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

43–761 2008

PROPOSALS FOR REDUCING POVERTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2007 

Serial No. 110–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRETT LOPER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 19, 2007, announcing the hearing ............................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

John Podesta, President, The Center for American Progress .............................. 6 

Linda Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services, City of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 12 

The Reverend Larry Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA ....................... 20 

Gordon Berlin, President/Chief Executive Officer, Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation (MDRC) ............................................................................ 41 

Isabel Sawhill, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, The Cabot Family 

Chair, The Brookings Institution ........................................................................ 26 

Lawrence M. Mead, Ph.D., Professor of Politics, New York University .............. 34 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Jonathan Barry Forman, statement ...................................................................... 127 

Matthew Melmed, statement .................................................................................. 129 

New America Foundation, statement .................................................................... 134 

Social Inclusion for the United States, statement ................................................ 146 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

PROPOSALS FOR REDUCING POVERTY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim McDermott 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025 

April 19, 2007 

ISFS–5 

McDermott Announces Hearing on 

Proposals for Reducing Poverty 

Congressman Jim McDermott (D–WA), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 

Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, today announced 

that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on proposals for reducing poverty. The 

hearing will take place on Thursday, April 26, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. in room B– 

318 Rayburn House Office Building. 

Witnesses will range from a Deputy Mayor of New York City, where new antipoverty initiatives are underway, to leaders on the front lines in charitable organizations like Catholic Charities, to experts from social research organizations and 

think-tanks. 

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

According to the most recent statistics (2005), there were 37 million Americans 

living in poverty, including nearly 13 million children. After prior years of decline, 

the number and percentage of Americans in poverty began to climb after the year 

2000, resulting in an additional 5.4 million Americans living below the poverty line. 

Poor Americans suffer various hardships, including reduced access to economic and 

educational opportunities, substandard housing, inadequate diet, greater levels of 

crime victimization, and diminished health. 

Local governments, academic experts, religious leaders, and many others have 

suggested a variety of proposals to reduce poverty in America. Many of these suggestions focus broadly on increasing the returns from work, expanding access to 

quality education, reaching out to disconnected populations, and strengthening existing safety net programs. As a starting point, some have advocated the United 

States adopt a goal to significantly reduce poverty by a date certain. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ‘‘We are beginning to 

hear a chorus of voices urging action on poverty. Leaders in city government, social research and charitable organizations have proposed specific 

steps they think will make a positive difference. This hearing allows us the 

opportunity to hear, discuss and evaluate these proposals to reduce poverty in America.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on proposals to reduce poverty in the United States. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘110th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, ‘‘Hearing Archives’’ (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, 

‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ‘‘submit’’ on the 

final page, an email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your 

interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email 

and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business May 10, 2007. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol 

Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

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 supplementary 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 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

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

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

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

by the Committee. 

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

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

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

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

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov. 

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

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

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

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

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Good morning. I am sorry I’m a little 

bit late, and I apologize for that. I like to start on time. 

We are here today to ask some tough questions and explore some 

reasonable responses to concerns about economic opportunity and 

activity and poverty in America. Without such an examination, we 

are doomed to repeat the images of desperation and deprivation so 

vividly exposed by Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina was an 

opportunity for America to see the soft underbelly of this economy. 

When income inequality continues not only to grow, but to accelerate, we should ask why, and what can be done. When the number of Americans struggling in poverty climbs by over 5 million 

over the last 5 years, we should ask why, and what could be done. 

When two-thirds of poor families have a working mother or father, 

we should ask why, and what could be done. When America has 

one of the highest poverty rates among all the relatively prosperous 

countries of the world, we should ask why, and what we can do. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
4 

Fortunately, a growing number of people have begun to ask these 

questions, and suggest some answers. Leaders in city government, 

social research, and the faith community have started to say there 

is a better way. 

Today we will hear from some of those who say now is the time 

to make a difference, and we will hear that we need to do more to 

make work pay through a higher minimum wage and improved tax 

policies. We will hear about the need to increase access to educational opportunities, starting with pre-school. We will hear about 

the need to provide a fair unemployment insurance system for lowwage workers, an issue we have already begun to address in this 

Committee. 

Finally, we will hear recommendations in many other areas, including improved housing policies, greater outreach to disconnected 

youth, more help in promoting savings, and increased child care assistance. 

The House has begun to act on some of these suggestions, such 

as increasing the minimum wage, and I expect us to make progress 

on some of these others in the coming months. Now, change may 

come incrementally, but you have to start a course in the right direction. I don’t expect Members of this Subcommittee to agree with 

every one, or even most of the proposals put forward, but all of us 

have a special area of interest that we believe should be emphasized. 

We do not need complete consensus on the road map to agree on 

our final destination. We all want to reduce poverty and increase 

economic opportunity. Some of the witnesses today will suggest 

that we set a goal toward that end. I would hope that is one suggestion that might garner broad bipartisan support. Our moral 

compass, and our economic common sense, tell us that we can no 

longer leave so many fellow citizens outside the doors of opportunity. 

Some might cite the cost of expanding opportunity and reducing 

poverty, but surely, inaction has even a higher cost. We cannot any 

longer afford the lower productivity and greater social problems 

that poverty brings. We should commit ourselves to reducing poverty in America. 

I now yield to my Ranking Member, Mr. Weller. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for conducting today’s hearing. I also want to welcome our panelists, and thank you for taking time to appear before this Subcommittee today on ideas for reducing poverty. 

Reducing poverty was one of the motivations behind the workbased 1996 welfare reforms, which reduced poverty for key groups, 

like African American children, to all-time lows. Today, we will 

hear a variety of specific proposals to do more. 

Some are time-tested and elementary. For example, we will learn 

that if young people finish high school, get married before having 

children, and work full-time, the odds are great they will avoid poverty and live a middle-class life. We should do anything we can to 

promote that kind of outcome. 

Still, millions do not follow that path, and poverty has remained 

stubbornly high, despite progress and increasing work, and reducing welfare dependence. As a result, our Chairman, Mr. Rangel, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

and others are suggesting we set a national goal of reducing poverty by 50 percent over the next 10 years. That’s a worthy goal. 

Before doing so, we should also ask if we are accurately measuring poverty today, so we can know if we have succeeded in cutting poverty in half. 

One senior Member of this Subcommittee has his doubts. He 

stated flatly in 2004 that using a deficient poverty measure that 

fails to accurately reflect the impact of important economic policy 

and societal changes may create misperceptions about the effectiveness of public policy, and ultimately lead to misguided policymaking. 

Mr. Chairman, you have shown the precedent of having some 

slides, and I have a few slides today, which I am happy to share 

with the Subcommittee. This senior Member of this Subcommittee 

went on to suggest, ‘‘Is today’s official poverty rate inaccurate? 

Since the sixties, major policy changes have altered the social safety net, increasing the resources available to low-income individuals. 

The official poverty measure does not reflect these and other important changes that affect the material well-being of low-income 

Americans.’’ 

So, today’s poverty rate, by failing to count, literally, tens of billions of dollars and antipoverty benefits, provides an inaccurate 

picture of poverty. Now, my colleagues, they know who this mystery Member of this Subcommittee is and he is a respected senior 

Member of the Committee. None other than our colleague, Congressman Pete Stark of California, when he wrote in 2004, as a 

senior Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, this statement. 

Analyst Doug Besharov, of the American Enterprise Institute, 

using Census Bureau data, found that for 2004, using the correct 

inflation adjustment and counting all household income results, results in a poverty rate of about 7.9 percent, not the official rate of 

12.7 percent. That’s not all. Using the Stark formula, just like Pete 

Stark’s report suggested, taking the next logical step of counting 

non-cash benefits like welfare work supports, food stamps, and 

housing assistance, resulted in a poverty rate of about 5.1 percent, 

as reflected in the slide. 

That is a 60 percent reduction from the official poverty rate— 

again, going from 12.7 percent to 5.1 percent, using the Pete Stark 

formula for determining poverty. 

Granted, no definitional changes will change the income of any 

individual family, but better understanding of who is poor will 

allow policy-makers to more accurately judge how current antipoverty programs work. We will then be better positioned to decide 

what changes are needed. 

Some of our witnesses today will call for $90 billion in increased 

antipoverty spending, on top of the $600 billion we already spend 

each year. That would be paid for by new tax increases, even 

though others have suggested these same tax increases also be 

used to fix the alternative minimum tax, pay for national health 

care, and many other proposals that are floating around this Congress. 

Setting that tax hike, double counting aside, before we add up 

half-a-trillion dollars in new spending over the next 5 years, 

shouldn’t we actually count what we are spending on current antiVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

poverty programs? Otherwise, this exercise becomes just one more 

way for the government to redistribute income, without ever knowing whether it’s the poor who are actually benefiting. 

Again, to use my colleague, Pete Stark’s, words, ‘‘That would be 

misguided policymaking.’’ I look forward to the testimony we will 

receive. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. We have an excellent 

panel here today. We will start on the far left—or my far left. John 

Podesta, the Center for American Progress. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PODESTA, PRESIDENT, 

THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS 

Mr. PODESTA. Progress. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, and 

Mr. Weller. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am the president of the Center for American Progress. I want—again, I want 

to say thank you for letting me speak about the central challenge 

for policy-makers in society at large today, which is how to best address and reduce the ranks of the poor and build a strong and 

growing middle class. 

As my written testimony outlines, the Center put together a 

group of—a 14-member task force of national experts and leaders. 

Just yesterday we released a report, ‘‘From Poverty to Prosperity,’’ 

which was the result of the work of over a year by that task force. 

Chairman McDermott mentioned Hurricane Katrina. We really put 

this task force together in response to what we saw, and the devastation that we saw, as a result of Hurricane Katrina. 

It proposes a four-part strategy to reach a very important goal, 

which is to cut poverty in America in half, within a 10-year period. 

It does so by promoting decent work, providing opportunity for all, 

ensuring economic security, and helping people build wealth. It 

lays out 12 concrete steps in order to achieve that goal. 

I do want to acknowledge a couple of people. The cochairs of the 

task force, Peter Edelman, who is here with me today, who is one 

of my colleagues at Georgetown University Law Center, and Angela 

Glover Blackwell, the CEO of Policy Link, who serve as the cochairs of the task force. I’m also joined by Mark Greenberg, the 

task force executive director, and Indivar Dutta-Gupta, who is sitting behind you, who was one of our staff people, who joined the 

Subcommittee staff. It was good steal, I have to tell you. 

I don’t have time to go into the details of the entire report, so 

I would really just like to make four brief points. 

First, the current status of the poor and low-income families in 

America is bad, and getting worse. As you all know, the United 

States has one of the highest poverty rates of any developed country in the world, defined by any measure, Mr. Weller. Even with 

an economy that produces $13 trillion annually, 37 million Americans live below the official poverty line, including nearly one-fifth 

of our children. Sixty million Americans live in extreme poverty. 

Roughly one-quarter of African Americans and Native Americans, 

and one-fifth of Hispanics are poor. 

All told, there are more than 90 million Americans that can be 

classified as low-income, and that’s what this task force really focused on, people living under 200 percent of the official poverty 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

line, who face a constant struggle to keep ahead and avoid falling 

into severe economic hardship. 

The other part I would make is that the situation is getting 

worse. The number of poor Americans is growing again. The Federal minimum wage has remained flat. Funding for key Federal 

programs has remained flat. 

My second point is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are 

proven, cost-effective means for combating poverty and building a 

stronger middle class. Partnering with the Urban Institute, the 

Center’s task force modeled 4 of the 12 recommendations focusing 

on: raising the minimum wage; the EITC; child tax credits; and expanding child care support for working families. 

Taken together, those four recommendations alone would reduce 

poverty by 26 percent, according to the Urban Institute’s modeling. 

That would mean over 9 million fewer people living in poverty, a 

national poverty rate of 9.1 percent, the lowest in recorded U.S. 

history. The racial poverty gap would be narrowed, child poverty 

would drop by 41 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty 

would fall by over two million, and millions of low and moderate 

income families would benefit. 

My third point is that we cannot expect to reduce poverty and 

strengthen the middle class without a serious Federal strategy and 

coordinated effort. Our country has made great strides in reducing 

poverty in the past. In the 10 years between 1964 and 1973, poverty fell by an astounding 42 percent. In the 8 years between 1993 

and 2000, when I served in the White House, poverty fell by 25 

percent. 

How did that occur? Each period, there was a nearly full employment economy, there were sound Federal and State policies that focused on rewarding work, individual initiatives, supporting civic institutions and communities, and a sustained national commitment 

that led to significant progress. 

I think for those of us who worked in the Clinton Administration, 

we recognize that the success in fighting poverty and growing the 

middle class required a serious commitment, leadership, and the 

full force of Federal, State, and community action, and it required 

a growing private sector, growth that was key, but poverty reduction, I think we also understood, wouldn’t occur just naturally or 

simply through the miracle of the marketplace. 

Finally, my last point is that fighting poverty will not require extensive new bureaucracy, or encourage greater dependency 

amongst the poor. Americans are right to expect that anti-poverty 

efforts should honor work and personal responsibility. That’s what 

this report is all about. We know that policies such as the Earned 

Income Tax Credit, and expanded child care, and raising the minimum wage, can fight poverty in a lean and efficient manner. 

So, again, our recommendations could be fully paid for by an alternative set of tax policies. I think that the goal is worthy of a 

great Nation, which is to cut the poverty in half in the next 10 

years. What would that mean? Twenty million fewer Americans living in poverty. There would be more working Americans, dramatically fewer working people in poverty, stronger, more vibrant communities, and millions of children beginning their lives with vastly 

more opportunity than they have today. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 

With that, let me turn to the other panelists. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Podesta follows:] 

Prepared Statement of John Podesta, President, 

The Center for American Progress 

Thank you, Chairman McDermott and Members of the Subcommittee. I am John 

Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for American Progress. 

I am also a Visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about a central challenge for 

policymakers and society at large today: how best to reduce the ranks of the poor 

and build a strong and growing middle class. 

As you well know, the U.S. has one of the highest poverty rates of any developed country in the world. Even with an economy that produces $13 trillion annually, 37 

million Americans live below the official poverty line, including nearly one-fifth of 

our children. Sixteen million Americans live in ‘‘extreme poverty’’ (defined as a family of four living on less than $10,000 per year or an individual living on about 

$5,000 annually). Roughly one quarter of African Americans and Native Americans, 

and over one-fifth of Hispanics, are poor. All told, more than 90 million Americans 

can be classified as ‘‘low income’’ (living on less than about $40,000 per year for a 

family of four), meaning they face a constant struggle to keep ahead and avoid falling out of bare minimum economic existence. 

In February of 2006, the Center for American Progress convened a diverse group 

of national experts and leaders to examine these and other issues of poverty and 

to make recommendations for national action. I’d like to acknowledge Peter 

Edelman, who is here with me today and who, along with Angela Glover Blackwell, 

served as a co-chairman of the Center’s Task Force on Poverty. 

Our Task Force was formed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a searing national 

event that exposed the desperate condition of many of our fellow citizens who were 

jobless, underemployed, and incapable of exercising the most basic elements of selfsurvival due to their poverty. 

In its report, the Task Force calls for a national goal of cutting poverty in half 

in the next ten years and proposes a strategy to reach the goal. The report calls 

for the Congress, the president, and the next administration to join this effort and 

set our country on a course to end American poverty in a generation. We recommend a strategy that promotes decent work, provides opportunity for all, ensures 

economic security, and helps people build wealth. 

The taskforce started with the belief that our Nation has both a moral and an 

economic obligation to address poverty. The persistence of millions of our fellow citizens living in economic hardship amid great national wealth violates America’s 

basic commitment to human dignity, freedom, and advancement for everyone. Poverty also imposes enormous costs on our society in terms of the lost potential of our 

children, lower productivity and earnings, poor health, and increased crime and broken neighborhoods. 

A recent report commissioned by the Center for American Progress, co-authored 

by Harry Holzer, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Greg Duncan, and Jens Ludwig, 

concludes that allowing children to grow up in persistent poverty costs our economy 

$500 billion dollars per year in lost adult productivity and wages, increased crime, 

and higher health expenditures. Before I describe our strategy and recommendations in more detail, I’d like to quickly discuss some of the misleading ideas that 

define many discussions of poverty. First, poverty is not just a ‘‘poor person’s’’ issue. It affects us all in distinct and important ways. Too often, discussions of poverty 

are treated as if they’re unrelated to the issues facing the middle class. But large 

numbers of Americans—both low-income and middle class—are increasingly concerned about uncertain job futures, downward pressures on wages, and decreasing 

opportunities for advancement in a global economy. Employment for millions of 

Americans is now less secure than at any point in the post-World War II era. Jobs 

are increasingly unlikely to provide health care coverage and guaranteed pensions. 

The typical U.S. worker will change jobs numerous times over his or her working 

years and must adapt to rapid technological change. One-quarter of all jobs in the 

U.S. economy do not pay enough to support a family of four above the poverty line. 

It is in our Nation’s interest that those jobs be filled and that employment rates 

be high. It is not in our Nation’s interest that people working in these jobs be confined to poverty. Large numbers would benefit if more jobs paid enough to support 

a family. Some issues are distinct, particularly for the smaller group of Americans 

in long-term, persistent poverty. But much of the agenda to reduce poverty is also 

one to promote opportunity and security for millions of other Americans, too. Second, poverty is not unconquerable. Our country has made great strides against povVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

erty in the past. With the right mix of policies and societal action, we can make 

even greater strides in the future. Fueled by years of inaccurate characterizations 

of past efforts (‘‘We fought a war on poverty and poverty won,’’ as Ronald Reagan 

stated) many Americans are left to conclude that little can be done beyond providing 

private charity and urging the poor to do better. Nothing could be farther from the 

truth. The United States has seen periods of dramatic poverty reduction. Amid the 

strong economy of the 1960s and the War on Poverty, the poverty rate fell from 22.4 

percent to 11.1 percent between 1959 and 1973. In the 1990s, a strong economy was 

combined with policies to promote and support work; the poverty rate dropped from 

15.1 percent to 11.3 percent between 1993 and 2000. In each period, a near-full employment economy, sound federal and state policies that focused on rewarding work, 

individual initiative, supportive civic institutions and communities, and a sustained 

national commitment led to significant progress. In the last six years, our Nation 

has moved in the opposite direction. The number of poor Americans has grown by 

five million. The federal minimum wage has remained flat. Funding for key federal 

programs that help people get and keep jobs has been stagnant or worse. Third, 

fighting poverty does not mean the poor will become more dependent on government. 

To the contrary, as our Task Force report shows, smart policies to fight poverty will 

actually increase the value of work and the commitment to work and help low-income families become more economically self-sufficient in the long run. A false argument exists that anything done by the Federal Government to combat poverty naturally leads to negative consequences. In fact, we know that policies such as the 

Earned Income Tax Credit and expanded child care provisions encourage work and 

strong families. 

Therefore, our Task Force has recommended a four-part strategy to fight poverty: 

Promote Decent Work. We start from the belief that people should work, and that 

work should pay enough to ensure that workers and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs, and save for the future. 

Ensure Opportunity for All. Children should grow up in conditions that maximize 

their opportunities for success; adults should have opportunities throughout their 

lives to connect to work, get more education, live in a good neighborhood, and move 

up in the workforce. Ensure Economic Security. Americans should not fall into poverty during times when they cannot work or work is unavailable, unstable, or pays 

too little to make ends meet. Help People Build Wealth. All Americans should have 

assets that allow them to weather periods of flux and volatility and to have the resources that may be essential to upward economic mobility. 

