 

challenges that the committee is considering, again, and we welcome him for his insights. 

6 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, 

Mr. Moore. We very much look forward to hearing from you. 

Let us start with Ms. Adair. I remind all of you that your statements will automatically be included in the record. I would ask you 

to limit your remarks to about 5 minutes, and say what you want 

to say. Let ’er rip; do not pull any punches. 

Ms. Adair? 

STATEMENT OF VIVYAN ADAIR, ELIHU ROOT PEACE FUND 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF WOMEN’S STUDIES, HAMILTON 

COLLEGE, CLINTON, NY 

Ms. ADAIR. Good morning, and thank you very much for inviting 

me. I am really honored to be here. I have a personal, academic, 

and a civic commitment to welfare reform, which I hope will be 

clear in my few words. 

First of all, I was raised on welfare in Seattle, WA many, many 

years ago. I was raised by a single mother of four, and we were 

dependent upon welfare for the entirety of my period growing up. 

I became a single mother at age 15 in Seattle, as well; and so 

I was on welfare for about 10 years during that period. 

As a doctoral student at the University of Washington and as a 

professor at Hamilton College, I have done a lot of research and 

writing on poverty. I have three books and several essays looking 

at specifically poverty and public policy and law. And I had the 

great fortune of developing and supporting and running a program 

at Hamilton, called the Access program, for 11 years. 

In that program, we recruited low-income welfare-eligible parents and supported them as they earned degrees. It was a very successful program. We have students who have gone on to become 

doctors and lawyers and teachers and nurses in our community. 

I think that these experiences clearly have framed and shaped 

my sense of TANF and what we really want you to look for in reauthorizing TANF. 

As children, my young siblings and I were marked by poverty. 

Our lives were punctuated by bouts of homelessness, hunger, fear, 

lack of medical and dental care, and despair. My young mother, a 

single mother of four, was a hard worker and an intelligent and 

honest woman who did her best to bring order, grace, and dignity 

to our lives. 

Yet, she was cyclically dependent upon insufficient welfare support and trapped in a series of dead-end and demeaning jobs, with 

which she could simply not nurture and provide security for the 

children she loved. 

Perhaps not too surprisingly, I followed suit at age 15, dropping 

out of school and becoming a single mother, dependent upon welfare myself. 

I know very clearly the desperation and hopelessness that shape 

the lives of poor women in the United States today. Yet, I was also 

fortunate to have been poor and broken and verging on irredeemable hopelessness in an era when education could provide a lifeline 

for poor single mothers, as it has historically done for so many in 

our country, but often fails to do today. 

Because of my interactions with a pre-reform welfare system, the 

superb educational institutions like the University of Washington 

7 

in Seattle, and with the instructors who supported and guided me, 

I was able to transfer my life and that of my children to the lifealtering pathway of higher education. 

In the summer of 1987, I walked out of a shelter for battered 

women and enrolled in a GED course, and then in a college program, again, in Washington State. My passage was guided by supportive welfare case workers, volunteers in the shelter, and patient 

and able teachers whose classrooms became places where I was 

able to build bridges between my own knowledge of the world and 

crucial new knowledge, skills, and methodologies. 

Dedicated faculty revealed exciting knowledge of the world 

through engaging exercises and orchestrated challenging discussions that enabled me to use my newfound skills to re-envision my 

own gifts, strengths, and responsibilities to the world around me. 

Little by little, the larger social, creative, political, and material 

world exposed itself to me in ways that were resonant and urgent, 

inviting me to analyze, negotiate, articulate, and reframe systems, 

histories, and pathways that had previously been simply inaccessible. The process, as you can all imagine, was invigorating, restorative, and absolutely life-altering. 

As a result, today I have a Ph.D. and am employed as a tenured 

faculty member at Hamilton College in Upstate New York. But my 

life and experiences are certainly not anomalous. 

In ‘‘Together We Are Getting Freedom,’’ Noemy Vides recalls that 

her life as a poor immigrant welfare mother began anew when she 

was encouraged to seek an education. She confides that it was 

through higher education that she was ‘‘born as a new woman with 

visions, dreams, hopes, opportunities, and fulfillment,’’ adding that 

a college education is ‘‘a key ingredient in poor women’s struggles 

to survive often.’’ 

One of my own former students, a young Latina, single mother 

of three, now a chemical engineer in California, recently wrote of 

a similar transformation experience through higher education. 

Valuing both the products and the processes of higher education, 

she reflected, ‘‘School gave me the credentials to pull my three 

daughters and me permanently out of poverty. After being raised 

in dire and painful poverty and in watching my own children suffer 

as I worked for minimum wage at a fast food restaurant, this is 

so important to me. Today, we own a home, a car, and pay taxes. 

I have a great paying job, my children excel in school, and I can 

afford and care for them properly. But what is really revolutionary 

is what education did to our heads, all of our heads. We think differently now. I act differently, and my girls relate to our world differently. My mother died broke, an alcoholic, living in public housing. My younger sister is in jail and her children are in foster care. 

We have broken that cycle through higher education once and for 

all. We are so grateful for this journey.’’ 

Indeed, in 1987, the year that I entered college, around the Nation it was estimated that almost half a million welfare recipients 

were similarly enrolled in institutions of higher education as a 

route out of poverty. 

Prior to welfare reform in 1996, tens of thousands of single, poor 

mothers quietly accessed post-secondary education to become teachVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:15 Oct 20, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\68558.000 TIMD
8 

ers, lawyers, social service providers, business and civic leaders, 

and medical professionals. 

While education, of course, is important to all citizens, my experience and extensive research clearly convinced me that it is essential for those who will face continued obstacles, to those who have 

been distanced and disenfranchised from U.S. mainstream culture, 

and to those who have suffered generations of oppression and oftentimes marginalization. 

Despite a large number of reputable studies confirming the relationship between higher education and increased earnings, and, 

thus, financial security, in 1996, as you all know, Congress enacted 

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act, PRWORA, as part of welfare reform, and this act, in addition 

to promoting the development of programs and requirements, had 

the effect of encouraging work first; also, it had the impact of lowering enrollments in colleges. 

Specifically, TANF work requirements drastically limited poor 

women’s opportunities to participate in post-secondary higher education programs while receiving State support. 

Unlike previous provisions in AFDC and JOBS, education and 

training programs that were in existence when I went to college, 

TANF restrictions often did not allow higher education to be counted as work and required, as you know, a larger portion of welfare 

recipients to engage in full-time, immediate work, and this had the 

effect of lowering enrollments among welfare recipients in colleges. 