Our strategy is based on the reality that poverty is complex and that the faces 

of the poor are many. No single approach or policy solution could viably move huge 

numbers out of poverty. Good jobs and benefits matter. Solid education matters. 

Safe and enriching neighborhoods matter. Opportunities to increase assets and 

wealth matter. Economic security and access to health care matter. Protections for 

the most vulnerable matter. Personal initiative, strong families, and corporate responsibility matter. We understand that some policymakers highlight the importance of promoting marriage as a strategy for reducing poverty. Research consistently finds that all else being equal, children growing up with both parents in a 

healthy marriage are more likely to fare better over time in terms of social and educational outcomes. At the same time, all else is often not equal. Children with loving 

parents can and do thrive in a range of family structures. Government policies 

should find ways to support marriage, such as eliminating the marriage penalty in 

the EITC, but they should also support families in ways that recognize the range 

of settings in which children grow up. In more general terms, our basic strategy is 

to offer solutions to help replace America’s cycle of poverty—the tens of millions of 

people consigned to destitution every year because of our collective inability and unwillingness to prevent it—with a new cycle of prosperity. 

We believe that decent work should be at the center of this new approach. Nothing is more important to the cycle of prosperity than good jobs—with adequate income and benefits—that allow people to take care of their families and start building assets. 

Along with a job that pays a livable wage, strong personal character and individual initiative help to build strong and stable families. Strong families, in turn, 

help to build stable, safe, and caring communities. Communities foster good schools 

and encourage a culture that takes pride in personal achievement and educational 

success—all essential elements of economic mobility. Research clearly shows that 

educational attainment and personal qualities that value success and achievement 

early in life are directly correlated to higher wages and a better quality of life later 

in life. 

Educational achievement leads to enhanced job prospects and increased earning 

potential. As wages rise, opportunities to build wealth and assets through increased 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

savings, homeownership, and small business investments increase one’s life prospects and bring additional funds to neighborhoods, communities, and local schools. 

As economists and academics have shown, assets provide insurance and cushions 

against unforeseen economic shocks. They encourage people to focus long term and 

improve their own intellectual and creative development. They increase self-sufficiency and help people move away from public support. And they encourage people 

to become active in the actions of government and society. Rising wages and wealth 

in turn provide new opportunities for the overall economy and a better quality of 

life in our neighborhoods and communities. To flesh out this strategy, we specifically 

recommend 12 steps for federal, state, and local governments, non-governmental actors, individuals, and businesses to take in order to move millions of Americans 

from poverty to prosperity. 1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the 

average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level 

in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the 

average wage, but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing 

so would help over 4.5 million poor workers and nearly 9 million other low-income 

workers. 

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an 

earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and 

helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to 

$1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers, eliminating the marriage penalty by disregarding half of the lower-earning spouse’s wages if doing so would result in an 

increased EITC for the family, and expanding help to larger working families. We 

recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income 

families. Doing so would move 2 million children and 1 million parents out of poverty. 3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. 

The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after 

a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish 

stronger penalties for violations of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers. 4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and 

promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a 

year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states 

should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access 

to early education for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment 

among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape 

poverty. 5. Create 2 million new ‘‘opportunity’’ housing vouchers and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million 

Americans live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty where at least 40 percent 

of residents are poor. 

Our Nation should seek to end concentrated poverty and economic segregation, 

and promote regional equity and inner-city revitalization. We propose that over the 

next 10 years the Federal Government fund 2 million new ‘‘opportunity vouchers,’’ 

designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. Any new affordable housing 

should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public 

services or in gentrifying communities. These housing policies should be part of a 

broader effort to pursue equitable development strategies in regional and local planning efforts, including efforts to improve schools, create affordable housing, assure 

physical security, and enhance neighborhood amenities. 6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor 

youth ages 16 to 24 were both out of school and out of work in 2005. We recommend 

that the Federal Government restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most 

disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth 

programs—with the goal of reaching 600,000 poor disadvantaged youth through 

these efforts. We propose a new Upward Pathway program to offer low-income youth 

opportunities to participate in service and training in fields that are in high demand 

and provide needed public services. 

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible 

to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher-income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell 

Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. We propose to simplify the Pell 

Grant application process, gradually raise Pell Grants to reach 70 percent of the average costs of attending a four-year public institution, and encourage institutions to 

do more to raise student completion rates. As the Federal Government does its part, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 

states should develop strategies to make post-secondary education affordable for all 

residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states. 

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into 

their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the 

world. We urge Congress to pass the Second Chance Act, which will support successful models for reintegrating ex-offenders into their communities through job training 

and education opportunities, drug and mental health treatment, housing and other 

necessary services. Every state should establish an Office of Reentry Policy, which 

will oversee statewide reentry efforts and partner with local reentry commissions. 

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance 

system. 

Only about 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed lowwage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. We recommend that states 

(with federal help) reform ‘‘monetary eligibility’’ rules that screen out low-wage 

workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow unemployed 

workers to use periods of unemployment as a time to upgrade their skills and qualifications. 10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net 

should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living 

for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails 

to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. 

The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, 

and access, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be 

reformed to strengthen its focus on helping needy families find sustainable employment. 

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial 

services. 

Despite having less income, lower-income families often pay more than middleand high-income families for the same consumer products. We recommend that the 

federal and state governments address the home mortgage foreclosure crisis through 

expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. And we propose that the Federal Government establish a $50 

million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities. 

12. Expand and simplify the Saver’s Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes 

such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. 

We propose that the federal ‘‘Saver’s Credit’’ be reformed to make it fully refundable. This credit should also be broadened to apply to other appropriate savings vehicles intended to foster asset accumulation, with consideration given to including 

individual development accounts, children’s saving accounts, and college savings 

plans. 

We believe these recommendations will cut poverty in half. The Urban Institute, 

which modeled the implementation of one set of our recommendations (using a 

methodology drawn from recommendations of a National Academy of Sciences expert panel), estimates that four of our steps would reduce poverty by 26 percent, 

bringing us more than halfway toward our goal. Among their findings: 

• Taken together, our minimum wage, EITC, child credit, and child care 

recommendations would reduce poverty by 26 percent. This would mean 

over 9 million fewer people in poverty and a national poverty rate of 9.1 percent—the lowest in recorded U.S. history. 

• The racial poverty gap would be narrowed. White poverty would fall from 

8.7 percent to 7.0 percent. Poverty among African Americans would fall from 

21.4 percent to 15.6 percent. Hispanic poverty would fall from 21.4 percent to 

12.9 percent and poverty for all others would fall from 12.7 percent to 10.3 percent. 

• Child poverty and extreme poverty would both fall. Child poverty would 

drop by 41 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty would fall by over 

2 million. 

• Millions of low- and moderate-income families would benefit. Almost 

half of the benefits would help low- and moderate-income families. 

The combined cost of our principal recommendations is in the range of $90 billion 

a year—a significant cost but one that is necessary and could be readily funded 

through a fairer tax system. An additional $90 billion in annual spending would 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
12 

represent about 0.8 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product, which is a fraction of the money spent on tax changes that benefited primarily the wealthy in recent years. Consider that: 

• The current annual costs of the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003 

are in the range of $400 billion a year. 

• In 2008 alone the value of the tax cuts to households with incomes exceeding 

$200,000 a year is projected to be $100 billion. 

Our recommendations could be fully paid for simply by bringing better balance 

to the federal tax system and recouping part of what has been lost by the excessive 

tax cuts of recent years. We recognize that serious action has serious costs, but the 

challenge before the Nation is not whether we can afford to act, but rather that we 

must decide to act. What would it mean to accomplish a 50-percent reduction in poverty? In concrete terms, it would mean that nearly 20 million fewer Americans 

would be living in poverty. It would mean more working Americans, dramatically 

fewer working people in poverty, stronger, more vibrant communities, and millions 

of children beginning their lives with vastly more opportunity than they have today. 

It would mean a healthier population, less crime, more economic growth, a more capable workforce, a more competitive Nation, and a major decline in the racial inequities and disparities that have plagued our Nation. I think this is a vision of society worth fighting for. Reducing poverty is the right thing to do and critical for the 

success of our Nation and our people. I urge Congress to consider the ideas presented here as proven, cost-effective ways to strengthen our Nation and our people. 

In doing so, remember the words of Robert F. Kennedy in challenging all of us 

to create a better society: 

‘‘The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike. Rather it will 

belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American society.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me 

today. I’d be happy to take any questions you may have. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Linda Gibbs, who is the deputy mayor for health and 

human services for the City of New York. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA GIBBS, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, CITY OF NEW YORK 

Ms. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting 

me to participate in this panel today. Let me start by saying that 

New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has 

made great improvements in critical areas that are needed to break 

the cycle of poverty. 

So, we began with focused efforts on: reforming our education 

system; requiring personal responsibility for welfare recipients; developing a five-borough economic development strategy; setting up 

an aggressive public health agenda; and committing to an affordable housing plan. Those are the building blocks that I believe were 

necessary for us to really take on the issue of poverty in New York 

City. 

As a city, we believe that poverty is not an inevitable condition 

of life for the almost 20 percent of our residents who are living 

below the poverty line. Even with all the impressive investments 

that we have made, at any given point in time almost one in five 

New Yorkers live in poverty. We don’t believe this is acceptable. 

A hallmark of the Bloomberg Administration is of tackling problems often seen to be insurmountable, like crime and like failing 

schools. Poverty is another example where we are committed to adVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
13 

dressing it in a thoughtful and systematic way. We will, however, 

also need the help of the State and Federal Governments in these 

efforts. 

I would first like to share some of the strategies that we are undertaking at the local level. Just over a year ago, the mayor appointed a Commission for Economic Opportunity to look at this 

issue. Co-chaired by Dick Parsons of Time-Warner and Geoffrey 

Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone, the commission members 

worked hard to survey the field, engage interested and knowledgeable participants, and look closely at different approaches to reducing poverty. 

I would also note that Kevin Sullivan, out of Catholic Charities 

of New York City, who is here with us today, was also a member 

of the commission. 

Last fall, the recommendations of the commission were released 

in its report. They identified three strategic groups to focus on: 

working poor adults; young adults between the ages of 16 and 24; 

and children under the age of 5. Nearly 700,000 of our 1.5 million 

people living in poverty fall into 1 of these 3 groups. 

The commission’s recommendation was, to have success, we 

needed to be targeted and focused, and really tailor recommendations specific to those populations. 

With the working poor, we have 340,000 New Yorkers who are 

working, who live in poverty. By focusing on the working poor, we 

hope to build on gains that have been made in the last decade of 

welfare reform, by addressing the ever-widening skills gap, and 

raising the living standards of low-wage workers. 

In particular, we will highlight the access to work supports, 

those benefits that are available to individuals who have earnings. 

We will focus on building new career pathways in ways that are 

not traditional to the history of our workforce. We will focus on 

workforce training. 

What is really significant here—and I don’t have this figure nationally—but over the past 15 years, the number of households in 

poverty that are poor in New York City has gone from 29 percent 

up to 46 percent. So, increasingly, households in poverty are working in New York City. 

The second group that the commission focused on was young 

adults between the age of 16 and 24. Almost 25 percent of our 

young adults live below the Federal poverty line. Many of them are 

not engaged in either school or work, and the commission focused 

a great deal on strategies to work with the disconnected youth. 

Also, not to assume that education was not a priority, that many 

of them can be reconnected to education. 

Strategies include preventing disengagement from school and 

work, and developing creative approaches to re-engage them. 

Our third group of focus was children under the age of five. Over 

185,000 children in this age category, or nearly 1 out of every 3, 

live in poverty. By investing in children under the age of five with 

critical interventions, like universal pre-K, child care, and at-home 

nursing programs to work with at-risk pregnant women before 

birth, we believe we can break the cycle of inter-generational poverty by making investments in their long-term human capital development. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

In December, after considering the commission’s recommendations, the Mayor announced the creation of a center for economic 

opportunity to implement the recommendations, and invested $150 

million annually toward the implementation of this work. Agencies 

in the city will be held accountable for how effectively these new 

strategies impact the poor and individuals in communities, and reduce poverty. Only those solutions that are proven to work will be 

continued. Those that don’t will be discontinued. 

This includes: piloting the use of conditional cash transfers in 

New York City, which have been tried in other countries with great 

success, but have not yet been tried in the United States. In New 

York City, we will call this program Opportunity New York City, 

and will privately raise money to provide for these conditional cash 

transfers. 

The mayor’s belief is, as a very innovative, non-traditional approach in New York City, it’s a perfect example of how foundation 

partners can come to support new initiatives. We will begin this 

program with foundation support. We have already raised $42 million of the $50 million necessary for the 2-year program. 

The concept is that the program incentivizes behaviors that we 

know will break the cycle of poverty, conditioned on human capital 

development of, particularly, the children in the family, health 

care, education, and, to the extent that the families comply, they 

will receive a transfer payment. 

The city is also initiating a child care tax credit, which will be refundable for poor households for up to $1,000 per child under the 

age of 3. We have implemented another—a number of the 37 recommendations of the commission already. 

Although New York City has taken on the challenge to fight poverty at the local level, we cannot do it alone. I am encouraged by 

the success of welfare reform in helping single mothers transition 

to work, and it serves as an example of how large-scale government 

programs can make a critical difference. 

However, it only provides a piece of the solution, leaving a gap 

in programs that target men in the same way. Work rates for men 

are decreasing. So, as we saw tremendous growth in the employment of single mothers, during that same period the work rates for 

men dropped. 

Inequalities in income are increasing, and more of the people living in poverty, as I mentioned, are working. The result for the 

poor, single-parent families is that they lack an essential second income that would allow them to move the poverty line. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Could you summarize? All of your 

written speech will be put on the record. 

Ms. GIBBS. Okay. My apologies. Well, I was getting to the most 

important point, the Federal recommendations. 

I think what we really want to do is to take those lessons that 

we learned from Federal welfare reform, and understand how we 

can replicate them, how we can airlift them over to those populations that have not benefited. Specifically, for the single adults. 

I would like to reiterate the recommendations that have been 

made by John this morning. We believe looking at the earned income tax credit for single adults is very promising, and we would 

like to think and work with you more on that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

I would like to add a last point, which is the importance of the 

question of how we measure poverty. There was a great frustration 

that the commission felt, and that the Mayor has expressed, as we 

really try to understand, with these changes, when so many of the 

things that happen don’t count toward the calculation of poverty, 

both on the revenue side—whether those income transfers are 

counted in household income—but also on the expense side, the 

fact that the Federal poverty line itself does not reflect a true cost 

of what it takes for a poor family to be able to meet the basic 

standards of living, and is without regional variation. 

So, we also believe that in order to tackle this issue, we need to 

understand, much more clearly what it means to be poor. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gibbs follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Linda Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health 

and Human Services, City of New York 

Thank you Chairman McDermott and members of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. I am pleased to testify before 

you today on New York City’s plan for addressing poverty in New York City. 

Let me start by saying that New York City, under the leadership of Mayor 

Bloomberg, has made great improvements in critical areas needed to break the cycle 

of poverty. 

Focused efforts to reform our education system, require personal responsibility 

from welfare recipients, develop a five borough economic development strategy, set 

an aggressive public health agenda and commit to an affordable housing plan— 

which includes an unprecedented commitment to build 165,000 units of affordable 

housing—has set the platform to seriously explore and discuss strategies that will 

have an impact on poverty. 

As a City, we believe that poverty is not an inevitable condition of life for almost 

20 percent of our residents who are living below the poverty line. Even with all the 

impressive investments we have made, at any given point in time almost 1 in 5 New 

Yorkers lives in poverty. This is unacceptable given the prosperity of the City and 

the economy. However, New York City is not alone with a poverty rate that exceeds 

the national average. Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia face similar 

struggles. 

Poverty Rates 20 Largest Cities 

United States, 2005 

Source: American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

A hallmark of the Bloomberg administration is tackling problems that often seem 

insurmountable, like crime and failing schools. Poverty is another example of a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.001
16 

problem that may seem beyond the ability of a city to impact, but we are committed 

to addressing it in a thoughtful and systematic manner. We will, however, also need 

the support of the federal and state governments in our endeavors. 

NYC Commission for Economic Opportunity 

I first would like to share with the subcommittee our strategy at the local level. 

Just over a year ago, Mayor Bloomberg announced the creation of the New York 

City Commission for Economic Opportunity. The Commission was a public-private 

taskforce charged with devising specific strategies to help low-income New Yorkers 

move out of poverty. Members of the Commission were asked to look critically at 

the experience of poverty for our residents and pinpoint strategic areas where a targeted approach could make a difference. 

The Commission members worked hard to survey the field, engage interested and 

knowledgeable participants, and look closely at different approaches to reducing 

poverty. It was an extremely exhaustive process where many of the best thinkers 

in New York, the Nation and beyond were consulted. Time Warner Inc. Chairman 

and CEO Richard D. Parsons and Harlem Children’s Zone President and CEO Geoffrey Canada were the Co-Chairs of the new Commission and other members included key civic leaders, like Monsignor Kevin Sullivan from Catholic Charities. 

The Commission based its recommendations on the following shared goals: 

• Hard work and shared responsibility fuel our economy 

• All New Yorkers should share in the rewards of economic growth and prosperity 

• Government and the private sector must work together to reward work and 

support working families 

• Context is critical—poverty cannot be reduced outside of the network of families, religious institutions, schools and other community institutions 

Last fall, the recommendations of the Commission were released in the report, 

‘‘Increasing Opportunity and Reducing Poverty in New York City.’’ The report 

brought to light the severity of poverty in New York City. Of almost 8 million New 

Yorkers, more than 1.5 million individuals are living in poverty—three times the entire population of Boston. Poverty is geographically concentrated in 11 percent of the 

City’s census tracks—with over 40 percent of the population in those communities 

living below the federal poverty line. In addition, another 19 percent of the population is low-income; earning between 100–199 percent of the poverty line. 

The Commission identified three strategic groups to focus on: 

• working poor adults; 

• young adults between the ages of 16 and 24; and 

• children under the age of five. 

Nearly 700,000 New Yorkers who live in poverty fall into one or more of these 

groups. 

Working Poor 

There are approximately 340,000 working New Yorkers who live in poverty. By 

focusing on the working poor, New York City will be able to build on the gains made 

in the last decade of welfare reform by addressing the ever-widening skills gap and 

raising the living standards of low-wage workers. 

We discovered in our analysis of New York City that the percent of families in 

poverty who work has gone up from 29 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in 2005, highlighting the need to create solutions to address this population through access to 

work supports, career pathways, and workforce training. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis performed by the Department of City Planning, City 

of New York. 

Young Adults Between the Ages of 16 and 24 

Almost 25 percent of New York City’s young adults aged 16 to 24 live below the 

federal poverty line. By concentrating on this population, it will be possible to redirect the lives of youth at a critical transition point. Strategies for this population 

include preventing disengagement from school and work and developing creative approaches to re-engage those youth already disconnected. 

Source: 2001 Population Survey (CPS), U.S. Census Bureau. Tabulated by Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Analysis 2001; and 2000 United States Census Data. Note: 

baseline census data utilized for percentage calculation includes 15 year olds in each city population. 