Welfare recipient students left college for low wage jobs in record 

numbers immediately. Even as the Nation embraced the conviction 

that access to higher education is one of several pathways towards 

social and economic mobility, poor women were often denied access 

to education that could have positively altered the course of their 

lives and those of their children, as it had for me and for my students in the Access program. 

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in the 

first year of welfare reform tens of thousands of poor women were 

forced to drop out of school. Across the Nation, the decrease in enrollments among welfare recipients ranged from 29 percent to 82 

percent, and I have extensive research that shows a continuing 

trend towards women leaving school. 

Many years later, now, of course, the prospects for these students 

remain dismal. One former computer science major with a 10-yearold son at the University of California that I talk to now earns 

$7.90 an hour. Recently, she described changes in her family’s 

quality of life as a result of dropping out of school to engage in immediate work first. 

She said, ‘‘I call it welfare deform. Things are so much harder 

now. We can barely pay our rent. My son is alone all the time 

while I work. I just don’t see a future anymore. With school, there 

was a hope. There was a pathway. We were going someplace. I was 

on my way to make a decent living for us. Now it’s just impossible 

to survive day to day. Usually, I can’t pay my rent. I don’t have 

a cent saved for emergency. I don’t know what I’m going to do.’’ 

A second student—this is for a book I have forthcoming from 

University of Chicago Press in the spring—and this is a student 

who was a gifted and dedicated education major, returned to welVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:15 Oct 20, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\68558.000 TIMD
9 

fare after being forced to leave the University of Washington and 

losing several minimum wage jobs because she could not afford reliable child care and was denied child care assistance from the 

State for failing to name her child’s father. 

She described the nightmare of losing job after minimum wage 

job in order to care for her child, emphasizing that this was, ‘‘a 

choice no mother should be forced to make.’’ She added, ‘‘It came 

down to this. If I want to keep this job at the fast food restaurant, 

I have to leave my 3-year-old daughter alone or maybe with a senile neighbor, and I couldn’t even really afford that, or we could go 

back to her dad, who is a drunk. If I don’t do that, we could both 

end up hungry or homeless, or both.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to ask you to summarize your 

statement, please. 

Ms. ADAIR. My point is that, as you reauthorize higher education, 

TANF—as you reauthorize TANF, I would urge you to consider 

higher education and training programs as an option for those 

women who are willing and able to go to school. 

Certainly, not all single, low-income mothers and fathers are able 

or willing to do so, but my sense is that to prevent those who can 

from completing post-secondary higher education degrees is a mark 

of shortsighted and fiscally irresponsible policy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Adair appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Adair. We appreciate 

you sharing your experiences. 

Ms. Brown? 

STATEMENT OF KAY BROWN, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, and members 

of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work 

on TANF, since it is one of the key programs intended to assist 

women and children. 

Today, I will touch on three points: changes in the TANF cash 

assistance caseload, how low-income families are faring, and our 

ability to monitor the State programs. 

First, on caseload changes: in the decade following welfare reform, as States implemented more work-focused programs to move 

parents quickly into jobs, the number of households receiving cash 

assistance dropped from 4.8 million each month to 1.7 million. 

So what happened? Two things. Some families were no longer eligible. Stronger incentives to work, combined with other factors, 

such as the availability of jobs in the late 1990s and increases in 

the minimum wage, contributed to higher incomes for some families, so that fewer were eligible. 

During this period, labor force participation among single mothers increased significantly. At the same time, though, many other 

families that were still eligible for TANF did not participate. The 

reasons for this include mandatory work requirements, the lifetime 

limits on assistance, and State sanction policies. 

Also, some families may have found it difficult to apply for or 

continue participating due to poor mental or physical health. 

10 

More recently, during the recession, cash assistance caseloads 

have risen nationally. However, caseload changes in States varied. 

In some States, caseloads rose; in other States, they fell. 

My second point is about how low-income families are faring. In 

the years following welfare reform, many of the parents who left 

cash assistance found employment, and some were better off than 

before. But many have unstable jobs, low incomes, and continue to 

rely on other government supports. 

Of particular concern, a small subset of families who neither receive TANF nor earn income may have been left behind. 

Moving on to my third point, on our ability to monitor State programs. Work participation rates, a key performance measure for 

TANF, had not proven to be a useful indicator of the States’ efforts 

to engage participants in the type and hours of work-related activities specified in the law. States had been expected to ensure that 

at least half of all families receiving TANF cash assistance participated in these work activities. 

However, through the years, States have used program flexibilities to engage fewer participants in the stated goal without incurring penalties. In fact, in 2006, 18 States effectively reduced their 

required participation rate to zero by taking a credit equal to the 

size of their caseload decline. 

When the program was reauthorized, Congress made changes intended to strengthen work requirements. However, States continued to lower their work participation requirements by using these 

caseload decline credits and other allowable means. 

As a result, the proportion of families that has actually met its 

work participation requirements is less than one-third and has 

changed little over time. 

Finally, we will identify two other factors that hinder oversight 

of State programs. As caseloads decreased, States redirected block 

grant funds to other allowable activities, such as child care, child 

welfare, and pre-kindergarten. The proportion of TANF funds used 

for these other activities grew from 23 percent in 1997 to 70 percent in 2009. 

Yet, States are not held accountable for how these funds are used 

or how they help meet TANF goals. In addition, the proportion of 

cash assistance cases that is for a child only, with no adult receiving assistance, has increased from one-fourth to nearly half the 

caseload. And again, efforts to promote self-sufficiency have not focused on these families. 

In conclusion, although a central feature of the TANF block 

grant is the flexibility it provides to the States to design and implement their own programs, the limited usefulness of the key performance measures and the lack of information on how States use 

their non-cash assistance funds hinder our ability to fully understand how the program has been implemented and whether it is 

reaching its goals. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Next, Mr. Berlin? 

11 

STATEMENT OF GORDON BERLIN, PRESIDENT, 

MDRC, NEW YORK, NY 

Mr. BERLIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify today. 

In concert with the 1990s’ strong economy and an expanded 

Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF did deliver on its early promise. 

Employment rates among low-income women and mothers rose to 

new highs, welfare caseloads fell to modern-day lows, and child 

poverty rates declined. But TANF fell short in several areas. 

The number of disconnected low-income single mothers with children who were neither on welfare nor working and, thus, who had 

no reliable source of cash income was rising; the fraction of families 

living in severe poverty was also up; and a growing share of families who met eligibility requirements were not enrolled. 