Young Children Under the Age of Five 

Over 185,000 of New York City’s young children, nearly one out of every three, 

live in poverty. By investing in children under five with critical interventions, like 

universal pre-k, childcare and at-home nursing programs to work with at-risk pregnant women before birth, we can break the cycle of inter-generational poverty and 

improve the life chances of young children. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.002 43761A.003
18 

Source: American Community Survey 2005 

Center for Economic Opportunity 

After reviewing the Commission’s report, the Mayor announced his endorsement 

of the recommendations and established the Center for Economic Opportunity 

(CEO) to bring the initiatives to fruition. The Center is responsible for working with 

City agencies to implement the programs, manage the budget and conduct rigorous 

evaluations of the initiatives. The Mayor directed the City agencies to develop an 

action plan to turn the recommendations into real programs and policies under the 

direction of the Center. 

Funding 

In December, the Mayor announced the creation of the Innovations Fund, a $150 

million yearly commitment to test and pilot the Commission’s recommendations. Included in this fund is $25 million in private donations that the Mayor committed 

to raising towards a conditional cash transfer program. I’m pleased to report that 

we have already raised $42 million of the $50 million needed to test this program 

for two years. In addition to the $25 million in private funds for this year, the City 

has committed $75 million in public funds ($69 million City and $7 million in federal and state funds). That will be coupled with the City’s $42 million Child Care 

Tax Credit and $11 million in baseline funding from existing successful poverty reduction programs. 

Agencies will be held accountable for how effectively their new strategies impact 

poor communities and reduce poverty, and only the solutions that work will continue to get funded and expanded. 

Office of Financial Empowerment 

One of the strategies recommended by the Commission is the creation of the Office of Financial Empowerment that will address issues of family economic success. 

It is the first office of its kind to be created by any city in the country. 

The office will institutionalize key recommendations of the Commission to increase financial literacy, to help to build savings and assets and to protect consumers from predatory and fraudulent practices that can have a disproportionate 

impact on the poor. It will work to empower and provide residents of lower-income 

communities with the tools and education they need to make more informed financial decisions. 

Opportunity NYC 

Another example of the innovative strategies New York City is piloting includes 

the use of ‘‘conditional cash transfers,’’ which have been tried in other countries 

with great success but not yet in the United States. Mexico has had the most rigorously evaluated program, which has demonstrated improved health and education 

outcomes of participants and a reduction in poverty. 

This program in New York City will be called ‘‘Opportunity NYC’’ and will use 

privately raised money to provide the conditional cash transfers. Opportunity NYC 

will encourage activities like higher attendance in school, more parental involveVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.004
19 

ment in education, greater use of preventative health care and the development of 

career skills. 

Childcare Tax Credit 

The mayor also announced a City commitment to fund a local child care tax credit. The proposed tax credit is based on the federal and state credit, but would target 

resources to families with young children three years old and under with a household income less than $30,000. These families often experience the greatest difficulties finding and paying for child care. Eligible families that leverage this credit, in 

conjunction with the federal and state credit, would have the support needed to consistently participate and stay connected to the labor force. 

Political Will and Commitment At All Levels 

Although New York City has taken on the challenge to fight poverty on a local 

level, we cannot do it alone. We need support and cooperation from all levels of government in order to have a comprehensive strategy. 

I am encouraged by the success of welfare reform in helping single mothers transition to work and it serves as an example of how a large-scale government program 

can make a critical difference. However, it only provides a piece of the solution leaving a gap in programs that target men in the same way. 

Work rates for men are decreasing, the inequalities in income are increasing and 

more people living in poverty are working. The result for poor, single parent families 

is that they lack an essential second income that would allow them to move above 

the poverty line. 

There are a number of ideas and proposals on how to apply the lessons learned 

from welfare reform to address the growing inequalities in our society. We all need 

to continue to work together to devise the next set of strategies that will be effective 

in addressing poverty on a national level. I am excited that so many people are here 

today who care about this issue and that the Ways and Means Committee has taken 

such leadership by holding a series of hearings on poverty. 

Federal Recommendations 

I encourage the Federal Government to look towards the tax system as one way 

to tackle the complicated issue of income inequality and poverty by increasing and 

expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, one of the most effective anti-poverty 

tools provided by the Federal Government. As you may know, New York City has 

worked extensively to increase the number of residents who apply for the EITC, including mailing out the forms to residents who qualify. 

Other critical areas that we strongly encourage Congress to support are: 

• Increase the Child Care and Development Fund by a minimum of $6 billion 

over 5 years 

• Restore funds to the Child Support Enforcement Incentive Grant as proposed 

in legislation by Chairman McDermott 

• Remove restrictions on rehabilitation and other activities that were recently 

placed on the TANF Program 

• Allow states to integrate and count job search as an integral part of all TANF 

employment-related activities 

• Provide funds to measure poverty at the local level 

I would like to explain my last point a little further. When the Commission tried 

to better understand poverty locally, we faced several hurdles in obtaining current 

and useful data. This is because either it did not exist or the samples were too small 

to produce reliable results. Investing time and resources in measures that are longitudinal and localized will help inform states and localities on how best to target resources. It is an important role the Federal Government can take to support states 

and cities in the fight against poverty. 

I look forward to returning to share the results of what we have learned from our 

programs once they are fully up and running and when the evaluations produce empirical results. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share our initiatives to reduce poverty. I invite 

all of the members of the Committee and your staff to New York City to see some 

of our efforts first hand. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

Reverend Snyder. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND LARRY SNYDER, PRESIDENT, 

CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA 

Rev. SNYDER. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, and Ranking 

Member Weller. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s 

hearing on proposals for reducing poverty in our Nation. 

Catholic Charities USA is one of the Nation’s largest private networks of over 1,500 social service agencies and institutions, providing essential human services to almost 7.5 million people, annually. 

Catholic Charities agencies and institutions, nationwide, provide 

vital social services to people in need, regardless of their religious, 

social, or economic background. Some of the services provided by 

Catholic Charities agencies include: child care services; workforce 

development; mental health services; and other programs to help 

families become and remain self-sufficient. 

Catholic Charities agencies have worked for more than a century 

to serve those in need, and to empower them to build lives of dignity and economic security. The passage of welfare reform began 

the shift by the Federal Government of both the conversation about 

the poor in this country, and the responsibility for the poor. 

The shift in responsibility to the States has been passed on to 

our local communities and local agencies, in many cases. 

So, as the number of individuals on welfare declined, the number 

of individuals accessing emergency services at agencies like Catholic Charities, has steadily increased. In 2005, our agencies experienced a 14 percent increase in these requests. While the resources 

from the Federal Government continue to decline, the need in our 

communities continue to increase. 

Through our daily work at Catholic Charities agencies across the 

country, we see the impact of poverty on families. The many misconceptions about the nature of poverty in the United States reinforced the commonly held view that poverty is due to failures and 

deficiencies of individuals, rather than the failures of structures 

that we put in place through the economic and political choices 

that we make, as a Nation. 

While it is true that individual choices and behaviors do influence one’s chances of living in poverty, these individual behaviors 

are frequently outweighed by the structures and policies that impact the poor. The experiences of our agencies are well supported 

by the numbers presented in the U.S. Census data, and independent research studies by some of my fellow panelists and government officials. 

In 2006, Catholic Charities USA published a policy paper entitled, ‘‘Poverty in America: A Threat to the Common Good.’’ In January of this year, in this very room, we launched a new campaign 

to reduce poverty in America. 

The campaign is the result of conviction and passion to make the 

plight of the poor a priority in the wealthiest Nation in the world. 

This campaign calls upon policy makers, faith-based groups, civic 

leaders, and concerned citizens, to make a systematic and concerted effort to cut poverty in half by 2020. Now, if we can do that 

by 2017, we would be delighted. 

The great American tradition has been that if you work hard, 

you can provide a better life for you and your family. This is the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

bedrock of the American dream. Unfortunately, today, too many 

Americans are working hard, but still cannot make ends meet. It 

is a moral crisis to a country as wealthy as the United States, that 

37 million Americans live in poverty. The entire Catholic Charities 

network is committed to working hard and refocusing our efforts to 

see that this number is reduced. 

In my written testimony, you will find many policy proposals. 

Due to the limited time, I would refer you to those. 

Can we cut poverty in half? I believe that we can make significant progress if the country, as a whole, comes together to do so. 

Reducing poverty in this country will take a great deal of leadership, partnership, and accountability. 

Two organizations who have successfully partnered with local 

governments are here today: Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese 

of New York, who have been part of a number of initiatives, including the employment and trading programs there; and Catholic 

Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago, which has developed a program around asset-building. 

Between Brooklyn, Queens Diocese, and the New York City Archdiocese Catholic Charities, they provide a significant portion of the 

child welfare services in New York City. Our agencies continue to 

work in effective partnerships with the Mayor’s office, the kind of 

partnerships that need to be promoted at all levels of government 

if we are going to be successful in building a country where poverty 

is history. 

An important component of our campaign will be engaging clients. Empowering those that we serve is critical. While serving the 

poor is something we do very well, we need to take the next step, 

and create partnerships with government that empower the poor, 

so that they can be accountable and able to serve themselves. 

Thank you for the opportunity of testifying today. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Snyder follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Reverend Larry Snyder, President, 

Catholic Charities USA 

Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and members of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify at today’s hearing on proposals for reducing poverty in our Nation. 

I am Fr. Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA. Catholic Charities 

USA is one of the Nation’s largest private networks of over 1,500 social service 

agencies and institutions, providing essential services to over 7.4 million people annually in communities across our Nation. 

Background 

Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide provide vital social services to people in need regardless of their religious, social, or economic background. 

Some of the services provided by Catholic Charities agencies include nutrition assistance, child care services, workforce development, health care services, and other 

programs to help families become and remain self-sufficient. 

Catholic Charities agencies have worked for more than a century to serve those 

in need and to empower them to build lives of dignity and economic security. Over 

the last several years, Catholic Charities agencies have seen a steady increase in 

the number of families seeking assistance. In 2005 we saw a 14 percent increase 

in emergency services. 

A 2006 survey of Catholic Charities agencies shows requests for help are growing 

much faster than the resources to provide assistance, putting continued strain on 

social services. This is occurring in communities as diverse as Las Vegas, NV; 

Lubbock, TX; and Charlotte, NC. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

i Calculation based on U.S. Census data, 2004. 

iiMark Rank. One Nation, Underprivileged. 2005, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 93. iii America’s Second Harvest Network, Hunger in America, 2006. iv U.S. Census data, 2005. v Idem. 

Increasing Need 

• 72 percent of Catholic Charities agencies report an increase in the need for financial assistance 

• 64 percent report an increase in the need for food assistance 

• 53 percent report an increase in the need for mental health services 

• 45 percent report an increase in the need for prescription assistance 

• 44 percent of the agencies cite an increase in the need for temporary housing 

Who is Seeking Help? 

We have seen more working families, more single parents, and more grandparents 

seeking such basics services as housing, shelter, and food. Too many of these families are just holding on and are struggling to make ends meet: 

• 81 percent of agencies cite an increase in the working poor seeking help 

• 68 percent of local agencies report an increase in the number of families coming 

to them for help 

• 56 percent are seeing more seniors 

The great American tradition has been that if you work hard you can provide a 

better life for you and your family. This is the bedrock of the ‘‘American Dream.’’ 

Unfortunately, today too many Americans are working hard but cannot make ends 

meet. 

Poverty in the United States 

Through our daily work at Catholic Charities agencies across our Nation, we see 

the impact of poverty on families. The many misconceptions about the nature of poverty in the United States reinforce the commonly held view that poverty is due to 

failures and deficiencies of individuals, rather than the failures of structures that 

we put in place through the economic and political choices we make as a Nation. 

While it is true that individual choices and behaviors do influence one’s chances of 

living in poverty, these individual behaviors are frequently outweighed by the structures and policies that shape the opportunities of people who are poor. 

By age 60, more than half of all Americans will have experienced poverty at some 

point in their lives for a year or more. Of these, about one half will have lived in 

poverty for four years or more. Having a job does not preclude living in poverty. Two 

out of three families with incomes below the poverty level have at least one member 

who is employed. 

Almost half of all people living in poverty—about 47 percent—are white and nonHispanic. However, African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to live 

in poverty than other population groups. For example, while the poverty rate for 

non-Hispanic whites is 8 percent, the rate for African Americans is 24.1 percent, for 

Hispanics, 21.8 percent, and for Native Americans, 23.2 percent. For children, the 

poverty rate for white children is 10 percent, while it is 28 percent for Hispanic children, 27 percent for Native American children, and 33 percent for African American 

children. The number of Hispanics living in poverty is now about the same as the 

number of African Americans living in poverty. 

The experiences of Catholic Charities agencies are well supported by the numbers 

presented in U.S. Census data, independent research studies, and the media: 

• The number of people who are poor by official government standards is 37 million, a number that is equal to the combined populations of Missouri, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska. i

• Poverty is not limited to a small minority of our citizens. More than half of all 

Americans will experience poverty for at least one year during their adult life 

(ages 20–65). ii

• 25 million people in our Nation sought help from food banks last year—an increase of 18 percent since 1997. iii

• The highest rates of poverty are among children, especially children of color. iv

• African Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans are about three 

times as likely to live in poverty as are whites. v

• More than 7 million people living in rural areas are poor—a poverty rate of 17 

percent. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

viPope Benedict XVI, ‘‘God Is Love,’’ December 25, 2005, 20. 

• Millions of Americans do not fall below the official federal poverty levels. However, they are asset poor and are at risk of falling into poverty with a single 

emergency. 

The Moral Imperative for Reducing Poverty 

Far too often, in our communities we see the suffering of children who do not have 

access to adequate health care and nutrition. We see the plight of the working families who struggle to hold down two and three jobs just to make ends met—yet they 

cannot feed their children or find affordable housing. These struggles for survival 

put incredible strains on family life and often contribute to the break up of marriages and families. We see the difficulties faced by senior citizens who are dehumanized and demoralized when they have to choose between utilities and food. 

Many seniors who need special diets and adequate nutrition for their medications, 

lack access to adequate food. Working adults should earn enough to support their 

children in dignity and should not be relegated to standing in line for food for their 

children from their local food pantry or soup kitchen. Our Nation’s seniors should 

not have to choose among eating, shelter, and purchasing medicine. 

Today more than 37 million Americans live in poverty. This is a moral crisis for 

a country as wealthy as the United States. In 2006 Catholic Charities USA published a policy paper, Poverty in America: A Threat to the Common Good. Earlier 

this year, we launched the Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America. The campaign 

calls upon policymakers, faith-based groups, civic leaders, and all citizens to make 

a systematic and concerted effort to cut poverty in half by 2020. 

The existence of such widespread and long term poverty amidst such enormous 

wealth is a moral and social wound on the soul of our country. Even while the economy as a whole prospers, this scourge of poverty is getting worse, and the harm it 

inflicts on our entire Nation continues to grow. After several years of decline in national poverty level, we have seen a steady increase since 2000, with over 5 million 

new Americans falling into poverty. 

The fact that this powerful economy is leaving so many behind is a sign that 

something in our social and economic system is seriously broken. Unlike natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods, poverty in the United States is a human-made 

disaster. It is not a force of nature beyond our control; rather it is the result of economic, social, and political choices that we Americans have made, both as individuals and as a society. 

As a Christian and Catholic organization, we are deeply troubled and frustrated 

by the fact that the issue of poverty has been largely ignored in our national debate 

for decades. Poverty has worsened in recent years and now afflicts more than one 

out of every eight families in our Nation. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has 

substantially reduced the resources devoted to assisting those who are impoverished, and states have been unable or unmoved to act. There has been a conscious 

and deliberate retreat from our Nation’s commitment to economic justice for those 

who are poor. Poverty remains our Nation’s most serious political blind spot and it 

remains a threat to the common good and the future strength of our Nation. 

Human dignity is a core principle in Catholic social teaching. Poverty is a fundamental violation of human dignity and also a form of violence against the God who 

is present in every human person. As Pope Benedict XVI has said, ‘‘[W]ithin the 

community of believers, there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone 

what is needed for a dignified life.’’ vi As these words suggest, human dignity makes 

sense only if it is viewed in the context of community, because we are fundamentally 

social beings, bound together in the human family. If our society is to combat poverty successfully, then we will need a renewed sense of community, a renewed commitment to the common good. 

Human dignity is protected by basic human rights. Among these are the right to 

life and the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment at a livable wage. Included in these fundamental rights is 

the right to participate in decisions that affect one’s life and one’s future. For those 

living in poverty, this means that they have a right to participate in the process 

of their own development. 

Catholic social teaching affirms the idea that every right carries with it a set of 

responsibilities, both on the part of the individual and the community. Thus, for example, all people have a right to health care, but they also have a duty to act responsibly in living a healthy life and caring for the physical and mental well-being 

of their bodies. They are responsible for their own decisions and actions. At the 

same time, society has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to decent 

health care, and individuals have a responsibility to contribute to the common good 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

by helping society reach this goal. Catholic teaching asserts that one of the principal 

means by which society and the state must defend human dignity is by giving priority to the needs of the poor. 

Specific Public Policy Recommendations 

The causes of poverty are complex. Identifying solutions to reduce poverty will 

take many different strategies and efforts from all sectors of the country. Catholic 

Charities agencies have a long history of serving and advocating on behalf of those 

who live in poverty. Utilizing this experience, we have identified several policy proposals in our policy paper that we believe will be an effective start to help cut poverty in half by 2020. 

Improvements to the health care system, creating good jobs at a living wages, improvements to our housing policies, and changes to our tax system are among the 

changes we propose. We propose changes in two broad categories: 

1. Implementing more equitable wage measures, specifically creating more livable 

wage jobs and raising the wages of existing low-paying jobs. 

2. IInvesting more of our common wealth in social welfare policies for low-income 

people. 

Creating Good Jobs and Raising Wages 

In recent years, despite increases in the overall productivity of the workforce, 

wages for most workers have been stagnant or falling in real terms. For several decades before 1980, productivity growth and compensation rose together. American 

workers were more productive and they shared equitably in the gains from their 

productivity. Since 1980, workers have continued to become more productive, but 

they generally have not shared in the gains from their increased productivity. While 

raising the minimum wage is important, much more needs to be done in the long 

run to increase wages of low-income workers. We applaud the diverse efforts across 

the country to promote ‘‘living wages’’ by means of legislation. We also support the 

efforts to promote the general principle of livable wages by means of education and 

advocacy involving both the private and public sectors. Finally, declining union 

membership has played an important role in the failure of wages to keep pace with 

inflation for low- and middle-income workers. 

Invest in Social Programs for Low-Income People 

Federal and State Governments should invest in social policies that provide security and opportunities to low-income families and individuals. These policies fall into 

four major categories: 

• Protecting families from economic risks; 

• Strengthening families; 

• Promoting life-long learning; and 

• Promoting long-term economic security and asset building 

Protect Working Families from Economic Risks 

Work is the bedrock of the American culture, much more needs to be done to improve existing income support programs to ensure that they provide adequate protection to all workers. 

• Improve the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In the 

1990s, there were substantial increases in single-parent employment and reductions in poverty. Employment rates have remained relatively high since then, 

but poverty has increased significantly over the last five years. This suggests 

that many parents remain in low-wage jobs that do not provide enough income 

to support their families. At the same time, recent changes to TANF create further restrictions to economic mobility for low-income families. Catholic Charities 

USA strongly supports work as the core of the TANF program. But we also believe that a comprehensive plan that incorporates work with education and 

training has shown the most success. TANF programs must be flexible enough 

to recognize that not all families are ready to work and must address these barriers. 