The recession that began in 2008 greatly exacerbated the law’s 

shortcomings. And it revealed a much more serious problem—a 

lackluster, countercyclical response to the downturn. Despite the 

depths of the recession and in stark contrast to other safety net 

programs, welfare rolls rose only modestly. The poverty numbers 

released by the Census Bureau last week underscore the consequences of this failure. Roughly 15 million children are living in 

poor families, but only 3.4 million children are receiving TANFfunded benefits. 

Further complicating the picture is GAO’s recent finding that 57 

percent of adults on welfare had zero hours of participation in work 

preparation activities. States have offered a number of legitimate 

explanations for these low participation rates; for example, people 

between activities and States not reporting activities that do not 

meet the hours requirements that are specified in the law. 

But without hard numbers describing what adults in the caseload are engaged in, it is hard to know what to make of these explanations. 

So why did TANF not respond to the economic downturn? In retrospect, as the caseload declined in the 1990s and pressure mounted on States to spend TANF funds, the Act’s broad purposes, the 

flexibility it granted to States in what could be counted as State 

maintenance of effort match, and the limited reporting required on 

what was done with the funding worked together to turn TANF 

into a form of revenue-sharing for States. 

The bulk of the funds were likely used to meet important needs, 

including child welfare and child care. But when the economy 

turned and applications rose, States were hard-pressed to return 

the dollars to TANF’s original income support purposes. 

Recognizing these constraints on States, Congress moved decisively to address the economic downturn by creating the TANF 

emergency fund. The fund helped States to increase enrollment in 

welfare and other programs, and, importantly, it catalyzed a new 

round of State creativity, leading to the development of more than 

250,000 subsidized jobs in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. 

So why are States having so much difficulty meeting the participation standards? Here, too, hindsight is 20/20. It now seems clear 

that TANF established hours, activities, and participation thresholds that were unachievable for many States. 

12 

For a time, this reality was masked by the caseload reduction 

credit. Once the Deficit Reduction Act reset the base year to 2005, 

States were forced to attain rates they had not previously reached. 

So it would be easy to be discouraged by these developments. Indeed, the history of welfare policy is one of pendulum swings between its competing goals: reducing poverty versus reducing dependency, being responsive to economic downturns versus dealing 

with structural problems, privileging work-first versus educationfirst, and promoting fatherhood programming versus marriage programming. 

Instead of viewing these as either/or choices, the challenge is to 

change the conversation and use the opportunity of reauthorization 

to end the historic tendency to swing between these philosophical 

extremes, committing instead to build on past successes, while 

remedying current problems. 

Research evidence from a variety of interventions, which I describe in detail in my prepared remarks, offers guidance about 

moving forward in several key areas—maintaining a strong work 

focus, while also encouraging advancement through education and 

training; using job creation and earning supplement strategies to 

reduce poverty without increasing dependency; developing a next 

generation of services for those with persistent barriers to employment; and taking the best from both fatherhood and relationship 

programs to strengthen families. 

So how might Congress proceed? At this critical crossroads, a 2- 

part, short-run/long-run strategy seems best. In the short run, it 

seems imperative to extend the current TANF law and continue 

the emergency fund. The economic recovery has slowed, if not 

stalled, and the emergency fund appears to be providing vital 

bridge funding for clients, employers, communities, and States during this difficult period. And it stimulated the kind of creative response from States that the Nation needs. 

Second, we need better information to make good decisions. An 

extension should require better State reporting about TANF spending in the ‘‘other’’ and ‘‘non-assistance’’ categories, about participation activities that States do not currently report, and about the 

nature of State maintenance of effort programming. 

Third, modest expansions of what counts as participation to include longer spells of job search, as well as education and training, 

without the strict hours and activity limits, would help focus States 

on what really matters here—engaging all adults in the caseload 

in productive activities that would prepare them for work when the 

economy turns. 

In the long run, and hopefully with better data, Congress could 

consider more fundamental issues. These might include rethinking 

TANF’s goals and purposes. Do we want TANF to continue as 

revenue-sharing or do we want a program that promotes work and 

self-sufficiency in good times, while providing support for the Nation’s poorest citizens in difficult times? 

Second, we need to create a permanent emergency fund triggered 

by poverty and unemployment indicators and designed to solve the 

shortcomings evident in the existing contingency fund. This would 

enable TANF to contract in good times, while expanding in bad 

times, and thus to play an effective countercyclical role. 

13 

Third, we could reexamine the block grant structure so that 

States maintain sufficient flexibility to innovate, while being transparent about how resources are actually being spent. This means 

better reporting, narrower purposes, and tighter maintenance of effort requirements. 

Finally, we could think about revamping the participation requirements and combining them with a universal engagement 

measure as part of these changes; expanding the role of education 

and training, while creating standards that require participants to 

make adequate progress; expanding efforts to address the needs of 

participants with barriers to employment; and providing incentives 

to States to do more of what the research says works. 

I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berlin appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berlin. 

Next, Mr. Moore? 

STATEMENT OF WES MOORE, AUTHOR OF 

‘‘THE OTHER WES MOORE,’’ JERSEY CITY, NJ 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Grassley, and other esteemed members of the committee, for this 

invitation to testify today. 

The proper reauthorization of TANF is both an investment in the 

well-being of our Nation’s most vulnerable families and also a key 

component to our short- and long-term national standing and security, and it means a great deal to me to add my voice to this urgent 

national dialogue. Thank you. 

In my recent book, ‘‘The Other Wes Moore,’’ I wrote about the 

ramifications of paying attention or not to the needs of the underserved and disconnected. While I focused on two specific families, 

it is really the story of millions of hardworking families around the 

country who desperately seek to raise happy, healthy, and productive children. 

I, like far too many young people, grew up without my father in 

the home. I, like far too many young people, grew up in a neighborhood that was undervalued and that forced me to understand adult 

realities far too early. 

Fortunately, I was blessed to have an extraordinarily creative 

and persevering mother, who used the leverage of familial and 

community supports around her to help my journey into manhood. 

But there is another Wes Moore, who used to live in the same 

neighborhood in Baltimore, who was around the same age, who is 

spending the rest of his life in prison for the tragic murder of a police officer. 

Wes also grew up with a single mother who loves her children 

deeply, but was overwhelmed and overpowered by community influences and the lack of connections to meaningful supports. 

This true story helps to highlight the importance of access to opportunities and productive pathways to self-sufficiency. It also 

highlights the consequences of allowing poverty to go unchallenged 

and unabated. 