• Improve access to safe and stable child care. Every child deserves quality child 

care and the early education they need to get a strong start in life. They also 

need to be safe and secure when their parents are working. For many low-income families, access to child care determines the choice between work and 

training, on one hand, and a lifetime of poverty on the other. Unfortunately, 

federal child care funding continues to be insufficient to meet the needs of working families, and even fewer families can gain access to quality child care. The 

Federal Government should provide adequate child care funding to allow more 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

viiThe credit for workers not raising children averages about $220; this credit is available only to workers with incomes of less than about $11,750 (less than $13,750 for a married couple without children). viiiSimilarly, in a report title titled Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage 

Workers is Limited, the Federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that in the 

1990s low-wage workers were twice as likely to be unemployed, but less than half as likely to 

receive unemployment insurance. ix Elaine Sorensen, Urban Institute, Child Support Gains Some Ground, 2003—http:// 

www.urban.org/publications/310860.html 

low-income parents to place their children in safe, nurturing, learning environments while they are working or going to school. Improve the Earned Income 

Tax Credit (EITC) to be more inclusive. The EITC is a critical support program 

that provides a strong incentive to work and helps lift millions of children out 

of poverty. The EITC has been enhanced by a number of states through stateEITC programs that provide additional benefits to the federal program. While 

the federal EITC averages $2,100 for families with children, it is extremely limited for adults without children and for non-custodial parents. vii In addition, 

low-income workers under the age of 25 are completely ineligible for the EITC 

even though they have one the highest unemployment and poverty rates of 

workers. Expanding the benefits of EITC to non-custodial parents and other 

young adult workers could reduce poverty and hardship and help ‘‘make work 

pay’’ for all Americans. • Reform unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance provides most lowwage workers with limited protection against the risks of unemployment. Researchers at the Urban Institute recently concluded that unemployment insurance ‘‘plays a relatively small role in reducing poverty and slows the rise of poverty during labor market downturns.’’ viii The unemployment insurance system 

should be strengthened to provide greater protection against the economic loss 

that low-income workers experience as a result of unemployment. 

Support Policies that Strengthen Families and Marriage 

The Catholic community has consistently affirmed the vital importance of strong 

family life as a foundation for raising children. Children clearly do better economically and emotionally when raised by two parents in a stable, healthy marriage. 

• Extend services, benefits, and training to low-income men. For decades, federal 

policies have not provided sufficient support to low-income men to help more 

of them become part of a stable family unit. We encourage the Federal Government to enhance and support programs that strengthen families. This includes 

providing support to programs that help young men develop the skills necessary 

to become better fathers. By supporting low-income men and fathers in a more 

comprehensive way, we can reduce many of the challenges that cause families 

to fall apart and children to fall into poverty. Provide more support to low-income parents. Poor children desperately need the support of both parents. The 

legislative agenda for improving support to low-income parents should focus on 

policies that help keep famines together by providing stronger support for marriage and two-parent families; more support for parents who are disconnected 

from their children due to incarceration; and reform to the child support system 

to encourage the presence of fathers in the lives of their children. Recent improvements in the child support system have increased family income and reduced child poverty. Thirty-six percent of poor children and 50 percent of near 

poor children received child support payments in 2001. ix Further, improvement 

to this program is critical to help lift more low-income children out of poverty. 

• Improve the Child Tax Credit. The child tax credit provides nearly $50 billion 

in subsidies to families with children. This makes it the largest federal cash assistance program for children, but most of its benefits do not go to low-income 

families. The current credit provides $1,000 per child. Like the EITC, it is refundable, but current law excludes families with income under $11,000. As a 

result, millions of children are excluded from the credit. This exclusion falls disproportionately on Hispanics and African-Americans—19 percent of Hispanics 

and 28 percent of African-Americans receive no credit because their income is 

too low, compared to only 9 percent of whites. The child tax credit should be 

extended to all low-income families with children. 

• Improve protection and care of abused, neglected, and abandoned children and 

youth. Catholic Charities agencies across the country provide an array of child 

welfare services—children under 18 make up 29 percent of the number of clients we serve. While a number of federal programs contribute to the intervention and prevention of child abuse and neglect, the systems supported by these 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

xSee Robert G. Lynch, Exceptional Returns, (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 

2004), 9–17. 

programs have historically been fragmented and inadequate in meeting the 

needs of many vulnerable children, youth, and families. More efforts are required to sustain and expand the current level of services and create a full continuum of appropriate and timely support services for individual, family caregivers, and the agencies that provide care. 

Promote Long Term Learning 

Education and skills training are essential to the long-term success of our Nation’s youth and adults. Education is a fundamental part of creating a competitive 

workforce and a strong economy that benefits all. Not only is education necessary 

for economic advancement, it also has wide-ranging social benefits that promote the 

common good. 

• Expand access to quality ‘‘Pre-K’’ education. Research has shown that investing 

in early education for pre-school age children can make a lasting difference in 

children’s lives, including increased high school graduation rates, reduction in 

adult criminal activity, and increased employment and incomes. x

• Ensure access to post-secondary education and job training. Education and 

training improve the odds of advancement for low-wage workers and are an absolutely necessary part of a larger strategy to fight poverty and build an economy that works for all. 

Promote Long-Term Economic Security 

A critical part of reducing poverty for more Americans is to help families develop 

strategies for long-term economic security. This not only involves reforms to the Nation’s social welfare and workforce systems, it also involves creating other opportunities for families to build assets and achieve the American dream. 

Conclusion 

Can we cut poverty in half by 2020? We firmly believe that we can and we must. 

Catholic Charities agencies have had a long history of serving and advocating on 

behalf of those who live in poverty. We will continue to fight for policy changes that 

provide more opportunities for more Americans. We believe we must cut poverty in 

half to make our county whole. Of course we realize that these proposals will have 

a cost, but we also understand that a society as wealthy as ours cannot continue 

to abandon those who are the least among us. 

Our Catholic partners and other social service advocates must continue to work 

together to accomplish the goal of reducing poverty. Our local agencies have long 

history of developing unique partnerships and through our Campaign to Reduce 

Poverty in America we well continue to look for new opportunities. Only through 

partnerships between government and community leaders will we develop the capacity and the scale necessary to attack poverty in a comprehensive and sustained 

way. If we are going to cut poverty in half, we must all be accountable and willing 

to make the tough choices that it will take. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Catholic Charities USA stands ready to 

assist the subcommittee as it moves forward in developing policies to provide more 

economic mobility for the millions of Americans living in poverty as well, as those 

just above the poverty level who are still struggling to make ends meet. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Isabel Sawhill, 

who is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, the Cabot Family 

Chair at The Brookings Institution. 

Ms. Sawhill. 

STATEMENT OF ISABEL SAWHILL, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, 

ECONOMIC STUDIES, THE CABOT FAMILY CHAIR, THE 

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Dr. SAWHILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very 

much appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I agree with the 

goal of reducing poverty in the United States. I think that it is a 

moral imperative, as the last speaker and several others have said. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

I commend the Committee for refocusing on this question, and this 

issue. 

The question, it seems to me, is how we are going to do it, and 

whether we can come together, as a Nation, to get it done. 

My own view is that reducing poverty is going to require a focus 

both on what government needs to do, but also on what individuals 

need to do. We need, in other words, a combination of both responsible policies and responsible behavior. 

I would note that the earned income tax credit, for example, 

which has historically had bipartisan support, is a wonderful example of this general philosophy. It expects people to work, but when 

they do, it helps them by supplementing their wages. 

Let me make four additional points. The first is that there are 

many things that we could do to reduce poverty in the United 

States, and I am listening to my colleagues here today with great 

interest. 

To me, the three greatest priorities should be: first, getting a 

good education; second, not having children before you marry; and, 

third, working full-time, if you possibly can. 

Government should expect people to make real efforts to comply 

with those norms. When they do, government should reward that 

behavior, by making sure that if you do play by the rules, you will 

not be poor. Analysis that we have done at Brookings shows that 

individuals who do play by such rules are much less likely to be 

poor than those who don’t. 

Next point is that one of the most effective policies that we could 

put in place to ensure that everyone gets a good education would 

be to provide a very high-quality, early childhood experience to all 

children from low-income families. 

Many people seem to believe that education in the pre-school 

years may help very young children, but what they fail to recognize 

is that it has dramatic effects on educational achievement throughout the Kindergarten through high school years, and can even increase college enrollment and adult earnings in a very cost-effective 

way. 

So, the Federal Government, I think, could go further than it has 

in helping to fund such high-quality early education programs, perhaps by matching funding to the States, which are already very active in this area, and focusing the Federal funding especially on 

programs for lower income children, or children living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

The next point I want to make is that too many of our teenagers 

and young adults are having children before they are married. 

Equally important, if not more important, before they’re ready to 

be good parents. In my view, the solution to this problem resides 

as much in the larger culture, and what parents and faith communities and key adults say and do, as it does in any basic shift in 

government policy, per se. 

However, government could help by: providing resources to those 

in non-profit organizations and in faith-based communities who are 

fighting this battle; by ensuring that its own policies do not inadvertently encourage childbearing outside of marriage; and by supporting programs that have had some success in reducing early 

out-of-wedlock childbearing. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 

We had some news recently that some of the sex education programs that have focused entirely on abstinence were less effective 

than many of their advocates have hoped. However, we have other 

examples of programs that do encourage teenagers to delay sex 

until they’re older, but also teach them about effective means of 

preventing pregnancy that have been successful. 

However, I want to re-emphasize that we need a broad range of 

efforts here that includes both government and non-government institutions. 

Finally—and I would be really remiss if I didn’t emphasize this— 

encouraging and rewarding work are also important. I support the 

idea of work requirements in welfare, and perhaps in other programs as well, but I also feel strongly that the kind of employment 

we have seen—employment increases we have seen—amongst welfare mothers could be a pyrrhic victory if we don’t find ways to provide more assistance to this group in the form of a higher minimum wage, a more generous earned income tax credit, and additional child care and health care assistance. 

I will leave it there. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sawhill follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Isabel Sawhill Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Economic 

Studies, The Cabot Family Chair, The Brookings Institution 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on what might be done to reduce poverty in 

America. As a Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Center on Children and Families at Brookings, I have done extensive work on these issues; although I should 

note that the views I will express are my own and should not be attributed to other 

staff, trustees, or funders of the Brookings Institution. Let me first summarize my 

testimony. 

Overview 

First, I strongly believe that reducing poverty requires a focus both on what government needs to do and on what individuals need to do. We need a combination 

of responsible policies and responsible behavior. 

Second, although there are many things that might be done to reduce poverty in 

the U.S., I want to argue for a focus on three priorities: getting a good education, 

not having children before you marry, and working full-time. Government should expect people to make real efforts to comply with each of these norms. When they do, 

then government should reward such behavior by making sure that those who play 

by the rules will not be poor. The analysis we have done at Brookings shows that 

individuals who play by these rules are much less likely to be poor than those who 

don’t. 

Third, one of the most effective policies we could put in place to ensure that everyone gets a good education would be to provide very high-quality early education to 

all children from low-income families. Many people believe that education in the 

preschool years only affects young children. In fact, the evidence from both neuroscience and from carefully done program evaluations shows that preschool experiences have long-lasting effects and may be the most cost-effective way to insure that 

more children are successful in the K–12 years, graduate from high school, go on 

to college, and earn more as adults. The Federal Government could further this goal 

by providing matching funding to states that are willing to invest in high-quality 

early education for those living in low-income neighborhoods, starting in the first 

year of life. 

Fourth, too many of our teens and young adults are having children before they 

are married and before they are ready to be good parents. In my view, the solution 

to this problem resides as much in the larger culture—in what parents, the media, 

faith communities and key adults say and do—as it does in any shift in government 

policy per se. However, government can help by providing resources to those fighting this battle in the nongovernmental sector, by insuring that its own policies do 

not inadvertently encourage childbearing outside of marriage, and by supporting 

programs that have had some success in reducing early, out-of-wedlock childbearing. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
29 

1 Isabel Sawhill and Adam Thomas, ‘‘A Hand Up for the Bottom Third: Toward a New Agenda 

for Low-Income Working Families,’’ Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, May 2001; Ron 

Haskins and Isabel Sawhill, ‘‘Attacking Poverty and Inequality,’’ Opportunity 08 Paper, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2007. 2 In the simulation, the income of the matched individuals were whatever the individuals actually reported to the Census Bureau. We matched enough couples in this fashion to reproduce 

the marriage rate that existed in 1970 before divorce and non-marital births began their rapid 

increases. 

Finally, encouraging and rewarding work is also very important. I support the 

idea of work requirements in welfare, and perhaps in other programs as well, but 

I fear that the kind of increased employment we’ve seen among welfare mothers will 

be a Pyrrhic victory if we don’t find ways to provide more assistance in the form 

of a higher minimum wage, a more generous EITC, and additional child care and 

health care assistance. In my testimony today—at the suggestion of your staff—I 

will focus especially on preschool education and on the need to decrease childbearing 

outside of marriage and increase the share of children growing up in two-parent, 

married families. But I have written elsewhere about the importance of providing 

additional work supports for low-income working families. 1

The Evidence that Education, Work, and Marriage are Important 

If we could increase education, marriage, and work, poverty rates would fall substantially (Figure 1). More specifically, our research shows that if all able-bodied 

adults worked full time, even at the wage they currently earn (or, if unemployed, 

at a rate commensurate with their education), poverty would plummet by 42 percent. We also analyzed the impact on poverty rates of increasing the marriage rate 

to the level it enjoyed in 1970 by simulating marriages between single males and 

females matched on age, race, and education from Census Bureau data. 2 The effect 

of this simulation was to reduce poverty 27 percent. 

Figure 1: 

Insuring that everyone had a high school education reduced poverty by 15 percent. It had a less powerful effect than work and marriage. That said, I believe that 

education is more important than these results might imply because of its indirect 

effects on everything from improving health to opening up new employment opportunities and making people better parents. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.005
30 

3Ludwig, Jens and Isabel Sawhill, ‘‘Success by Ten,’’ Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, 

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, February 2007. 

Finally, we compared these three simulations to a doubling of cash welfare. This 

large increase in cash assistance only reduced poverty by 8 percent. 

Although these results are informative, they may partly reflect the fact that people who are better educated, married, and work more hours have other characteristics that lead them to have higher incomes. In addition, they tell us nothing about 

how to achieve the kind of improvements in education, in marriage rates, and in 

the extent of full-time work that the simulations assume. In what follows, I provide 

my judgment, based on good research, of the most effective ways to achieve the first 

two of these three goals. I also have ideas about how to encourage and support work 

but in the interests of time and space, and based on discussions with your staff, I 

will not address that issue in greater detail today. 

Improving Educational Outcome among Children from Poor Families 

My first recommendation is that Congress provide additional funding for an early 

education program that we call ‘‘Success by Ten.’’ This proposal was developed jointly by myself and Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University for the Hamilton Project 

at Brookings. 3

Success by Ten is a proposal designed to help every child achieve success in school 

by age ten. It calls for a major expansion and intensification of Head Start and 

Early Head Start, so that every disadvantaged child has the opportunity to enroll 

in an intensive, high-quality program of education and care during the first five 

years of life. Because the benefits of this intensive intervention may be squandered 

if disadvantaged children go on to spend time in low-quality elementary schools, the 

second part of our proposal requires that schools devote their Title I spending to 

instructional programs that have proven effective in further improving the skills of 

poor children, especially their ability to read. 

Our proposal is based on the principle that early intervention is particularly important given brain plasticity during these early years. Children from different family backgrounds currently experience very different types of learning environments 

during the early years. The result is that large disparities in cognitive and noncognitive skills are found along race and class lines well before children start school 

and even before they can enroll in the federal Head Start preschool program at age 

three or four. Most of America’s social policies try to play catch up against these 

early disadvantages yet most disadvantaged children never catch up. Gaps that 

exist when children enter school are nearly as large when they reach high school. 

Findings from a number of rigorously conducted studies of early childhood and elementary school programs suggest that intervening early, often, and effectively in 

the lives of disadvantaged children from birth to age ten may substantially improve 

their life chances. These long-term benefits include higher educational attainment 

and greater success in the labor market, thereby helping poor children avoid poverty 

as adults. Another consequence would be to substantially improve the skills of tomorrow’s workforce, thereby enhancing future economic performance. These benefits 

for children would be accompanied by benefits for their parents, many of whom are 

working and need the kind of high-quality child care that the program would provide. 

Our proposal would work as follows. A high-poverty school (defined as a school 

in which at least 40 percent of the children are eligible for the school lunch program) would form a partnership with a local Head Start program or another early 

childhood program. They would jointly apply to the Federal Government for the 

extra funds that would be needed to serve all the poor children in their area. Eligibility for the preschool component would be based on family income or could be 

based simply on residence in a low-income neighborhood or school district. 

Competitive grants would be made based on the quality of the local plan, including willingness to implement the key elements of Success by Ten (such as wellqualified teachers, low ratios of children to staff, a tested and effective curriculum) 

and assurances that the two agencies (typically Head Start and the local school) 

could work together. To reduce the initial cost of the program, to maintain quality 

during the scaling up of the effort, and to allow for some further learning and refinement of the design during implementation, we also propose that some local variation be allowed and that the school system maintain electronic student-level data 

on children in their enrollment areas and make these available to an independent 

set of program evaluators. We estimate that the cost of the program would be about 

$6 billion annually during the first six years of the program and up to $40 billion 

annually when fully implemented. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
31 

One model program of the type we are proposing had dramatic effects on children 

from poor families. Known in the literature as the Abecedarian program, it is the 

only program for which there is rigorous evidence for long-term effects on cognitive 

outcomes like IQ test scores. An evaluation of Abecedarian participants at age 21 

shows IQ scores that are about 0.38 of a standard deviation higher for the treatment 

than the control group, with similarly large improvements in reading and math 

scores. 

Other effects that are arguably as important, such as school achievement and 

completion, are even more impressive. For children who received the Abecedarian 

program intervention, for example, the college entry rate is 2.5 times the control 

group’s rate. Teen parenthood and marijuana use in the group that received the 

Abecedarian intervention were around one-half of the average rates for the control 

group that did not receive the intervention. Smoking rates were about 30 percent 

lower for those who received the Abecedarian intervention when they were children 

compared with the average for the control group (Campbell and others, 2002). More 

suggestively, arrest rates were lower for treatments than controls, although the absolute numbers of those arrested in the two Abecedarian groups were small enough 

that it is impossible to prove statistically that this particular difference didn’t result 

from chance. 

To preserve and enhance these good results, early childhood intervention should 

be followed up with additional support at least in the early grades of school. However, the currently available evidence in support of most schooling interventions is 

quite limited. Based on our reading of available research, one of the few programs 

that has been shown to be effective in a rigorous randomized experiment is Success 

for All, which is a comprehensive whole-school reform model now in operation in 

more than 1,200 schools. 

The philosophy of Success for All during the elementary school years is to focus 

on the prevention of reading problems, and the primary marker of success is the 

ability to read. Other subjects are important, but emphasis is given to the development and use of language through the reading of children’s literature. Consistent 

with this emphasis, children receive 90 minutes of daily reading instruction in 

groups that are organized across grade levels based on each child’s current reading 

level, which helps teachers to target instruction. Students engage in cooperative 

learning exercises in which they discuss stories or learn from each other, which 

helps reinforce what teachers do and builds social skills. Children are assessed at 

eight-week intervals, using both formal measures of reading competency and teacher 

observations. Children who are falling behind are given extra tutoring or other help 

with whatever might be impeding success (such as health or behavior problems). 