To be sure, TANF has helped many low-income families move 

one step closer to taking care of themselves. It helps provide pathways out of poverty through job training and access to health servVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:15 Oct 20, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\68558.000 TIMD
14 

ices. But there are still too many families who are forced to fend 

for themselves. The TANF reauthorization is an opportunity to revisit the program’s mission and to help it achieve the original 

promise to help move our Nation’s families out of extreme poverty. 

Moving forward, in order for TANF to properly support the families that are most in need, we need to have better insight into the 

actual conditions of families in need and not disincentivize people 

from claiming the benefits to which they are legally entitled. 

From 1996, when TANF was enacted, to 2008, the share of poor 

children receiving cash assistance fell by more than half, from 62 

percent to 27 percent. That sounds great if it also mirrored a downward shift in need or corresponding decrease in the disparity gap 

between the rich and the poor in this country. 

The problem is that it does not. The disparity gap is the highest 

that it has been in this country since the Great Depression. 

Acknowledging and developing holistic strategies to counter the 

core causes of poverty are essential when thinking about policies 

going forward. Again, I draw upon my experiences and those of the 

other Wes Moore to recommend the TANF reauthorization include 

reducing fatherless households as a key element in developing 

more holistic, accountable, and sustainable approaches to poverty 

reduction. 

My father died before my 4th birthday. The other Wes never 

knew his father, and he said to me once, ‘‘Your father wasn’t there 

because he couldn’t be. My father wasn’t there because he chose 

not to be. Therefore, we’re going to mourn their absence differently.’’ 

There are too many young people from all races and ethnic 

groups who are mourning the losses of their fathers. According to 

the National Fatherhood Initiative, children who live in fatherabsent homes are 5 times more likely to be poor, and more than 

a quarter of America’s children now live with one parent or with 

a grandparent. 

Much to the credit of Federal and State focus over the past decade, we have seen demonstrable improvements in this area. However, when we think about the ongoing correlation between poverty 

and single-parent households, it is obvious that sustainable 

progress cannot be made without designing strategies that factor in 

both in concert. 

Along those lines, for too many families trapped in poverty, an 

incarcerated spouse is at the center of the dilemma. Annually, 

there are more than 650,000 formerly incarcerated men and women 

who return to their communities every year. How we prepare them 

to come back into society and how we prepare society to welcome 

them back is also part of the poverty reduction equation. 

How coordinated are the objectives of TANF and the Second 

Chance Act? This reauthorization presents an opportunity to examine possible links that could lead to a broader and more effective 

poverty reduction strategy. That would also help cut the recidivism 

rate and cut costs at the same time. 

Imagine if Wes’s first contact with the judicial system had been 

his last. He now would be paying taxes instead of using taxpayer 

dollars. 

15 

This year alone we will spend well over $61,000 to clothe, house, 

feed, and provide health care and health insurance to Wes. Assuming he lives to the national average of 78, that will be a total cost 

of close to $4 million, and that is a conservative number not including any type of inflationary gains. And that is for him alone. 

This figure does not include the brain capital loss that could have 

been utilized to create not just better futures for his family, but for 

our entire country. 

I say this not to create sympathizers or cast revisionist history 

or to absolve personal responsibility from the equation. Wes’s fate 

is sealed, and he will spend the rest of his life in prison for choices 

that he made. 

However, we, the American people, rely on you, the lawmakers, 

to make sure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. All 

environments are not equal nor will they ever be, but you have 

within your power in the reauthorization of TANF—and the proper 

reauthorization of TANF—to install a holistic pathway to poverty 

reduction that is supported by data and linked to achievable outcomes. 

In the richest country in the world, it is the least we can do. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. I understand 

your mother is with us. 

Mr. MOORE. She is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you introduce her, please? 

Mr. MOORE. I would love to. My mother, my champion, is sitting 

behind me right here. So thank you. [Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Moore, if you want to say something, you 

are more than welcome. 

Let me start with you, Ms. Adair. I was just struck with your 

concern about education. Could you talk about whether or not there 

is a tradeoff between education and work? Why were opportunities 

for TANF participants to receive education cut back, and what is 

the counterargument that a college education be more of a participating activity? 

Ms. ADAIR. I think, primarily, it was the work-first activities that 

mandated that women who were in college had to work full-time 

and were not given any kind of child care support for going to 

school, so they could not afford to go to school and work. And that 

really was responsible for this plummeting rate of people who were 

both enrolled in TANF programs and school. 

So I think that including options for supported access to higher 

education is one of several pathways we should explore. Certainly, 

training is important in other fields, and I think work is important. 

The students in our Access program work while going to school, 

but they are able to count a lot of their school hours as work participation hours. They are able to find work that coincides with 

their area of study. So we have students who are pre-law students 

who are able to work in law firms, for example. And it really aids 

them in terms of finding careers. In moving from low-wage work 

really to career-sustainable employment, I think it is really, really 

crucial. 

16 

The CHAIRMAN. Education was important to you, I presume probably not just because you had good programs in the University of 

Washington, but there was a spark in you. You wanted to get educated. 

Is that true for everybody? 

Ms. ADAIR. Well, no. Certainly, it is not true for everybody. Every 

low-income single mother or father in this country does not want 

to go to school and cannot go to school. 

But for those who can and are willing and able to care for their 

children, to work part- to full-time and to go to school, I think we 

should have supports for them to do so. It is one of many pathways 

I would like to encourage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should there be any restriction as to the type of 

education, or should that be open-ended? 

Ms. ADAIR. There are many who would argue that what we need 

is access to education in community college, which is more sort of 

training-oriented versus skills-oriented. But part of my argument 

is that we need both, and we also need to include education options 

in higher education, liberal arts institutions, where students learn 

not just new skills, but new methodologies, how to think differently, how to act differently, how to imagine themselves as contributors differently. 

So I would see a range of programs, beginning with training, vocational programs, community colleges, and liberal arts colleges. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a teacher in your family, parents or 

grandparents? 

Ms. ADAIR. My mother left high school when she was 14, as well, 

and I did not have a father. So, no, there are no teachers in my 

family. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown, as I listened to you, I got the sense 

of some frustration about incomplete data, incomplete reporting. 

What would you change? What data would you like to get when we 

reauthorize TANF? 

Ms. BROWN. Certainly, one of the most important things is to get 

a better handle on the large amount of funds that are spent for activities that are not related to the cash assistance work activities. 

The other factor would be, if you were to reauthorize and not 

make significant changes, then it might be important to rethink 

the participation rate as we have it set now. The way it is measured and implemented just is not that useful. 

So I guess it boils down to, do we stay the course and, if so, there 

would have to be corrections to the measures at hand. And, if there 

are some of the more significant changes that people are talking 

about, then we would have to step back and think about what 

would be the most important things for us to measure, because 

what we measure is what we get often. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. If I can just add on. I think Ms. Brown makes a 

great point, also, just in terms of the access to the information. And 

I just want to also just emphasize how important that State collection of data becomes in terms of TANF reauthorization. 

When you look at the way that the system is set up now, it is 

extraordinarily difficult to help decipher what exactly are going to 

be the needs for families in one part of the country to another part 

17 

of the country. And the fact is that the information is there. The 

information is fully accessible and transparent. 

The question I have is, are we asking the right questions? When 

you look at entities like, for example, the Annie Casey Foundation 

has a 50-State data book that is released every single year that 

gives the answers to all these individual questions on a State-byState basis. That kind of information is extraordinarily helpful to 

determine what specific families in specific areas are going to need. 

So I think that is something that needs to be factored in as we 

think about reauthorization, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you said, ‘‘if you ask the right questions.’’ 

What are some of the right questions that should be asked? 

Mr. MOORE. I think Ms. Brown actually touched on some of the 

right questions in terms of trying to understand what exactly are 

some of the core causes and core factors that are leading families 

into poverty and, also, that are creating those barriers, that are not 

being helpful as families are trying to transcend out of that state 

of poverty. 

I think some of the other questions that you think about are 

things like education level. I think some of the other questions that 

have to be factored in are, how many families are not receiving the 

benefits. The fact that we do have one-third of families that are eligible for benefits, but are not receiving the benefits, has to be considered, as well. 

So those are some of the questions that have to be asked, but 

they just have to be asked at a more targeted and State-wide level. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. But given your experience, what, if 

anything, would you change in the TANF program? 

Mr. MOORE. As I touched on in the testimony, I think this whole 

concept of both looking at single-parent households and how that 

is factored into poverty has to be evaluated. 

I think, also, looking at things like the Second Chance Act and 

how TANF is coordinating with other entities, such as the Second 

Chance Act. But, also, this larger conversation that is happening 

within school reform—now, I think that is something that TANF 

has to be involved in, as well. 

I remember there was a quote that the chancellor from New York 

City schools said, which I think is spot-on. He said people say that 

you cannot address education until you address poverty. And he 

said, actually, I think it is the other way around, that you cannot 

address poverty without also addressing education. 

So that is something I think TANF also has to factor in, that, 

if TANF is going to be in the business of really helping to elevate 

people from a state of poverty to a graduate it sends out, all those 

factors, whether it be single-parent households, incarceration and 

recidivism rates, and also education reform have to be involved in 

the conversation, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Moore, what are your interactions, if any, 

with the so-called social safety net? Did your family or the other 

Wes Moore’s family experience it, and was it helpful? 

Mr. MOORE. For my family, after my father passed away, my 

mother received Social Security benefits, and they were very helpVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:15 Oct 20, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\68558.000 TIMD
18 

ful because, up until that time, my father by far was the main 

breadwinner inside of the family. And so my mother then not only 

had to transition skills in terms of, now, here she was, she was the 

only person in the family who was a wage earner and also had now 

three children. 

So she not only had to transition skills, but had to basically transition her entire occupation. So that was helpful in terms of helping 

her to make that transition and allowing her the time that she 

needed to get on her feet. We also then moved from Maryland up 

to New York. 

Wes’s family never received any type of benefits, whether it be 

from any type of State-wide benefits. His mother never received 

any type of spousal support or any type of child care support from 

Wes’s father or his older brother’s father, who was not in their 

lives, either. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Berlin, as you know, 56 percent of the 

work-eligible adults on welfare are reported as not working or not 

doing anything. A significant amount of TANF expenditures are 

unaccounted for. 

Congress and welfare stakeholders have no idea what these 

TANF dollars are being used to fund. 

So number one, do I have those facts correct? And number two, 

how would you rate the strengths and weaknesses of the current 

TANF program as either an anti-poverty or as a welfare-to-work 

program? 

Mr. BERLIN. Well, I think the first and most important thing is 

we really do need better data. It is really hard to know what to 

make of some of these numbers. 

The States, with regard to the 57 percent number—and Ms. 

Brown should certainly comment on this—claim that, in fact, people are engaged in a lot of activities, but they do not meet a requirement or they are between activities, or for some other reason 

they are not really reporting them. 

So, as I said in my testimony, it is really hard to know what to 

make of those numbers. And I think the first step is really to require that we get much better information about how the system 

is really operating. 

I am struck that, in the early days, in the early 1990s, the TANF 

system was quite successful on a number of measures. Later, over 

time, it appears that funds began to be used for other purposes 

that are undefined and not very clearly specified. So we also need 

to get better information about how the funds are being used there. 

But the information that we have been able to get from the 

States suggests that they are mostly using these funds for reasonable purposes, like child welfare and child care, but it has created 

this dilemma in that, in an economic downturn, it is very hard to 

pull those resources back to other purposes. 

So I would say that we really ought to step back and ask what 

we think that the program’s purposes should be—it has become a 

form of revenue-sharing for the States. Is that what we want, or 

do we really want to make sure that it is focused on preparing people for work and, also, providing a safety net when work is not 

readily available, as in the current period? And we want to do more 

of those things that we know make a difference. 

19 

The participation data really, I think, have misled us and misled 

the States. There is tremendous pressure to meet the hours and 

strict activities requirements. Congress has defined those items 

very narrowly. 

I think we need to get back to driving States towards what the 

evidence says really works, like the mixed program strategies that 

I cite in my testimony and the other efforts to make work pay that 

have really made a difference. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will go to Ms. Brown. The GAO report documents the activities that States have undertaken to enhance their 

participation rate to comply with the updated base year for the 

caseload reduction credit included in the Deficit Reduction Act. 

For the record, would you please summarize those activities? 

Ms. BROWN. The States employed four different activities after 

the Deficit Reduction Act. The first one is the caseload reduction 

measure, which was used before, as well, and that just allowed 

them to reduce the participation rate expectation by how much 

their caseload went down. There was a lower number of States that 

were able to do that after the Deficit Reduction Act because of the 

change in the baseline. 