A recent evaluation of Success for All funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Educational Sciences provides rigorous evidence of the program’s effectiveness (Slavin and others, 2005). Two years later, the differences between children in the treatment and control schools were positive and statistically 

significant, usually on the order of about 0.2 standard deviations (about one-fifth the 

gap between low and high socioeconomic-status children). 

We recommend using Title I money to expand the use of Success for All in kindergarten through fifth grade. If and when new evidence develops, schools could be encouraged, or even required, to use their Title I money on other proven programs. 

Clues about what program ingredients might prove to be most important over 

time come from some of the striking similarities between Abecedarian and Success 

for All. These similarities include an emphasis on the development of language and 

reading skills, frequent assessments of children’s developmental progress through 

regular testing, and clear, prescriptive curricular materials for teachers to follow 

that stand in contrast with more open-ended teacher—and student-initiated learning environments. 

Reducing the Number of Single Parents and Encouraging Marriage 

As we have seen, one of the best ways to reduce poverty is to decrease the number 

of single-parent families. If we could return the share of children raised in marriedcouple families to the level that prevailed in the 1970s, we could reduce the poverty 

rate by between 20 and 30 percent. 

There are two ways to reduce the growth of single-parent families. The first is 

to reduce teen and out-of-wedlock childbearing, the latter of which has been the 

driving force behind the growth of such families since the 1980s. The second is to 

reduce divorce which has leveled off since the 1980s but still accounts for more than 

half of all children spending time in a single-parent family. 

The good news is that teen pregnancy and birth rates have declined by about onethird since the early 1990s and this has contributed to the slower rate of growth 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 

4 Isabel Sawhill, ‘‘What Can Be Done To Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Out-of-Wedlock Births?,’’ 

Welfare Reform & Beyond Brief No. 8, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, October 

2001; Committee on Ways and Means Democrats, ‘‘Steep Decline in Teen Birth Rate Significantly Responsible for Reducing Child Poverty and Single-Parent Families,’’ Committee Issue 

Brief, Washington, DC: Author, April 23, 2004. 5 John S. Santelli, et al., ‘‘Can Changes in Sexual Behavior Among High School Students Explain the Decline in Teen Pregnancy Rates in the 1990s?,’’ Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 

35 (2005): 80–90. 6 Committee on Ways and Means (Democrats), 2004. 

7Saul D. Hoffman, ‘‘By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing,’’ Washington, 

DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, October 2006. 8Daniel T. Lichter and Deborah Roempke Graefe, ‘‘Finding a Mate? The Marital and Cohabitation Histories of Unwed Mothers,’’ in Lawrence L. Wu and Barbara Wolfe, editors, Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 

2001, pp. 317—343. 9More description of this ‘‘success sequence’’ can be found in Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and 

Marline Pearson, ‘‘Making a Love Connection,’’ Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent 

Teen Pregnancy, 2006. 10Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donohue, and Ron Haskins, ‘‘Introducing the Issue,’’ Future of 

Children, vol. 15, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 3–12. 11Two of the more effective programs, as identified by Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, are the Teen Outreach Program (TOP) and the Children’s 

Aid Society-Carrera program. These programs focus on youth development, not just on family 

planning or abstinence. See Douglas Kirby, ‘‘Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs 

to Reduce Teen Pregnancy,’’ Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 

2004. 

in the proportion of children born outside of marriage. 4 The reasons for the declines 

are not well understood, but appear to be related to more conservative attitudes 

among the young, heightened concern about sexually transmitted diseases, and 

greater efforts to prevent teen pregnancy, including both new messages about abstinence and the availability of more effective forms of contraception. 5 These declines 

mean fewer children being born outside of marriage, fewer single-parent families, 

and less child poverty. Indeed, the decline in teen childbearing that has occurred 

over the past decade is responsible for more than 80 percent of the decline in the 

number of children under age six living with a single mother. Had the teen birth 

rate not declined between 1991 and 2002, the number of children under six in poverty would have been 8.5 percent higher. 6 Reducing teen childbearing has other desirable consequences as well, not the least of which is less government spending. 

Teen childbearing costs taxpayers at least $9 billion each year in direct costs associated with health care, foster care, criminal justice, and public assistance, as well 

as lost tax revenues. 7 And because women who have children outside marriage are 

less likely to marry than comparable women who do not, a decline in these births 

should increase marriage rates as well. 8

Although there has been progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates, young 

women, and especially young black women, are marrying much later than they used 

to (and in some cases not marrying at all) and are thus exposed to the risk of a 

non-marital birth for longer periods of time. So out-of-wedlock childbearing rates remain high as does the rate of divorce. The question then is what are the most effective strategies for reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing as well as divorce? 

Step one has to be a new set of messages. Part of the decline in marriage and 

the rise in non-marital births can be attributed to a culture that has reduced the 

social stigma of single motherhood. Thus, any strategy to reduce the number of single parent families should include a component aimed at changing broad cultural 

attitudes. Many younger people, teens especially, have not fully absorbed the message about the normative ordering of events that is critical to achieving life’s goals: 

finish high school, or better still, get a college degree; wait until your twenties to 

marry; and do not have children until after you marry and at least one parent is 

stably employed. 9 Using the media, as well as the bully pulpit, to broadcast messages about this success sequence is one way to reach a broad cross-section of society and to get a message about responsibility into the cultural ether. 10

A second way to change cultural attitudes and behavior is to fund programs that 

teach both values and relationship skills to younger Americans, while insuring that 

they are well informed about the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Included here is sex education that encourages abstinence among teens but also includes accurate information about contraception for those who are sexually active. 

In addition, programs that teach responsibility and engage young people in constructive activities through community service have shown themselves to be effective in reducing teen pregnancy. 11 An analysis by Julia Isaacs for the Brookings Institution suggests that a nationwide expansion of one such effective program would 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
33 

12 Julia Isaacs, ‘‘Cost-Effective Investments in Children,’’ Budget Options Series Paper, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2007. 13 Cost estimate assumes that every state provides Medicaid coverage for family planning 

services for women with incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line. By enabling 

women to avoid 522,000 unintended pregnancies, this type of Medicaid expansion would reduce 

the number of abortions by 16 percent and the number of unintended births by almost 18 percent. See Jennifer J. Frost, Adam Sonfield, and Rachel Benson Gold, ‘‘Estimating the Impact 

of Expanding Medicaid Eligibility for Family Planning Services,’’ Occasional Report No. 28, Alan 

Guttmacher Institute, August 2006; Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine, ‘‘Subsidized Contraception, Fertility, and Sexual Behavior,’’ NBER Working Paper No. 13045, April 2007. 14There are about 1.4 million births to unmarried women each year. A 17 percent decline in 

such births would avert 238,000 or 2.4 million over a decade. If even one fourth of these births 

would have created a poor, single parent family, then 600,000 fewer children would be poor. 

Paul Amato and Rebecca A. Maynard, ‘‘Decreasing Nonmarital Births and Increasing Marriage 

to Reduce Poverty,’’ The Future of Children vol. 17, no. 2 (forthcoming). 15 Ibid. The best-known and most successful premarital education program is the Prevention 

and Relationship Enhancement Program (or PREP). 16 Ibid. The paper assumes a doubling of current participation rates, from 40 percent of couples to 80 percent of couples. Amato and Maynard estimate that the decrease in divorce made 

possible by their premarital education proposal would lead to 720,000 fewer single parent families over a decade. If one fourth of such families are poor and each had 9 children, child poverty 

would fall by around 160,000 over the decade. 

cost $1.4 billion, but would produce numerous—albeit difficult to measure—benefits 

including a reduction in teen births and abortions. 12

Yet another way to reduce unplanned pregnancies outside marriage is to provide 

more family planning services to low-income women. Several recent studies have 

found that states provided with family planning waivers under Medicaid have successfully reduced unintended pregnancies and births and saved money in the process. 13 Providing low-income women greater access to family planning services 

through Medicaid would cost less than $1 million per year, according to the 

Guttmacher Institute. This policy would substantially reduce unintended pregnancies. Over a decade’s time, these declines in unintended pregnancies among lowincome women could reduce the number of children living in poverty by roughly 

600,000. 14

Another way to reduce single parenting is by teaching relationship skills to those 

who are married or are contemplating marriage. Careful evaluations suggest that 

some premarital education programs reduce the risk of divorce. 15 Doubling the proportion of couples who receive premarital education would cost an estimated $184 

million, reduce divorce rates by as much as 7 percent, and over a decade’s time, reduce the number of children living in poverty by at least 160,000. 16

Not all of these pregnancy prevention and marriage education programs have 

been successful and we need to learn more. Recent media reports on the effectiveness of abstinence education programs, for example, have been quite discouraging. 

Even so, there is good news to report when it comes to sex education interventions. 

There is now persuasive evidence that a limited number of programs can delay teen 

sexual activity, improve contraceptive use among sexually active teens, and prevent 

teen pregnancy. Some of these programs could be fairly described as ‘‘traditional’’ 

sex education programs that discuss both abstinence and contraceptive use; others 

focus primarily on keeping young people constructively engaged in their communities and schools. At the same time, a new and exciting frontier in sex education 

has been embodied in efforts such as the Love U 2 curriculum. These efforts tend 

to teach young people about healthy relationships at the same time they teach them 

about avoiding risky sexual behavior and the value of waiting. In short, these efforts 

are focused squarely on trying to help young people understand how to achieve responsible and respectful relationships. 

Conclusion 

Allocating increased resources to early childhood education, if done right, has an 

excellent chance of increasing educational attainment among children from lowerincome families. It will take a commitment to high-quality programs that start at 

an early age and will not be cheap. However, everything we know suggests the benefits would greatly exceed the costs. At the same time, with less certainty but at 

a much lower cost, it should be possible to increase the share of children living in 

single parent families, thereby both improving their longer-term prospects and reducing poverty rates as well. 

f 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
34 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Now, Dr. Lawrence Mead, who is a professor of politics—maybe this is all about 

politics, anyway—from New York University. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. MEAD, PH.D., 

PROFESSOR OF POLITICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 

Dr. MEAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s an honor 

to be here. If on nothing else, I certainly agree about the need to 

address this question. It really is a critical issue for America’s future. 

I am speaking based on a paper for a project on antipoverty ideas 

at Brookings, which Isabel was an editor of. Gordon Berlin, should 

he appear, is also involved, and so is Mark Greenberg. So, we are 

speaking from that. 

I think we should take our departure from what works, and we 

know that welfare reform was successful. It was successful in driving down the welfare rolls, and more importantly in my view, increasing work levels among single mothers. 

This is achieved through a combination of what I call help and 

hassle—provided new benefits for mothers that they didn’t have before, particularly the Earned Income Tax Credit, but we also levied 

a much more definite work requirement, that they should do something to help themselves in return for being on aid. The main impact of the reform came from that synergy, from the requirement 

to work, backed up by these support benefits. 

My main message today is that we should keep going down that 

road. This had a more dramatic effect on family poverty than anything we have done for 40 years, and we should not abandon that 

formula. You should be skeptical of proposals, some of which we 

have heard already, where there is new spending on benefits, but 

where we don’t very clearly require that the adults also do things 

to help themselves, especially by working. 

There are two major things we need to do to pursue this approach. The first is to complete welfare reform. Successful though 

it was, the Personal Responsibility Act had some clear limitations. 

One was that there were certain weaknesses in the work requirements which had the effect of exempting much of the caseload from 

an actual need to work. The law had some loopholes that meant 

that States really didn’t have to build work into their systems. 

Equally important, the law and other policies did not do enough 

to keep mothers working after they left welfare, or indeed to make 

sure that they earned enough when they worked. So, we need to 

make sure that people really have to work, and we also have to 

make sure they keep working after they leave welfare. 

Reauthorization of the TANF program last year closed only some 

of the loopholes, and it left much left to do. I would recommend, 

first of all, clsoing some further loopholes on the work test. That 

particularly means requiring a full family sanction if families do 

not comply with the work test. Right now, it can be a partial sanction, and the effect of that is to make it virtually impossible to fully 

implement the work test in the two big States, New York and California, which have partial sanctions. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

I would also enforce the work tests in the food stamp program 

more effectively than they have been. We need to make that program into one that also promotes work. 

I would also add an hours requirement to EITC. Although EITC 

is very successful, it doesn’t require any minimum threshold of 

hours to get the benefits. We ought to say, ‘‘In order to get the current EITC, or perhaps an enhanced EITC, you have to put in 20 

or 30 hours a week.’’ That was a requirement in certain welfare reform programs in order to raise work levels, and we need to do that 

in EITC. 

I would also increase the EITC benefit, and attach it to individuals rather than families, in the way that Gordon is going to describe. I think that’s a good idea. It’s also a good idea to raise the 

minimum wage, but in order to make sure that those steps do not 

actually produce a reduction in work effort, we again need to have 

hour thresholds. 

The other thing I would do—and Linda Gibbs has already referred to this—is make a major effort in dealing with low-income 

men. They also had serious work problems. Indeed, because they’re 

working less, the actual work levels among poor adults has actually 

declined in the last 15 years, despite welfare reform. In 2005, only 

37 percent of poor adults last year claimed any employment at all. 

So, we should not be persuaded by ideas that the poor are working, and all we have to do is raise their wages. We have a long way 

to go in raising work levels, particularly in getting men to work. 

The way to do that, I think, is to try to develop a work requirement for men, by means of the child support system and also the 

criminal justice system. We can, I think, develop a mandatory work 

policy using those structures that will require men more definitely 

to work, I’m thinking particularly of people on parole, who are supposed to be working, and often don’t, and also child support defaulters who owe judgments but aren’t paying them regularly. 

We have to make sure that the men pay up, and that means that 

they have to be working. We have to monitor them in the way we 

have done in welfare reform. At the same time, pay enhanced benefits of the sort we’re talking about through the EITC. 

So, again, the same idea, help and hassle. We will subsidize your 

wages, but you absolutely have to work, and we are going to make 

sure you do that. When we do that, you will have, I think, a major 

impact on poverty. 

How to do that is set out more fully in my paper. I think a men’s 

program along these lines would cost about $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion. That’s a rough estimate. That would be offset by improved 

child support collections. The main thing, however, is to establish 

a clear cut norm in the culture that men, like women, on welfare 

have to be working. That’s something we expect. At the same time, 

we will reward you if you do it. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mead follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Lawrence M. Mead, Ph.D., 

Professor of Politics, New York University 

I am a Professor of Politics at New York University and a longtime scholar of 

antipoverty policy and welfare reform. I’ve written several books on these subjects, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

1Lawrence M. Mead, Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship (New York: 

Free Press, 1986); idem, The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America (New 

York: Basic Books, 1992); idem, ed., The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty 

(Washington, DC: Brookings, 1997); idem, Government Matters: Welfare Reform in Wisconsin 

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); Lawrence M. Mead and Christopher Beem, eds., 

Welfare Reform and Political Theory (New York: Russell Sage, 2005). 2Data from the U.S. Administration for Children and Families. Work standards also were 

raised between FSA and PRWORA, so these figures understate the real work increase. 3Data from the March Current Population Survey for 1994 (table 19), 2000 (table 17), and 

2006 (table POV15) 4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance 

Coverage in the United States: 2005, Series P–60, No. 231 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, August 2006), tables B1, B2. 5 Rebecca M. Blank and Ron Haskins, eds., The New World of Welfare: An Agenda for Reauthorization and Beyond (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2001); Pamela A. Morris et al., How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, March 2001); P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale et al., ‘‘Mothers’ 

Transitions from Welfare to Work and the Well-Being of Preschoolers and Adolescents,’’ Science 

299 (March 7, 2003): 1548–52. 

including a study of welfare reform in Wisconsin. 1 I appreciate this chance to testify 

on an important question: What should government do next to reduce poverty in 

America? 

The main conclusions of my research might be summarized as follows: 

• Nonwork by parents is the main reason for poverty among the working-aged and 

their children. Family breakup is also important but secondary. 

• Nonwork cannot generally be explained by barriers to employment such as lack 

of jobs or child care. Barriers—particularly inferior education—have much more 

influence on the quality of jobs people get if they work. 

• Nonwork cannot be overcome by voluntary measures alone, such as greater investments in child care, education, or training. These are of value mostly after 

nonworkers have entered jobs. 

• Rather, work levels can be raised by a combination of ‘‘help and hassle’’—new 

benefits coupled with requirements that poor adults work as a condition of aid. 

• Work enforcement is ultimately a political process where stronger work expectations coupled with new benefits cause more poor adults to go to work without 

necessarily going on welfare at all. 

The Success of Reform 

In reforming welfare, government has largely followed this approach since enactment of the Family Support Act (FSA) in 1988, and especially since the enactment 

of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 

in 1996. Under PRWORA, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Tougher work requirements were combined with new spending on child and health care for families leaving welfare and on wage subsidies for low-paid workers (the Earned Income Tax 

Credit, or EITC). 

These were the main effects: 

• A dramatic fall in dependency: Since their height in 1994, the rolls in AFDC/ 

TANF have plummeted by over 60 percent. Nor did dependency rebound during 

the recession of 2001–3. 

• A substantial rise in work levels among single mothers: The share of AFDC 

cases meeting work participation norms rose from 22 percent in 1994 to 38 percent in 1999, before falling to 32 percent by 2004. 2 Work among poor single 

mothers also rose: The share working at all rose from 44 percent in 1993 to 64 

percent in 1999, before falling to 54 percent in 2005. For work full-time and 

year-round, the comparable figures were 9, 17, and 16 percent. 3

• A substantial fall in poverty: The overall poverty rate fell from 14.5 percent in 

1994 to 11.3 percent in 2000, before rising to 12.6 percent in 2005. For children, 

the equivalent figures are 21.8, 16.2, and 17.6 percent. 4

• An absence of hardship due to reform. Welfare reform did not generally make 

life tougher for poor families, although—as I note below—it did not solve all 

their problems. The noneconomic effects of reform on families and children were 

small and largely positive. 5

Most analysts think that the main forces behind these gains were (1) the new 

work tests in welfare, (2) expanded support benefits—especially EITC—and (3) the 

superb economic conditions of the 1990s. There is some debate about the relative 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

6Douglas J. Besharov, ‘‘The Past and Future of Welfare Reform,’’ The Public Interest, no. 150 

(Winter 2003): 4–21; Council of Economic Advisors, ‘‘The Effects of Welfare Policy and the Economic Expansion on Welfare Caseloads, An Update’’ (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the 

President, August 3, 1999); David T. Ellwood, ‘‘The Impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit 

and Social Policy Reforms On Work, Marriage, and Living Arrangements’’ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, November 1999); Jeffrey Grogger, ‘‘Welfare 

Transitions in the 1990s: The Economy, Welfare Policy, and the EITC,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23, no. 4 (Fall 2004):671–95. 7 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ways and Means, 2004 Green Book: Background Material, and Data on the Programs Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 2004), p. 7.88. 

importance of these factors, but everyone thinks that work requirements were essential to forcing change. 6

Government should follow the same general approach as it seeks to reduce poverty further. Neither ‘‘help’’ nor ‘‘hassle’’ will achieve much without the other. Government should not extend new benefits or opportunities to the employable poor 

without expecting work. Neither should it cut back spending, in an indirect attempt 

to force them to work. Rather, it should expect work directly while also providing 

the benefits people need to reorganize their lives around employment. 