The other thing that is directly related to that is the spending 

of the maintenance of effort funds. There is a provision that allows, 

when States spend in excess of the maintenance of effort funds that 

they are required to put forth for TANF, they can use that to reduce the expected rate, as well. 

The last two measures are related to the size of the caseload 

itself, and States were able to take steps to keep people who were 

meeting the work requirements on the caseload a little longer to 

give them some more support, and to have people whom they 

thought were not going to be able to meet the work requirements 

taken off the caseload either through sanctions or paying for services through State funds only. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My time is up. I am going to have to submit 

questions for answers in writing, because I have another appointment I have to go to. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure the Senator from Michigan would not 

mind if you asked maybe one more question, unless she has to go 

right away. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Back to you, Ms. Brown. My understanding 

is that you and your colleagues interviewed State officials in preparation for this report. Did those interviewed indicate whether or 

not they believe States attempted to improve the quality and the 

degree of engagement for work-eligible adults in response to the 

stronger work requirements established by the Deficit Reduction 

Act? 

Ms. BROWN. We did interview States, and I think they were— 

what we heard from them is they were acutely aware of the new 

requirements in the Deficit Reduction Act and were thinking hard 

about some of the challenges they faced with counting the work activities—there were stricter measures for that—and making sure 

that people were participating in the number of hours. 

So they were focusing a lot on what they had to do to change 

their program to meet the new requirements. We did see States 

that were trying to figure out how they could focus on work more, 

20 

but I think the characterization that they found themselves in a 

tough spot because they had so many of their other funds dedicated 

to other programs, that made it more difficult for them to be creative. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Is it your impression that States believe that, 

in crafting the enhanced work participation requirements in the 

DRA, that members of Congress intended for States to move families around and claim expenditures that they may have previously 

been spending in order to meet the higher work participation 

standards? And I will end with that question. 

Ms. BROWN. I believe that they understood the purpose of the 

law, and that they understood that the intent was not that they 

move people around into other categories, but that they focus more 

on work. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important hearing, and I appreciate all of the witnesses. And, Mr. 

Moore, your story certainly is extremely inspiring, as well as Ms. 

Adair’s. Thank you, to both of you. 

When we look at the numbers, I guess I am trying to figure out 

how we kind of bring this all together, the poverty numbers: one 

out of seven Americans now in poverty; one out of three single 

moms living in poverty; certainly, a wakeup call to us in terms of 

what is happening and how we create a pathway to jobs. 

Also, realizing—and certainly, coming from Michigan, where we 

have been extremely hard hit—that we still have one job for every 

five people who are out of work looking for a job; so how do you 

bring that all together? 

Then, when we look at TANF, if we have 15 million children basically in poverty and 3.4 million children getting help, that is a 

pretty big difference at a time when challenges for families have 

gone up and up. 

So I have a lot of questions about that, and I appreciate all of 

you providing information. I agree that we need to do better State 

reporting. I have a real concern that if States, in fact, are only reporting when someone has completed their work assignment and 

not just done half of it or three-quarters of it, so it gets reported 

as zero, I do not think that is very accurate or helpful to us. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, you are looking at ways in the reauthorization to provide different reporting from States so we have a better picture of what really is happening. 

My question goes to one piece of all of this that relates to how 

we get people on a path to a job and to job training, and it goes 

to another piece of the puzzle here. 

We know that lack of education is the most prevalent barrier to 

employment, particularly for women, who are the majority of those 

on TANF, women and children. Forty percent of women receiving 

TANF do not have a high school diploma, 40 percent. We have a 

serious literacy issue that is going on. 

Michigan has had a pilot project called JET, Jobs, Education, 

and Training, JET Plus, that brings together job training and adult 

21 

basic training efforts, and I would like to have anyone who would 

like to speak to that piece of it do so. 

It is great to say college education or even community college, 

but what happens when we are talking about 40 percent of the 

women on TANF who do not have a basic education or where there 

are serious literacy issues? And to add to that, I am hearing from 

community colleges that, in fact, remedial courses cannot receive financial aid. 

So if, in fact, we are trying to create the bridge we all want for 

people to be able to get a job and be able to go get job training, 

what other kinds of barriers should we be including—should TANF 

be helping to pay for remedial education? How do we get past this 

adult literacy barrier so that people can, in fact, be getting the education that they need? 

Ms. Adair, would you like to start with that? 

Ms. ADAIR. Yes, I would be happy to. I actually should say that 

I am—I left high school when I was 141⁄2 years old and became a 

single mother, and reentered through a GED program in Washington State. It was called the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 

and they saw education and training as sort of part of a larger— 

part of the puzzle. 

So it was a program that helped with inside child care, transportation, and mentorships, which enabled the recipients to finish 

their GED programs but then go on for specialized training in community colleges, colleges, et cetera. 

So I was actually on that program from my GED through my 

bachelor’s degree, and then, of course, when I went on to get my 

master’s and Ph.D., I was no longer on it. But I think that understanding that the missing part of this work-first mandate is providing the training necessary to get the kind of jobs that can sustain families is crucial. 

So, again, I see a range of educational options, beginning with 

things like GED and basic literacy but moving beyond that, as a 

way of both providing people with the ability and incentive to get 

jobs with which they will be no longer mired in poverty, but also 

will take away some of the stigma of the fact that you—the assumption is that when you are going through a jobs program, that 

you do not have sufficient education. 

I think putting together a broader range of educational options 

would serve that goal. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Moore, did you want to comment? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you. I just want to add, briefly, I think this 

is not only why TANF is important, but also where TANF can really almost serve as a real facilitator, as well, and also help to facilitate larger partnership models, because on every single aspect that 

you just spoke about, there actually are organizations that are 

doing that kind of work. 

So the question is, how can we help bring them to scale? So when 

we are talking about increasing job skills, you look at organizations 

such as the Center for Working Families and how exactly they 

have worked to not only build skills, but then also help with placements for families in the exact situations that you just named, or 

the Single Parent Scholarship Fund, which is in Arkansas, that 

helps to provide these kinds of educational opportunities to parents 

22 

who find themselves in a situation where they are single parents 

and they cannot afford that follow-on educational support, followon educational training. 

So where TANF could also play a very interesting role is really 

to help facilitate and to bring light to a lot of the organizations that 

already have, whether it be private funding or other types of governmental funding, as well, that can help facilitate these types of 

processes and bring them to scale. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Berlin wanted to respond to that, as well. 

Mr. BERLIN. I just would add that there is very strong evidence 

that education can, in fact, play an important role here. But there 

has also been a history or an experience in which people enroll in 

education and they do not really make any progress, and it becomes a holding area for them. 

So the challenge really is not to let this pendulum swing all the 

way back, which is what we have done historically, but instead to 

find a way to create a balanced program in which people can participate in education and training. It should be supported and encouraged, but only when they are making adequate progress. 

In our work, we have found that mixed strategy programs that 

target employment-first activities for people who are ready to go to 

work and education-first activities for those who need education 

are among the most effective and cost-effective programs that we 

have seen. 

Senator STABENOW. It is really about accountability, but not creating barriers, and it sounds like, at the moment, we have some 

barriers that we need to remove, while keeping the accountability 

in place. 

Mr. MOORE. Right. Striking the right balance is key. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore, I would be interested if you could tell us a little bit 

about the other Wes, the different steps in his life and kind of 

where there was a little signal that he was not heading down the 

right path, and what perhaps might have changed if another set 

of conditions were to have occurred. 

If you can just kind of talk about Wes. What happened? What 

could have prevented this ultimate tragedy? 

Mr. MOORE. I think one thing that I—it is really one of the main 

questions I tried to understand, even as I started going through 

this process. 

I had known Wes for a while before I even had the idea of turning this into a book. But the more I got to learn—— 

The CHAIRMAN. At what age did you get to know Wes? 

Mr. MOORE. I first got to know Wes when I guess I was probably 

24. 

The CHAIRMAN. And he was about the same age. 

Mr. MOORE. He is about the same age. He is about 2 years older 

than I. And Wes was incarcerated for the final time when he was 

22 years old, and that is when he received his life sentence. 

One of the things I tried to understand, by being able to both dissect his life and also my own, is to understand what exactly did 

23 

happen. How do you have people who are in similar circumstances 

who end up in two completely different places? 

I think there were a couple factors that I think played into what 

happened with Wes. First was, Wes never finished school past 10th 

grade. But I say that, but also add this caveat, as well. Wes, in no 

way, shape, or form, is a dumb guy. In fact, Wes completed the job 

corps program when he was 19 years old, and after he completed 

the job corps—during the job corps, he received his GED. 

He also realized he was reading at a sophomore in college reading level. But when Wes came out of the job corps—Wes actually 

came out of the job corps very inspired and hopeful and motivated 

that this was the last time he would ever have to see—he would 

not have to see any facilities anymore. He really was hoping to do 

something different. 

I think so many of the problems that we have talked about earlier today, he realized when he came out of the job corps, they did 

not go away. They were just waiting for him when he came back, 

and, in many ways, they compounded. 

So by the time Wes was at that age, he already had four children. Wes became a grandfather at 33 years old. But he had four 

children by the time he came out of job corps. And so he started 

working these different odd jobs as he came out of job corps, making barely over minimum wage. And when you have four children 

and you are making a little over $6 an hour, it becomes very difficult to sustain, particularly when you have two mothers with two 

different children, and his mother who needed support. 

So Wes eventually decided and made the terrible and fateful decision that the best option for him was to go back to the streets 

and go back to selling drugs, where he was making upwards of 

$5,000 and $6,000 a day. 

So you see this process and how, even as Wes tried to make 

these steps to move in one direction, that there are so many barriers, as we talked about, that are already built up. It became very 

difficult for him to transition out. 

I think a larger challenge that Wes had, and I think it is something that really interrelates with this entire conversation, is the 

challenge of expectations. And I think, unfortunately, for so many 

kids who grow up in communities like the ones that Wes and I 

called home and so many communities all over the country, the expectations are not very high and, therefore, the results generally 

are not very high. 

It is funny. There is a part in the book when Wes and I are talking and he says to me—and I asked him, I said, ‘‘Do you think that 

we are products of our environment?’’ and he looked back, and he 

said, ‘‘Actually, I think we are products of our expectations.’’ 

When I was speaking to someone else—which I thought was a 

really important distinction—I remember speaking to someone else 

later on about it, and they said, ‘‘Well, isn’t it really sad that you 

met your expectations and Wes didn’t?’’ And I said, ‘‘Actually, I 

think one of the saddest things is that I think we both met our expectations.’’ 

So how we look at poverty in this country, how we look at the 

poor in this country and the communities that the poor happen to 

live in and happen to be concentrated in, in many cases, I think, 

24 

is as much about this idea of a psychological shift and an expectation shift as it is about a structural shift, and a tangible shift, as 

well. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how do we raise these expectations? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, first, I think we need to raise the expectations 

not only that we have about so many of these communities, but 

also the way we think about the supports that these types of communities will need. 

I think the larger challenge and the way we think about policies, 

not just on a Federal, but even on a State and local level, and also 

just about our citizenry, is that it is almost a patronizing way of 

looking at it; that you want to help out these people because these 

people need support, without an understanding that we have a real 

connectedness between all of us and the way we should view all of 

our society and all of our community. 

I think another thing that we need to do is, also, as we think 

about education, within a lot of communities and within a lot of 

pockets and areas around our country, we do not have an equal 

education system in this country, and an unequal education system 

will always, 100 percent of the time, create unequal results. 

As long as you have that disparity between a kid who is living 

in one part of town and then a kid 5 miles away goes to a completely different school system, it is very difficult to expect those 

two children to compete, particularly at a long-term level, and then 

compounding that, particularly, how we think about early education, as well. 

I think it is fantastic that we can have adult education processes. 

I think it is fantastic we can do work for community colleges and 

adult colleges. But if you have a child who is entering 1st grade, 

2nd grade, 3rd grade, who is already years behind their peers on 

reading levels, it is going to be very difficult for that child to be 

able to maintain in school and be able to compete later on. 

So I think a way we can actually fundamentally address not just 

the cost structure, but the overall results structure, is actually 

doing more when we have children—when we have parents who 

are really just children; doing more to help parents become better 

parents, things like reading to their children, preparing their children for school, because, if we can address that issue, a lot of the 

other long-term issues become less significant. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. A lot of single moms are just so 

stressed. Many single mothers have jobs and so many other responsibilities, and it is just really tough to deal with these challenges 

while being effective parents. 

Mr. MOORE. It is extraordinarily tough, and not just from the anecdotal perspective, from a statistical perspective. When you have 

a single-parent household or a grandfamily-led household, you have 

an extraordinary amount of people, young people who are growing 

up with grandparents, because the parents are out of the picture 

for whatever reason, you not only have stressed resources, because 

now you have one person having to sustain household development 

for what should be two people, but you have the time requirements, 

as you correctly pointed out. 