It should do this in two main ways: First, complete welfare reform. Second, extend 

the same approach to nonworking men. 

The Limitations of Reform 

Although successful, welfare reform did not enforce work consistently. It also did 

too little to ensure that families could ‘‘make it’’ after they left welfare. 

PRWORA’s bark was worse than its bite. The act demanded that states move 50 

percent of their welfare cases into work activities by 2002—a huge jump over FSA 

or earlier law. But several provisions spared most states from having truly to build 

work into their welfare programs: 

• The caseload fall credit: PRWORA allowed states to count against their work 

targets any percent by which their caseloads fell after 1995. Because the fall 

was unexpectedly great, the credit cut the participation levels states had to 

achieve to trivial levels, in many cases to zero. 

• Sanctions: PRWORA allowed states to reduce grants only partially if adults fail 

to cooperate with the work test. Among the states choosing partial sanctions are 

California and New York, the states with the biggest caseloads. This has made 

it impossible fully to enforce the work test. 

• Child-only cases: Welfare cases where only children are paid aid are exempt 

from the work test, even though in practice adults in the families also get support. These cases are growing as a share of the caseload, comprising 37 percent 

of all cases by 2001. 7

• Separate state programs: Some states created separate programs for cases they 

wished to shield from the work test (often those with two parents where the 

TANF activity standard was a difficult 90 percent) or those on the rolls for more 

than five years and thus ineligible for federal aid. These programs could not 

draw federal funding, yet their costs counted toward a state’s maintenance of 

effort (MOE) requirement. 

• Waiver programs: PRWORA allowed states to continue ‘‘waiver’’ programs—experimental reform programs—which predated 1996. These usually had more lenient work rules than TANF. 

When TANF was reauthorized last year under the Deficit Reduction Act of (DFA) 

of 2005, only two of these loopholes were closed: The caseload fall credit was rebench-marked on caseloads as of 2005, and separate state programs were subjected 

to the same activity standards as TANF. States are now supposed to achieve the 

50 percent participation norm in 2007. 

At the same time, reform did not do enough to maintain the employment and incomes of families after they had left aid: 

• Work levels fell over time: As noted above, poor single mothers worked more, 

on and off the rolls, until 1999, but their work levels have drifted downwards 

since, losing about half the gain realized through 1999. This is probably the 

main reason why poverty has risen somewhat since then. 

• Most leavers remained poor at least initially: While most families leaving aid 

realized higher incomes through work, they did not usually escape poverty unVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 

8Sheldon Danziger, Colleen M. Heflin, Mary E. Corcoran, Elizabeth Oltmans, and Hui-Chen 

Wang, ‘‘Does It Pay to Move from Welfare to Work?’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 671–92; Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, with Tracy Roberts, ‘‘Final 

Synthesis Report of Findings from ASPOE ‘Leavers’ Grants’’ (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 

November 27, 2001). 9Susanna Loeb and Mary Corcoran, ‘‘Welfare, Work Experience, and Economic Self-Sufficiency,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 1–20 10Wendell Primus, Lynette Rawlings, Kathy Larin, and Kathryn Porter, ‘‘The Initial Impacts 

of Welfare Reform on the Incomes of Single-Mother Families’’ (Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 22, 1999); Sharon Parrott and Arloc Sherman, ‘‘TANF’s Results 

Are More Mixed Than Is Often Understood,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26, 

no. 2 (Spring 2007): 374–81. 11 Examples included New Hope and the Minnesota Family Investment Program. See Virginia 

Knox et al., Reforming Welfare and Rewarding Work: A Summary of the Final Report on the 

Minnesota Family Investment Program (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000); and Johannes M. Bos et al., New Hope for People With Low Incomes: Two-Year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare (New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation, August 1999). 12Gordon Berlin, ‘‘Increasing Earnings among Low Wage Workers,’’ The Future of Children 

17, no. 2, forthcoming. 

less they worked steadily for several years and claimed benefits for which they 

remained eligible, chiefly Food Stamps and EITC. 8

• Few leavers worked consistently: While even low-paid workers do progress to 

higher incomes over time, they have to work steadily to do so, most leavers did 

not. 9

• Some families lost ground, typically because they became detached from both 

welfare and work. 10 Whether this created active hardship is unclear. 

And perhaps most seriously, welfare reform did little to address the serious work 

problems among low-income men, many of them the fathers of welfare families. I 

address that problem below. 

Completing Welfare Reform 

To reduce poverty further, the first thing government should do is enforce work 

in TANF more fully, motivate families to keep working once they leave TANF, and 

raise earnings. 

• Close further loopholes in work requirements: The most important of the remaining ‘‘outs’’ from the work test is partial sanctions. Congress should mandate 

that all states close cases entirely when parents decline to cooperate with the 

work test without good cause, as welfare already does for other rule infractions. 

I would also recommend that child-only cases be brought under the work test, 

although how to this involves legal questions. • Strengthen Food Stamps work requirements: Currently, Food Stamps requires 

only that employable parents with children over 6 register with a work agency 

and participate in work activities if asked. Those are the sort of work requirements that AFDC found to be ineffective prior to FSA and PRWORA. Congress 

should mandate that states involve specified percentages of Food Stamp cases 

in work activities, as FSA and PRWORA mandated for AFCC/TANF. 

• Add an hours threshold to EITC: The main reason leavers remain poor is that 

they do not work steadily. Government lacks leverage to require them to work 

after they have left aid. Some way must be found to continue to motivate work 

after TANF. Currently, EITC subsidizes wages without any minimum number 

of working hours. Some welfare reform experiments required 30 hours of work 

per week before they paid benefits, in an attempt to raise work levels. 11 Twenty 

or 30 hours might well be required to get an enhanced benefit in EITC, although this would require some new administrative structure to monitor hours. 

That might help to keep families working. 

• Raise EITC and the minimum wage: Leavers’ earnings are low mainly due to 

low working hours, yet additional steps should also be taken to raise wages 

among the low-skilled. One idea is to raise EITC benefits and/or pay the EITC 

benefit to individual workers rather than just to parents with children. 12 Doing 

this could cause some reductions in work effort among those already working. 

To avoid that is one more reason to institute the EITC hours threshold suggested above. Congress could also raise the minimum wage, and proposals to 

do this are currently before Congress. 

Two things Congress should not do: 

• Ease up on work requirements: Some will argue that, now that the welfare rolls 

have fallen by so much, most of the remaining cases are unemployable. So these 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
39 

13 Rebecca M. Blank and Robert F. Schoeni, ‘‘Changes in the Distribution of Children’s Family 

Income over the 1990s,’’ American Economic Review 93, no.2 (May 2003): 304–8. 14Mead, Government Matters, chs. 9–10. 15The following is based on Lawrence M. Mead, ‘‘Toward a Mandatory Work Policy for Men,’’ 

The Future of Children 17, no. 2, forthcoming. A brief summary appeared in Lawrence M. Mead, 

‘‘And Now, ‘Welfare Reform’ for Men,’’ Washington Post, March 20, 2007, p. A19. 16Date from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey, 1991–2006. 17 Harry J. Holzer, Paul Offner, and Elaine Sorensen, ‘‘Declining Employment Among Young 

Black Less-Educated Men: The Role of Incarceration and Child Support,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 329–50. 18 U.S. Congress, 2004 Green Book, pp. 8.69—8.77. 

families should be allowed to receive aid indefinitely without having to work. 

This would blunt the impact of reform. The states with the toughest work requirements were those that reduced poverty the most in the 1990s, not the 

least. 13 Wisconsin, with a caseload fall of 80 or 90 percent, shows that one can 

move even most of the ‘‘bottom of the barrel’’ into jobs if the work test is well 

enforced and support benefits are generous 14 The best solution to ‘‘detached’’ 

families is individualized outreach to these families, not weakening requirements that have succeeded for the vast majority of cases. 

• Ease up on ‘‘work first’’: Some also will argue that, now that work is required, 

welfare recipients must be allowed to enter education and training and have 

this count as work so they can move up to better jobs. But this was the policy 

that failed under FSA. Evaluations of the 1990s demonstrated that welfare 

work programs that expected work in available jobs outperformed those that 

stressed education and training. Thus, PRWORA mandated actual work in preference to training for most clients. Nothing in the experience of welfare reform 

to date has questioned that judgment. 

TANF already allows states to exempt 20 percent of cases from the time limit, 

and it allows some time for education and training for cases that are already working. That is sufficient to meet these concerns. There is no need to change the system. There clearly is a case of ‘‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’’ 

Low-Income Men 

Besides completing welfare reform, government should promote higher work levels 

among low-income men. 15 They were largely left out of welfare reform because they 

seldom draw benefits themselves. Yet their work problems are as much a cause of 

family poverty as those of single mothers. One of the main reason low-skilled men 

leave their families—or are kicked out by their spouses—is that they cannot provide 

for them. If low-skilled fathers worked more regularly, fewer families would be female-headed, and far fewer children would be poor. 

Under pressure from welfare reform, poor single mothers have been working 

more. But in the same period, low-skilled men have been working less. Their labor 

force participation rates drifted downward during the 1980s and 1990s despite tight 

labor markets most of the time. As a result the overall proportion of poor adults 

who worked at all in a year has actually declined—from 41 percent in 1990 to 37 

percent in 2005—despite welfare reform. 16

Experts traditionally blame nonwork among men, like women, on a set of external 

barriers, including lack of jobs and low wages. The evidence for this view is even 

weaker for poor men than it is for single mothers. Jobs for low-skilled men appear 

to be plentiful, as immigration proves. And while unskilled wages are low, they are 

sufficient to avoid poverty if men work regularly and claim EITC and Food Stamps. 

If men seldom work consistently, the main reason is not that idleness is forced on 

them but work discipline has declined. Unskilled men appear to be working less, 

in part, because their wages are garnished to pay child support and because they 

are incarcerated for crime. 17 While we might call those structures barriers, their 

presence makes clear that nonwork is seldom a rational response by these men. 

Rather, it is part of a syndrome of self-defeating behaviors. 

Society’s response to poor men has largely been to incarcerate those who break 

the law and to press absent fathers to pay child support. PRWORA took several 

steps to strengthen child support enforcement. Government has improved its ability 

to establish paternity and levy child support judgments. But it has much more difficulty in getting the men to pay. 18 In 2003, among the 3 million poor single mothers, only 60 percent had a child support order and only 36 percent received any payVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, April 

2004, child support microdata file, table 4. 20This figure is the difference between the 1,582 million poor single mothers who were owed 

child support in 2003 and the 562,000 who received full payment. See Bureau of the Census, 

Current Population Survey, April 2004, child support microdata file, table 4. 21 Berlin, ‘‘Increasing Earnings among Low Wage Workers.’’ 22Fred Doolittle, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon Rowser, Building Opportunities, 

Enforcing Obligations: Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents’ Fair Share (New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 1998). 

ment. 19 About 1 million absent fathers owed child support to poor families yet paid 

either nothing or less than they owed. 20

Putting pressure on the men is insufficient. Their own work problems must also 

be addressed. In welfare reform, society moved from an entitlement system, which 

paid benefits regardless of lifestyle, to one that also required work. With men we 

have to move the other way, adding benefits and opportunities to the criminal justice and child support systems, which are already quite punitive. 

A first step is to raise the earnings of the men if they work. One way to do that, 

as for single mothers, is to increase wage subsidies, another to raise the minimum 

wage. Low-paid men who work regularly ought to get a sizable wage subsidy in 

their own right, not only if they have children to support as the EITC allows now. 21

At the same time, we should not imagine that doing this is enough to raise work 

levels. As with women, a higher subsidy might cause some nonworkers to take jobs, 

but it might also cause some men already working to work less, because they could 

now cover their needs with fewer working hours. So some minimum hours of work 

must be expected. 

How might work levels be raised? Some will recommend voluntary education and 

training problems, but these have not shown much impact on employment and earnings. The most successful of them, such as Job Corps, have been directive in character. They tell their clients clearly that good behavior is expected, and work is not 

left as a choice. Low-skilled men, like welfare mothers, must be obligated to work, 

not just offered the chance to do so. The military may be the most successful shaper 

of youth into productive men, exactly because it can demand functioning. Unfortunately, today’s military is voluntary and most disadvantaged men do not qualify for 

it. 

Yet government can adapt other institutions that already deal with low-income 

men. The criminal justice and child support systems currently seem to be driving 

work levels down. But they could also be used to raise them. Both systems have 

experimented with programs aimed at improving employment among their clients. 

But most recent programs of this kind have been voluntary. That is, they offered 

services to help the men work, but they did not strictly require them to do so. This 

includes the Ready4Work prison reentry programs funded by the Bush administration. 

A better idea would be to institute mandatory work program for men who have 

work obligations but have failed to meet them. This would include the 1 million poor 

men not paying all their child support plus another half million ex-offenders on parole who do not work regularly. Both groups could be served by the same program, 

as they overlap substantially. These men would be required to work steadily in either a private job, if available, or a government position if necessary. The sanction 

for noncooperation would be returning to prison or going to jail. Out of their earnings the men would pay any child support owed, but staff would also help them arrange any applicable pubic benefits, such as the proposed higher work subsidies. Supervision would be much closer than normally provided by the parole or child support system. Depending on how much government employment was needed, this 

program would probably cost from $2.4 to $4.8 billion a year. Those costs would be 

somewhat offset by higher child support payments and perhaps lower recidivism. 

It is too soon to mandate a detailed program now. We do not yet have evaluation 

results showing that mandatory work can raise work levels for men, as it has for 

welfare mothers. The one evaluation of such a program—Parents’ Fair Share in the 

1990s—succeeded in raising child support payments by absent father, but not their 

work levels. 22 Several evaluations of new prison reentry programs are underway 

currently. 

Assuming that they show promise, Washington should finance a multi-site demonstration designed to settle the best design of mandatory work programs for men. 

This would be comparable to the National Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies 

(NEWWS), conducted in the 1990s, as part of welfare reform. With those results in 

hand, a preferred work program for men could be implemented nationwide. 

As with welfare reform, such a program would have its impact largely through 

diversion. Once it was clear that society was willing to enforce as well as facilitate 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

23George J. Borjas, Richard B. Freeman, and Lawrence F. Katz, ‘‘On the Labor Market Effects 

of Immigration and Trade,’’ in Immigration and the Workforce: Economic Consequences for the 

United States and Source Areas, ed. George J. Borjas and Richard B. Freeman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), ch. 7; George J. Borjas, ‘‘The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward 

Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market,’’ Quarterly Journal of 

Economics 118, no. 4 (November 2003): 1335–74. 

low-wage work, many men who are not working regularly now would begin to do 

so without direct prompting. The commitment of government and administrators to 

take work seriously would persuade the men to do the same. The goal, as in welfare 

reform, is positive. It is not to stigmatize these men but to reintegrate them into 

the community. Through steadier work, they can come in from the cold. And if they 

do, society will also take a big step toward overcoming family poverty. 

One further thought: immigration must be reduced. The massive entry into the 

United States of low-immigrants, chiefly from Mexico, has undercut work opportunity for low-skilled men born in this country. Anecdotes say that employers often 

hire immigrants in preference to native-born men, viewing them as more tractable, 

and there is some evidence that immigrants depress the wages of the unskilled. 23

One thing Washington must do to solve the male work problem is bring this inflow 

under control. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Your timing is impeccable. 

Mr. Berlin is from the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. He is the president. You are on for 5 minutes. Your entire 

remarks will be put into the record, your written remarks will be 

put into the record, so just summarize to us what you think are 

the major points. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON BERLIN, PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANPOWER DEMONSTRATION RESEARCH 

CORPORATION 

Mr. BERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page three in my 

formal remarks I have a chart that lays out the nature of the problem, and helps us identify solutions. 

Between 1959 and 1972, the official poverty rate fell by half— 

from 22 percent of the population to 11 percent, a 50-percent decline. For the next 30 years, poverty rates remained virtually unchanged. Why? The graph in figure one of my testimony provides 

one part of the answer. 

Between the end of World War II and the mid-seventies, mean 

average earnings grew by 60 percent. It was as if the whole Nation 

was on an up escalator. Then the escalator came to an abrupt halt, 

and over the next 30 years average earnings actually fell by 15 percent or so, and of course, poverty stopped falling, too. 

The loss of good paying manufacturing jobs, technological 

changes that placed a premium on higher education, globalization, 

decline of unions, all of these forces meant that economic growth 

no longer led to rising earnings at the low end. These changes hit 

men with a high school diploma or less the hardest. 

How did families cope? They had fewer children, they sent both 

family members into the labor force, they postponed marriage, all 

of which contributed to the rise in single parent households, the 

other principal cause of poverty. 

If we are to make further progress against poverty, we have to 

do something about low earnings, both for today’s workers and for 

tomorrow’s. Turning to the evidence, we have a reliable body of evidence on which to base future policies. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

Three formal, large-scale randomized controlled trials, collectively known as the ‘‘Make Work Pay Experiments,’’ deliver a consistent message: earnings supplements that reward work by providing cash to supplement the earnings of low-wage workers increase employment and employment stability, increase earnings 

and income, reduce poverty and the poverty gap, and improve 

young children’s school performance. 

Some of the largest and most lasting gains for parents and children accrued to African Americans and to some of the most economically disadvantaged families. Thus, one reliable way to tackle 

the problem of low earnings, and to reduce poverty in the short 

run, is to make work pay via the earned income tax credit and the 

minimum wage, or other related venues. 

A second, longer term way to reduce earnings-related poverty is 

to invest in the education, attainment, and achievement of the next 

generation, via investments in early childhood education, K 

through 12 reform, and tackling the graduation and persistence 

problems in community colleges. The challenges here are well 

known. We have to figure out in those areas what works, and then 

we still face the very real difficulty of taking high-quality programs 

to scale. 

Returning to the short-run strategies under the jurisdiction of 

this Committee, an increase in the EITC and a hike in the minimum wage offer complementary ways to boost income, and they 

share the burden of making work pay between the public and private sectors. 

I think we face two fundamental choices: first, whether to expand 

the current EITC program with its emphasis on families with children, or whether to focus more on singles who have been underserved by the previous EITC increases. Second, whether to raise 

the minimum wage without also indexing it for inflation. I know 

that’s controversial, but I want to explain the interaction between 

the two. 

On the EITC, the choices are an across-the-board raise, a raise 

for married families only, or a more generous increase in the singles EITC. While any and all of these strategies would certainly reduce poverty, improvements in the EITC policy over the last two 

decades have, for the most part, bypassed singles, particularly men, 

the very group who have been hit the hardest by these economic 

changes. 

One way to increase the EITC for singles would be to simply double the current maximum benefit for individuals, but this strategy 

would provide only a limited boost to individual earnings, and thus, 

might not have a big effect on work behavior. It might also exacerbate some of the marriage penalty issues. 

A bolder expansion would provide all adult low-wage workers 

who work full-time a payment approaching two-thirds to threequarters of the current one-child family EITC, but with a crucial 

twist. Payment would be based on an individual’s personal income, 

not joint or family income. Singles would be eligible for the supplement, whether they have children or not, whether they marry or 

not, as would second earners in a married family receiving the existing family EITC. It’s essentially trying to create an incentive 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

structure for the poor that is very similar to the incentive structure 

that the rest of us face. 

Now, would this earnings supplement increase employment 

rates, particularly among single men with low skills and those who 

owe child support? Would it increase marriage rates, and reduce 

single parenthood? There is certainly good correlational evidence to 

suggest that it could, but the simple truth is we don’t really know 

whether the full benefits would exceed the cost. 

So, the Committee might want to proceed in two stages, modestly 

boosting the EITC for singles, by doubling or tripling it, while supporting a formal test in five cities or so of the bolder plan, to determine if the benefits exceed the cost. 

Just a few words about the minimum wage. Boosting the minimum wage and enhancing the EITC are complementary, not substitute strategies. Allowing the minimum wage to erode while the 

EITC is indexed to inflation has the perverse effect of substituting 

public dollars for private wage increases. So, an expansion of the 

EITC would exacerbate this problem, unless the minimum wage 

was also indexed for inflation. 

In conclusion, making further progress on poverty requires that 

we tackle the secular decline in earnings, and there are two strategies for doing so. In the short run, we have to expand our efforts 

to make work pay. In the longer run, we have to make investments 

in education from early childhood education to community colleges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berlin follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Gordon Berlin, President/Chief Executive Officer, 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) 

Good afternoon. My name is Gordon Berlin, and I am President of MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization that is dedicated to learning what works to improve policies and programs that affect the poor. 

Founded in 1974, MDRC evaluates existing programs and tries out new solutions 

to some of the Nation’s most pressing social problems, using rigorous random assignment research designs or near equivalents to assess their impact. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before this Committee today to describe what research 

tells us about the best ways to alleviate poverty. 

I will make four points: 

• After declining by half between 1959 and 1972, the poverty rate in the United 

States has remained stuck between 11 and 15 percent ever since. Why? The 

prime explanations are rising rates of single parenthood and falling real wages, 

particularly among men with low levels of education. Of the two, the decline 

in wages is the more instrumental—that is, falling earnings is a problem we 

can redress and we have good evidence about what works. 

• A compelling body of evidence points to effective solutions—both short-term and 

long-term—for alleviating poverty related to low earnings today and the 

intergenerational transfer of poverty tomorrow. In the short term, enhancing 

the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), especially for single individuals, and indexing the minimum wage to inflation could be an effective strategy for boosting 

employment and earnings and reducing poverty. In the long-term, investments 

in educational reform—from pre-kindergarten classes to community colleges— 

should equip the next generation with the skills they need to obtain high-paying 

jobs. 

• These short- and long-term two-generation strategies are interdependent: Providing enhanced work supports to adults and moving families out of poverty 

today has positive effects on young children’s school performance—and provides 

a strong foundation for long-term efforts to prevent poverty tomorrow through 

improved educational opportunities for poor children. 

• An aggressive strategy to address falling wages would redesign and expand the 

EITC benefit for individuals, regardless of their parenting or marital status, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

conditioned on working 30 hours a week and determined on the basis of individual income rather than joint income. Retaining the current EITC for families 

with children while creating a new EITC for single individuals (including noncustodial parents and second earners in two-parent households) could have 

wide-ranging positive effects on employment, earnings, income, and poverty— 

as well as on family well-being. But because the costs of such an initiative 

would be high, a prudent first step would be a demonstration project with a rigorous research design in three or four cities to determine if the plan’s benefits 

outweigh its costs. 

Falling Wages and Poverty 

For more than 40 years, the conventional wisdom has been that the best antipoverty strategy is to help the unemployed get jobs. And while work is a necessary 

precondition to escaping poverty, getting jobs is not the problem it once was for most 

segments of the population—as unemployment has remained at the historically low 

rate of between 4 and 6 percent for the past 10 years. The key problem facing most 

poor people is that many jobs simply don’t pay enough. 

In 1959, when we first began to measure poverty, 22 percent of all Americans 

lived in households with income below the poverty line. By 1972, the poverty rate 

had been cut in half, falling to 11 percent nationally. But then the poverty rate 

stopped declining and ranged between 11 percent and 15 percent, depending on the 

state of the economy, for the next 30 years (see Figure 1). Why didn’t poverty continue falling? 

Falling wages and increasing rates of single-parenting are the two principal explanations, and, as I’ll explain, these phenomena are closely related. Economic changes 

led to stagnant and declining wages at the bottom of the wage distribution, especially among men with a high school diploma or less, and demographic changes saw 

a near doubling of the fraction of all families with children headed by a single parent. 

Let’s focus on wages and earnings. Between 1947 and 1972, average earnings 

grew in real terms by 60 percent for nonsupervisory workers. As Frank Levy has 

described, it was as if the whole Nation were on an economic up-escalator. It was 

this rise in earnings that explains much of the postwar decline in poverty until 

1972. But then earnings began to tumble. In fact, by 2004, the average production 

worker’s weekly earnings had fallen to $528 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), a 15 percent decline (see Figure 1). 

Wages and earnings declined initially as a result of the recessions of the 1970s. 

But this era was also the start of a major restructuring of the economy, in which 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.006
45 

the premium placed on education began to grow. A new skills bias started to dominate the labor market, creating high-paying jobs that required a college degree or 

better and lots of low-paying jobs that required no more than a high school diploma 

and often less. As a result, economic inequality—the gap between the richest and 

poorest Americans—widened during the 1970s and 1980s as earnings for those with 

college accelerated, while wages for those at the bottom fell in step with the massive 

loss of high-paying blue-collar jobs as a result of industrial restructuring. The decline of unions, rising competition from low-skilled newcomers, and the erosion of 

the minimum wage all exacerbated these trends. 

How did Americans cope with this decline in earnings? Two-parent families maintained their standard of living by having fewer children and sending both parents 

into the workforce. Single-parent families, of course, did not have the option of putting another parent to work. In fact, employment rates among single mothers grew 

rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s—but, because single parents were more likely 

to be poorly educated and because they only had one earner, inequality widened. 

As earnings fell, other manifestations of poverty worsened: employment declined 

(particularly among less-educated men), marriage rates fell, and crime rates rose. 

Of course, these problems are intertwined and reinforcing. For instance, as the 

wages of men with a high school education or less tumbled, the employment rates 

of these men also fell, and, in turn, the share who could support a family above the 

poverty line began to decline—and with it the professed willingness of low-income 

mothers and fathers to marry. Indeed, among men aged 25–54 with a high school 

diploma or less in 2003, the earnings of a quarter of whites, a third of blacks, and 

two-fifths of Hispanics were inadequate to support a family of four above the poverty line. Certainly, the choices that individuals make—whether to have children 

within marriage or not, whether to take a low-paying job or to become involved in 

criminal activity—play an important role in determining one’s poverty status. Yet, 

it is hard to argue that technological change, globalization, and other large macroeconomic forces that have transformed the American and world labor markets 

haven’t played an independent, causal role in poverty’s persistence. 

Men with a high school diploma or less, especially men of color, have been particularly hard hit. Over the same period that wages were falling, employment rates 

among men were also tumbling, down a startling 20-plus percentage points between 

1970 and 2000 for men with a high school education or less and roughly 7 percentage points for those with some college. By contrast, as a result of economic necessity, changing norms, and the rise of service sector jobs, women’s employment rates 

rose dramatically as more and more women entered the labor market, especially in 

the 1990s. 

Why have men’s employment rates been declining? For some men, as blue-collar 

jobs evaporated and wages fell, employment became less attractive. The strong economy of the 1990s offers a reverse proof: As wages at the bottom rose, the employment rates of white, black, and Hispanic young men stabilized and began to grow. 

For example, the employment rates of black men aged 16 to 34 rose between 1992 

and 2000, as did the rates for young black men (16 to 24) with a high school diploma or less (see Table 1). But once the boom years were over, the employment 

rates of black men resumed their downward trend, plunging following the 2001 recession much as they did during the 1991 recession. While the reasons for the dismal position of young black men in the labor market are complex (and include racial 

discrimination and inadequate basic skills and education, as well as the behavioral 

changes noted by Larry Mead and others), a key part of the explanation is the interaction among low wages, the rewards of illegal activity, and strict drug laws, which 

have resulted in as many as 30 percent of all young black men becoming entangled 

with the criminal justice system at some point. Incarceration appears to have its 

own independent effect—the label of ex-offender further worsens and taints the future employment prospects for all former prisoners reentering society. 

In sum, poverty stopped falling in large part because earnings stopped rising. And 

while poverty is a complex problem with many causes, it seems clear that the Nation must address the problem of low-wage work in order to further reduce poverty—because low-wage work is here to stay. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 

that 46 percent of all jobs in 2014 will be filled by workers with a high school diploma or less. The bulk of these jobs—janitor, food service, retail sales, laborer, 

child care provider, home health aid—are expected to offer either low or very low 

pay. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
46 

Strategies That Work to Reduce Poverty 

So, what to do? There are essentially two types of antipoverty strategies the Nation could pursue. The first are short-term interventions, most focused on ‘‘making 

work pay’’ by supporting low-wage workers with earnings supplements and other 

kinds of supports, including upgraded training. The second type are long-term, 

intergenerational strategies—principally investments in preschool through postsecondary education—so that the next generations of young people have the knowledge 

and skills to fill higher-paying jobs. Importantly, the two strategies reinforce each 

other; for example, lifting a family above the poverty line with an earnings supplement can increase young children’s school performance—in effect, enhancing the 

payoff of a high-quality early childhood education program. My focus today is on 

some of the short-run strategies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Ways and 

Means Committee. 

If low wages are the principal problem we face in reversing poverty, one might 

reasonably ask: Can government successfully intervene to raise earnings and incomes and reduce poverty? Encouragingly, a reliable body of evidence demonstrates 

that work-based earnings supplements—including the Earned Income Tax Credit 

(EITC)—can boost employment and earnings and reduce poverty. For very low-wage 

workers, hiking the minimum wage would likely have similar effects, so long as the 

increase was not high enough to result in reduced hiring by employers. 

The ‘‘Make Work Pay’’ Experiments. Concerned that low-wage work simply 

did not pay relative to welfare, the state of Minnesota, the New Hope community 

group in Milwaukee, and two provinces in Canada began to experiment during the 

1980s with new approaches designed to increase the payoff from low-wage work— 

that is, to make work pay. All three provided work incentives in the form of monthly 

cash payments to supplement the earnings of low-wage workers. The payments were 

made only when people worked, and the amount of each month’s cash payment depended on the amount of each month’s earnings. 

The results were encouraging. The mostly single mothers who were offered earnings supplements in these three large-scale, rigorous studies were more likely to 

work, earned more, had more income, and were less likely to be in poverty than control group members who were not offered supplements. At their peak, these employVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.007
47 

ment, earnings, and income gains were large—reaching 12- to 14-percentage-point 

increases in employment rates, about $200-$300 more per quarter in earnings, and 

$300–$500 more in quarterly income. The earnings supplements also had a secondary benefit for children. Preschool-age children of participating parents did better academically than like children in the control group, in part because their parents had higher incomes and they were more likely to attend high-quality, centerbased child care programs. The largest and most persistent effects on adults were 

found for African-Americans and for the most disadvantaged participants, particularly high school dropouts without recent work history and with long welfare spells. 

For these groups, the employment and earnings effects continued through the end 

of the follow-up period—six years in the Minnesota project—implying that early 

work experience could provide a lasting leg up in the labor market for more disadvantaged populations. The pattern of results for all participants also suggests 

that income gains—and thus the poverty reduction effects—could be sustained by 

an ongoing program of supplements. (The earnings supplements in these demonstration projects ended after three years.) 

Rent Incentives for Public Housing Residents. A more recent program that 

used earnings supplements—in this case, in the form of rent breaks for public housing residents conditioned on work—had large positive earnings effects for many different types of residents, including striking earnings effects for immigrant men, and 

positive but smaller impacts on residents’ employment rates. Called Jobs-Plus, this 

ambitious place-based effort changed traditional public housing rules so that tenants’ rents did not rise as quickly or at all when their earnings grew (that is, rents 

were held flat). In addition to this financial work incentive, Jobs-Plus offered employment-related assistance, on-site case management, and job-related information 

sharing through resident networks. 

The Earned Income Tax Credit. Members of this Committee have used employee subsidies as an integral part of the Nation’s strategy for reducing poverty 

since the EITC was first passed in 1975. Today the EITC, which the Committee substantially expanded in 1986, 1990, and 1993, is available to all low-income workers 

who file tax returns. It is refundable, which means that its benefits are paid out 

even when the tax filer does not owe any income taxes. More than 20 million taxpayers take advantage of the EITC each year, at a cost approaching $40 billion, 

making it by far the largest cash benefit program for the poor. 

The EITC’s distinguishing feature is its status as a safety net built around work— 

only people with earnings can claim the credit. The amount varies by both family 

type and earnings. Families with two or more children can receive a maximum credit of $4,716; those with one child, $2,853; and single adults with no children, $428. 

However, because the EITC overwhelmingly benefits single parents supporting children, it largely excludes single adults without children who are poor (and disproportionately male) and it creates disincentives to work and marry for some families. 

Although recent changes have reduced marriage penalties in the EITC, some do remain, particularly when both spouses in a married-couple family have similar earnings. 

Based on a comprehensive review of studies, Steve Holt reports that the EITC reduces family poverty by a tenth, reduces poverty among children by a fourth, and 

closes the poverty gap by a fifth. Note that the Census Bureau’s official poverty estimate doesn’t count the EITC as income. If it did—and if one also subtracted the 

cost of work expenses and child care—the poverty rate would likely fall by a couple 

of percentage points, but the trends described in Figure 1 would remain pretty much 

the same. On the other hand, if certain recommendations of a National Academy 

of Sciences Panel on Poverty were adopted, the poverty rate would likely be somewhat higher. 

Raising the Minimum Wage. Both experience and empirical evidence suggest 

that the minimum wage can play a valuable role in raising wages and reducing poverty without severely distorting labor markets. However, as of early 2007, the value 

of the federal minimum wage had fallen to its lowest level in 50 years. Both President Bush and Congressional leaders have vowed to increase the minimum wage to 

$7.25, although if it is not indexed to inflation, its value will once again gradually 

erode over time. Thirty states and the District of Columbia have established minimum wages above the federal level. 

However, only one in five minimum-wage workers live in families with below-poverty income. Many are between 16 and 24 years old and do not support families, 

making the minimum wage a relatively inefficient way to reduce family poverty, although its efficiency improves somewhat if the goal is to help workers up to 200 

percent of the poverty line. In addition, the political unpredictability of the minimum wage makes it an unreliable policy lever for supporting low-wage workers. A 

minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour could substantially boost wages at the botVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
48 

tom, lifting some families above the poverty line, helping other families both below 

and just above the poverty line, while reducing the overall public cost of the EITC. 

While available evidence summarized by David Card and Alan Krueger suggests 

that a boost to $7.00 an hour or so would not have a noticeable effect on employment rates, economic theory and practical experience suggest that, above some wage 

level, employers would cut back on hiring. For all of these reasons, a higher minimum wage, in and of itself, would not permanently address the problems of persistent poverty. 

Considering the Policy Choices: Expanding the EITC and Boosting the Minimum Wage 

Over the next 10 to 20 years, it is hard to imagine reducing poverty without finding a way to make low-wage work pay better. The compelling body of evidence that 

I’ve just described suggests that expanding the EITC, preferably in combination 

with a boost in the minimum wage, would be an effective way to supplement low 

earnings. While there are a number of ways that one could envision such an expansion, I believe that it boils down to essentially two broad policy questions: 

1. Is it best to expand the current EITC program, with its emphasis on families 

with children, or to address the imbalance that has emerged between singles 

and those with children by expanding the EITC program for individuals? 

2. Is it enough to raise the minimum wage without indexing it for inflation? 

On the first question, there are essentially three options for expanding the EITC: 

(a) increase the EITC for families with children and especially for large families, (b) 

increase it for married couples only (in order to further reduce marriage penalties 

and incentivize marriage), or (c) increase the EITC for individual low-wage workers. 

An across-the-board increase in the existing EITC moves more families above the 

poverty line and increases the incomes of those just above and below the poverty 

line, but perpetuates current inequities by doing little to address the companion 

problems of single parenthood, single men’s and women’s low earnings, or remaining 

marriage penalties in two-earner families. The second approach has the advantage 

of reducing marriage penalties, but it shares several of the shortcomings of the first, 

it may create stronger work disincentives for second earners, and it encourages people to marry for the money, running the risk of promoting any marriage over a 

healthy marriage. Moreover, it fails to tackle the problem of the low wages of single 

adults, particularly men. 

Expanding the EITC for Singles. The third strategy for expanding the federal 

EITC—further supplementing the earnings of individual workers without children— 

may seem counterintuitive at first. But single men and women (as well as second 

earners in two-parent households) have been mostly ignored by the expansion of the 

EITC in the last 20 years. Single men (many of whom are noncustodial parents with 

child support obligations) have been the hardest hit by the losses in the manufacturing sector and the decline in earnings since the early 1970s. This imbalance in 

the EITC has had the unintended effect of distorting incentives to work, marry, and 

have children. An increase in the EITC for singles would help counter three decades 

of wage stagnation and persistent poverty, with likely positive corollary effects on 

employment and parental child support. In addition, if the expansion were accompanied by two admittedly radical changes—(1) creating a full-time work requirement and (2) basing eligibility on individual rather than joint income—it would help 

both singles and parents with children. 

One way to increase the EITC for singles would be to simply double the current 

maximum benefit for individuals, which currently stands at $428. But this strategy 

would provide only a limited boost to individual earnings and thus might not have 

a big effect on work behavior; it would surely exacerbate marriage penalties if done 

alone; and, if passed in conjunction with a rise in the minimum wage, would primarily affect part-time workers rather than full-time workers. 

A bolder expansion would provide all adult low-wage workers (aged 21–54) who 

work full time (30 hours a week) a payment approaching that of the current family 

EITC (for example, a 25 percent subsidy rate to a maximum payment amount of 

$1,950) but with a crucial twist: payment would be based on an individual’s personal income, not joint or family income, and singles would be eligible for the supplement whether they have children or not and whether they marry or not, as would 

second earners in a married family receiving the existing family EITC. By conditioning this new benefit on full-time work, by targeting individuals regardless of 

their family status, by keeping the existing EITC for families with children in place, 

and by calculating EITC eligibility on the basis of individual income (as Canadians 

and Europeans do) rather than joint income for tax filing purposes, this earningsbased supplement would restore equity to the American social compact while miniVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
49 

mizing the distortion of incentives to work, marry, and bear children. (A fuller explanation of this idea will be published in the September issue of The Future of 

Children; a working paper can be found on the MDRC website, www.mdrc.org) 

Adults working less than 30 hours a week, including second earners in two-parent 

households, would have an incentive to increase their work hours, further boosting 

income, promoting self-sufficiency, and reducing poverty. And those adults not in 

the labor force would have added incentive to find a full-time job, which would substantially boost total income. To administer the 30-hour requirement, employers 

would be required to report monthly or quarterly hours worked on the end-of-year 

W–2 statements that employees rely upon when filing taxes. Next, by 

supplementing the earnings of single men in low-wage jobs and increasing their income, this plan would encourage more ‘‘on the books’’ work, while helping men meet 

their child support obligations. As in current law, single people who are parents and 

owe child support would have their EITC payment attached to pay their child support obligations. Importantly, some of the largest benefits would accrue to two-parent households when both adults can work full time. Roughly, 21 million low-wage 

married individuals and another 16 million single individuals would receive an 

EITC payment under this plan. Such an expansion would not be cheap; depending 

on how one structured the benefits, the annual cost for a national expansion would 

range from $4 billion to $33 billion. 