So, all that has to be factored in in terms of what types of supports are we creating, whether it be school reform, looking at 

25 

longer school days or longer school years, providing more community supports, being able to support the nonprofits who are on the 

ground doing the work. 

But all those factors have to be placed in, because, you are right, 

I am a firm believer that the toughest job that we have in this 

country is to be a single mother or a single father. 

But when you are on your own raising a child or children, it becomes a herculean task that, for many people, is just too much for 

them to take on. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody else want to chime into this conversation? Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. I would just like to talk about a couple of different 

population groups that we have not touched on, because what I am 

hearing here is about opportunities for higher education and some 

training that are for people who are prepared and motivated. 

I did want to also point out that what we know now through 

TANF is that there is a group of people who have much more complex problems that they have not been able to work through in 

order to be able to move into the work activities. 

We also know that there is a group of very, very poor people who 

are not on TANF and are not receiving SSI and have no income. 

So we do not really know how they are surviving, and thinking 

about how we could reach out to them is important. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how are they surviving? How do we reach out 

to them? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I do not know yet, because we know that this 

population exists, and we know that there are many reasons that 

people do not apply for TANF, and some of those are related to 

their concepts of whether they want to be held to the standards 

and the work activities and that kind of thing. 

So whether that is part of what motivates them, it is possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Berlin, do you have any thoughts on how to 

help the two groups that Ms. Brown mentioned, particularly those 

in need and not receiving TANF funds and what to do to reach out 

to them? 

Mr. BERLIN. Well, one obvious thing is that a lot of the disconnected low-income women whom she is talking about were on the 

earlier welfare system, but, as this system has evolved, many of 

them seem to have been discouraged from applying. 

The long-term question is, how do we strike a better balance 

there, where TANF was very successful in moving people off the 

rolls, but it was not very good at playing its other key goal, which 

is providing a safety net that dealt with the poverty issues faced 

by a large percentage of people? 

One of the things I cited was the fact that the number of the people in those situations grew over time. So, while TANF was successful in one aspect, that is, helping people who could take jobs 

do so, it was not successful—in fact, it fell short on the back end 

by leaving out many eligible poor people. So that was a key problem. 

In terms of the larger discussion, I think the single-most important thing that we could do to really make more progress in this 

area is to step back and think about what has happened in the 

labor market in the United States. 

26 

We will have an extraordinarily large number of low-wage jobs 

going forward. We have a lot of people working in those jobs, including single men and women, and we have created this odd 

structure in which we are helping to deal with low-wage work via 

the Earned Income Tax Credit, but it only targets families with 

children. 

So, if I am a single man and I am working in the same job as 

you, I am not getting that same level of benefits. And, if I marry 

a family that is on the EITC, they actually would see their benefits 

come down. 

Just stepping back and thinking about what we need to do to 

make work pay for everybody could be, I think, a very powerful 

force in dealing with this complex set of issues that involve poverty, single parenthood, and work and earnings. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else have anything they want to say, 

something that should have been said? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is very helpful. We clearly have to reauthorize TANF, and we will soon and get a deep reauthorization 

next year. That is my hope. 

But this has been a very helpful and instructive hearing, and I 

thank all of you very much. You have unique experiences and 

unique backgrounds. We thank you for your service in trying to 

help us address these challenging issues. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


68558001.eps
28 


68558.002
29 


68558.003
30 


68558.004
31 


68558.005
32 


68558.006
33 


68558.007
34 


68558.008
35 


68558.009
36 


68558.010
37 


68558.011
38 


68558.012
39 


68558.013
40 


68558.014
41 


68558.015
42 


68558.016
43 


68558.017
44 


68558.018
45 


68558.019
46 


68558.020
47 


68558.021
48 


68558.022
49 


68558.023
50 


68558.024
51 


68558.025
52 


68558.026
53 


68558.027
54 


68558.028
55 


68558.029
56 


68558.030
57 


68558.031
58 


68558.032
59 


68558033.eps
60 


68558.034
61 


68558.035
62 


68558.036
63 


68558.037
64 


68558.038
65 


68558.039
66 


68558.040
67 


68558.041
68 


68558042.eps
69 


68558043.eps
70 


68558.044
71 


68558.045
72 


68558.046
73 


68558.047
74 


68558.048
75 


68558.049
76 


68558.050
77 


68558.051
78 


68558.052
79 


68558.053
(81) 

COMMUNICATIONS


68558054.eps
82 


68558.055
83 


68558.056
84 


68558.057
85 


68558.058
86 


68558.059
87 


68558.060
88 


68558.061
89 


68558.062
90 


68558.063
91 


68558.064
92 


68558.065
93 


68558.066
94 


68558.067
95 


68558.068
96 


68558.069
97 


68558.070
98 


68558.071
99 


68558.072
100 


68558.073
101 


68558.074
102 


68558.075
103 


68558.076
104 


68558.077
105 


68558.078
106 


68558.079
107 


68558.080
108 


68558.081
109 


68558.082
110 


68558.083
111 


68558.084
112 


68558.085
113 


68558.086
114 


68558.087
115 


68558.088
116 


68558089.eps
117 


68558.090
118 


68558.091
119 


68558.092
120 


68558.093
121 


68558.094
122 


68558.095
123 


68558.096
124 


68558.097
125 


68558.098
126 


68558.099
127 


68558.100
128 


68558.101
129 


68558.102
130 


68558.103
131 


68558.104
132 


68558.105
133 


68558.106
134 


68558.107
135 


68558.108
136 


68558.109
137 


68558.110
138 


68558.111
139 


68558.112
140 


68558.113
141 


68558.114
142 


68558.115
143 


68558.116
144 


68558.117
145 


68558.118
146 


68558.119
147 


68558.120
148 


68558.121
149 


68558.122
150 


68558.123
151 


68558.124
152 


68558.125
153 


68558.126
154 


68558.127
155 


68558.128
156 


68558.129
157 


68558.130
158 


68558.131
159 


68558.132
160 


68558.133
161 


68558.134
162 


68558.135
163 


68558.136
164 


68558.137
165 


68558.138
166 


68558.139
167 


68558.140
168 


68558.141
169 


68558.142
170 


68558.143
171 


68558.144
172 


68558.145
173 


68558.146
174 


68558.147
175 


68558.148
176 


68558.149
177 


68558.150
178 


68558.151
179 


68558.152
180 


68558.153
181 


68558.154
182 

Æ 


68558155.eps