Would an earnings supplement like this really increase employment rates, particularly among single men? Honestly, we don’t know. But there is good evidence 

to suggest that it might. Economists estimate that increasing the hourly wage of a 

low-income worker by 10 percent would boost employment between 2 and 10 percent. Adding credence to these estimates, the three make-work-pay experiments that 

I described earlier had similar employment, earnings, and income effects, albeit for 

a population of mostly single mothers. And, the New Hope program, which also 

served single men, did achieve modest, statistically significant gains in the number 

of quarters employed for men overall, as well as for single men, when cumulated 

over the full eight-year follow-up period—although the small number of men in the 

study sample (by design) makes these findings suggestive at best. And as noted 

above, the higher wages that came with the economic boom of the 1990s also led 

to increases in men’s employment rates. 

Indexing the Minimum Wage to Inflation. History makes it clear that the 

value of a boost in the minimum wage declines over time, as political will must be 

continually rebuilt to adjust it for inflation. To address this problem, policymakers 

should consider going beyond just raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour and 

also index it to inflation. While this won’t bring the minimum wage back up to its 

original value of about half the median hourly wage, it would forestall a quick return to the erosion in value it has seen in the last decade. 

Boosting the minimum wage and enhancing the EITC are complementary, not 

substitute, strategies. Allowing the minimum wage to erode while the EITC is indexed to inflation has the perverse effect of substituting public dollars for private 

wage increases. An expansion of the EITC would exacerbate this problem unless the 

minimum wage was also indexed. In short, increasing the minimum wage and indexing it for inflation would provide a floor below which wages could not fall, would 

make the expansion of the EITC more effective and more affordable, and would prevent an inflation-indexed EITC from substituting for wage increases employers 

would otherwise have provided. 

What Do We Know About Other Strategies for Reducing Poverty? 

While an expanded EITC, like the one I have described, would do much to help 

low-wage workers and their families, we have to acknowledge that it would not be 

enough to address all the causes of poverty. Given the prominent role of single parenthood in persistent poverty, why not propose an expansion in marital education 

programs? Given the changes in the labor market, why not propose additional investments in job retention and advancement? Given the problems of the ‘‘hard to 

employ,’’ why not propose additional programs to tackle the problems of youth and 

adults with low skills, no work history, or mental health and substance abuse problems? The short answer is that we don’t have good evidence about what would make 

a difference. Fortunately, research is now underway that, I believe, will provide 

more reliable information about what does and does not work to address these problems. 

For instance, marriage and childbearing behaviors and high rates of single-parenting, while related to economic changes, are also largely the product of social 

norms. Low-income couples face greater challenges to building and maintaining 

healthy relationships (for instance, because of the stress of financial difficulties), 

and their families are consequently less likely to experience stable marriages. While 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
50 

an extensive body of evidence on how to strengthen marriages exists, this research 

consists primarily of small-scale studies of typically short-term programs for middleclass couples. MDRC is involved in two large-scale, random assignment evaluations 

of new programs to promote healthy marriages and co-parenting relationships 

among low-income families, which should provide important answers about the 

value of these interventions. 

Similarly, even if we were to boost the earnings and income of low-wage workers 

through an expanded EITC, real prosperity for most Americans comes from moving 

up the career ladder. In the U.S., no government agency is tasked with supporting 

low-wage workers by connecting them to benefits (like public health care, child care 

and housing subsidies, and food stamps) or helping them find better jobs. Through 

three large-scale projects in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, MDRC is learning 

how challenging it is to develop programs that actually promote career advancement. However, early results suggest that one-stop centers (created by the Workforce Investment Act) might be a good venue for these programs and that particular 

strategies, like using financial incentives, contracting with community-based groups 

with strong business connections, and combining work supports with advancement 

services (including community college-based education), could be promising. 

Finally, earnings supplements are not much help to people who have a difficult 

time finding or keeping a job. Few strategies have been developed that have proven 

effectiveness in helping the hard-to-employ find stable employment, but rigorous 

studies of new initiatives are currently underway, including transitional jobs programs for reentering prisoners and long-term welfare recipients, intensive case management of single parents suffering from depression, accelerated health benefits for 

disability recipients, residential youth development programs for dropouts, and employment programs for substance-abusers. 

Conclusion 

The most direct way to alleviate poverty is to tackle the legacy of falling wages, 

particularly for men with less education. Solid and reliable evidence demonstrates 

that earnings supplements have encouraged work and reduced poverty among unemployed and underemployed single parents. Expanding the use of earnings supplement for single adults would go a long way toward reducing poverty among lowwage workers and their families. A first step would be to modestly expand the current EITC in conjunction with an inflation-indexed boost in the minimum wage, 

paying special attention to singles by doubling or tripling the current annual maximum EITC benefit for single adults with no children. 

In addition, the Committee should also consider a limited test of a more enhanced 

EITC for singles along the lines that I have described: for all adult workers, aged 

21 to 54, regardless of parenting or marital status, and conditioned on working 30 

hours a week. One could imagine a multiyear demonstration in three or four cities 

that would determine the new benefit’s effects on poverty, earnings, work, marriage/ 

cohabitation, and childbearing and that would provide guidance about the feasibility 

of expanding the policy when the EITC is next reauthorized. While the cost of scaling up an EITC for singles, in which eligibility is based on individual rather than 

joint income, seems daunting, it may well be that the long-term benefits of such a 

plan could more than pay for itself in increased work effort, increased child support 

payments, increases in the number of two-parent households, and decreases in 

crime and nonmarital childbearing. But we won’t know unless we conduct a comparatively inexpensive test of the idea in a few places that relies on random assignment research designs whenever feasible. 

As I noted at the beginning, just addressing the effects of low wages will not be 

enough. To make a significant and long-lasting difference, we will need to invest 

both in short-term strategies that boost the well-being of poor families today—as 

well as in long-term educational strategies that ensure that succeeding generations 

will have the skills to succeed in the labor market. Children growing up in poverty 

do worse in school, have earnings that are substantially lower as adults, and are 

more likely to become teen parents, among other problems. By reducing poverty 

through work supports for parents, their children will be in the position to take advantage of better educational opportunities, as we learn more about what works in 

early childhood education, K–12, and postsecondary reform. The best incubator for 

developing human capital tomorrow is a family that is not living in poverty today. 

f 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
51 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we appreciate all of you coming and taking the time to 

do this. 

It sounds like, from listening to some of you, that this is a matter 

of definitional problems here, that we don’t have as much poverty 

as we say we do, it’s all definitional. We had some testimony before 

this Committee from Mr. Bernstein, from the Economic Policy Institute, in which he says, talking about the NAS study, the National Academy of Sciences was asked about this, and we have 

heard the talk about how we’ve got to put more things on the income side. However, we’re not talking about what this money is 

being spent on, what are the standards by which you are judging 

poverty. 

He says that, on average, the NAS rates are about 1 percent 

above the official average if you take all the things that are added 

in and added out—child care and health care, and all these things 

that hit people. 

I would like to hear this panel talk about the poverty—have we 

got the handle on how many people are there? Are we saying there 

are too many? Do you all think there are too many on the poverty 

roll, or do you think there are too few? 

Ms. GIBBS. Maybe if I could start, just by providing a comparison in New York City. There are self-sufficiency calculators that 

are done across the Nation. In New York City, what that calculator 

estimates is what a family of four to meet basic needs. It doesn’t 

provide any additional cash for anything, a family vacation, anything. It’s just meeting housing, food, basic necessities. The cost 

would be $58,000 a year, compared to the Federal poverty measure 

nationally of just under $20,000. 

So, we believe that not only do we need to calculate the value 

of tax credits and other transfer benefits into how much income is 

in the household, but you also need to really reflect how much it 

costs to meet those basic needs, to have a true sense of how many 

people are living in poverty. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Podesta? 

Mr. PODESTA. Well, Mr. McDermott, this reminds me a little 

bit of the discussion about science and global warming. I think 

we’ve got a problem. The fact that there could be some dispute 

about the variation of the problem doesn’t undermine the problem. 

I think that the National Academy recommendations are smart 

ones, and I think that the Committee could move on the question 

of what the right rate is. There is no question that there are millions of people living in poverty in this country, way too many, and 

there are millions more—we estimate about 90 million people—who 

are living on low incomes. They are struggling from paycheck to 

paycheck. They are one health crisis away, one job loss away, from 

falling into deep poverty. That’s something that this country ought 

to do something about. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You worked in the White House. So, 

if we set a policy of cutting poverty by 50 percent by 2020, how will 

that change decisionmaking? 

Mr. PODESTA. Well, let me give that perspective also from the 

perspective of the United Kingdom, which set a goal of trying to 

eliminate child poverty, and trying to cut in increments of 25 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
52 

cent, 50 percent, are on track to do that, because they oriented government policy toward that goal. 

We had a goal of trying to reform welfare, reduce caseloads, but 

also support people going into work. I think that that informs decisionmaking, it informs priorities. A lot of ideas were put on the 

table here, just in the course of this panel. Much of—I think the 

panel agreed on the notion of trying to expand work support 

through the EITC and raising the minimum wage. 

I think it gives strategic direction to—and it gives the ability for 

the public to have accountability, if you set firm goals to say you 

can measure against them whether you’re making progress. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Berlin, I was interested in reading 

your remarks. Some people say full-time work is the solution to 

poverty, but you know and I know that there are a lot of people 

working full time who are still below the poverty line. 

How do you guarantee—if you don’t work, of course you’re not 

going to get there. We can understand that, but if you do work, 

how do we guarantee that you get out? Or, is this the free enterprise system, and we just say, ‘‘Well, it’s tough. You didn’t get out.’’ 

Is that what your bottom line is in your analysis? 

Mr. BERLIN. Well, I think that if you work full time you ought 

to be out of poverty, and you ought to be able to support a family 

above the poverty line. I think that comports best with American 

values. One of the terrific things that this Committee has done 

over time is to rethink the safety net, so that it’s built more around 

work than non-work. 

One statistic really bears out what the problem has been. In 

1973, the average high school drop-out could support a family of 3 

above the poverty line. Today that’s not likely given their average 

earnings. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Do you think we can get people above 

the poverty line without providing universal health care? 

Mr. BERLIN. I think we could get them above the poverty line 

if the minimum wage was higher, and if we had an earned income 

tax credit that was a bit more generous than the current—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You think individuals could buy their 

own insurance? 

Mr. BERLIN. Well—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Is that the scheme by which you’re 

talking? 

Mr. BERLIN. It’s a related, but somewhat separate issue. You 

could think about the cost of health insurance—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. But it’s the number one cause of bankruptcies in the country. 

Mr. BERLIN. Right. You could think about health insurance as 

being another way to help make work pay. One of the experiments 

that we evaluated, the New Hope Project, both supplemented earnings and provided health insurance benefits, and provided child 

care benefits. So, a more comprehensive package would be one way 

to go. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller will inquire. Thank you. 

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

each of the panelists for your testimony and for your time here 

today on an important subject. I think we all agree that we need 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
53 

to reduce poverty. I think we all agree that when one child is in 

poverty, that’s too many. 

You know, Dr. Mead, time is limited, so my first question I’m 

going to direct to you. As you noted, welfare was reformed in 1996 

and although Clay Shaw is not with us today with his leadership— 

and I look back at the 13 years I have been on the Committee on 

Ways and Means, clearly, welfare reform was one of the great accomplishments of this Congress and of this Committee. It reduced 

welfare, and also lifted children out of poverty, as you noted. 

As Chairman McDermott pointed out, defining poverty is pretty 

important, as we begin the process of looking to determine what 

further we should be doing to reduce poverty. Can you, from the 

standpoint of explaining for the Subcommittee, explain in exact 

terms today how we define poverty, including sources of income, 

factoring in costs. 

Dr. MEAD. I may get this exactly right, I hope so. The poverty 

rate is calculated by setting a minimum threshold of income, which 

we take to be the minimum that you need to live a minimally decent life. It varies by family size. Then we count against that 

standard cash income on a pre-tax basis. 

So, we take earnings, benefits like Social Security or welfare, 

pre-tax, and then we see if your income is up to that poverty 

threshold. We exclude in-kind benefits like food stamps. We also 

exclude post-tax benefits, including EITCs, because that is given 

through the tax system. So, we substantially under-estimate the income that people really get from various sources. Therefore, we 

over-estimate how many people are poor. 

On the other hand, income is also measured pre-tax, so to the extent you’re paying taxes, that is also not included. We also don’t 

include work expenses. I more or less support the National Academy of Science’s approach to revising the measure, because it 

would deal with both of these limitations, to a certain extent. 

At the same time, I want to counsel against too great an absorption in the question of the poverty measure. Although we can debate that, and it does make some difference in how many poor people we have, poverty actually involves a combination of low income 

plus various lifestyles that tend to keep people at the bottom. All 

of that is part of what we mean by poverty. The lifestyle dimension, particularly, doesn’t go away if you redefine the poverty line. 

So, we should worry about integrating people at the bottom, and 

that includes raising their income, to be sure, but it also involves, 

as Isabel has suggested, focusing on problems of work, family, getting through school. Those are the things that really comprise the 

complex that we call poverty, and we should address all of that. 

Mr. WELLER. The National Academy of Sciences, my colleague, 

Pete Stark, as the ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, the Urban Institute, and others have advocated including 

the EITC, food stamps, housing, that support that income as part 

of determining poverty. 

What would happen, typically, if that were to be included as part 

of the formula? 

Dr. MEAD. Well, you shared earlier Doug Besharov’s calculation, 

which shows that it cuts the poverty rate very substantially, but, 

as I mentioned, to do that doesn’t really do away with the manner 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
54 

of life that we associate with poverty, which is really a life of defeat. That is the most notable feature of the poverty population. 

These are people who have given up hope in important respects. 

We really want to change that. We want to have people feel more 

in command of things. That’s what happens, if we address these 

lifestyle dimensions that we have talked about, particularly employment. Employment has special importance is that we know 

how to change it. We have learned how to do that, unlike the family problems, where we don’t have as much leverage. 

We have reason to think that raising work levels has positive effects on the family problems. So, although it isn’t a whole total solution, it’s the thing that we can do that most directly raises income and addresses the lifestyle issues that are a part of the nature of poverty. 

We have had a big success in this area in the last 15 years. We 

need to build on that, both for men and for women. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, we have seen, in welfare reform, the emphasis on a two-parent household. 

Dr. MEAD. Yes. 

Mr. WELLER. Work has really changed lives for many children, 

lifting them out of poverty. 

Dr. MEAD. That’s right. 

Mr. WELLER. Dr. Sawhill, the Joint Economic Committee, in 

2004—Dr. Mead, maybe you can reflect on this, and others may 

want to comment—did a model utilizing, as some have discussed 

today, incorporating other taxpayer-funded benefits as part of the 

income, and also factoring cost of living, child care, and others. 

That particular model, which—the Joint Economic Committee, 

which as you know, is a non-partisan, or I should say a bipartisan 

Committee and bicameral, too—incorporated in the income, as well 

as those costs as we discussed as recommended by the National 

Academy of Sciences. Based off the official census, they found there 

was a 30-percent reduction in poverty, based upon that formula 

which the National Academy of Sciences recommended, just based 

on 2004, the poverty rate at that time. 

You know, Dr. Sawhill, would you agree that we should include 

additional benefits, as well as those additional costs as part of determining poverty, as the National Academy of Sciences has recommended, as Congressman Stark has recommended, as the Joint 

Economic Committee analyzed? 

Dr. SAWHILL. You know, I think we could debate for many 

years what’s the right way to define poverty, and it wouldn’t probably make a huge difference, in terms of what we would decide to 

do or not to do. 

You are certainly right, that because non-cash benefits tend to be 

left out of the measure, and because non-cash benefits have grown 

more rapidly than cash benefits, we are missing some improvements that we might otherwise pick up. 

On the other hand, people who have looked at the poverty trends 

with and without the inclusion of some of these additional items 

you have mentioned, haven’t seen any big differences. 

I would also point out that we haven’t adjusted the poverty 

standard, the amount that we think people need, compared to what 

they actually get. So, the standard, the poverty line, is much lower, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
55 

relative to the average person’s income than it was in the past, 

when we first developed the official measure of poverty. 

So, my basic conclusion would be any definition and measure 

that you come up with is, in the end, going to be arbitrary, it’s just 

a convenient benchmark. We don’t—as Larry has emphasized, we 

don’t think that differently about someone who has $1,000 more a 

year, or $1,000 less a year than the actual line, as making that 

much a big difference in their lives. 

Mr. WELLER. You know—— 

Dr. SAWHILL. So, I do not think that that is going to make that 

big a difference. 

Mr. WELLER. Dr. Mead, if we’re going to reduce poverty by half, 

as Chairman Rangel has indicated, obviously we have to start a 

bench line somewhere. So, a definition does matter. 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to include in the record the Joint Economic Committee analysis? I think 

it is very useful in looking at options, but, Dr. Mead, if we’re establishing a benchmark, a starting point to reduce poverty further 

than we did with welfare reform—— 

[The requested analysis by the Joint Economic Committee follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
56 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.101
57 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.102
58 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.103
59 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.104
60 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.105
61 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.106
62 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.107
63 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.108
64 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.109
65 

Dr. MEAD. Yes. 

Mr. WELLER. We have made some progress, we have more work 

to do in reducing poverty, particularly child poverty. Do you believe 

that we should count these other sources of income and take the 

approach recommended? 

Dr. MEAD. Yes, I agree with Isabel that this wouldn’t actually 

change our policies very much. In fact, I would go further. One 

could argue that there really are almost no really destitute people 

in America. This is not like Africa, parts of which are totally destitute. 

It’s not only that the measure doesn’t include all income, but a 

lot of income is often not reported. We know from consumption 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.110
66 

studies that the poor consume a great deal more than they claim 

to have in income. So, they are probably better off than we think. 

It could be that there is no economic poverty in America, or virtually none. 

Even if we decided that, would that reassure us about poverty 

in America? I would say no. Poverty really has to do with separation from the mainstream society. Overcoming poverty is really 

overcoming these problems of separation. It’s really about integration. 

That’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to get people 

to feel that they are part of mainstream America, and to command 

the respect and attention of their fellow citizens. That’s what is 

missing now. It isn’t really due to money. It’s due to the way people 

live, and their sense of hope about things. That is why we have to 

worry about these lifestyle dimensions that are not directly captured by the poverty measure. 

Mr. WELLER. Dr. Sawhill, that’s why you emphasize work and 

two-parent households? 

Dr. SAWHILL. Absolutely. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very 

generous with my time. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Porter will inquire. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you 

for being here today. I am sorry I missed part of the testimony, so 

I have been trying to catch up real quick in reading some of the 

testimony that’s before me. I appreciate that you are all experts. 

I certainly applaud Catholic Charities, a big part of our community in Nevada. They play such a major role, and I’m not sure what 

we would do without you and Catholic Charities. So, thank you 

very much. 

In looking at some of your testimony, is it Father, or Reverend? 

Or what would you prefer? 

Rev. SNYDER. ‘‘Father’’ is usually—whatever you’re comfortable 

with. 

Mr. PORTER. Going to Catholic school, I want to make sure I 

say it right. The nuns used to pull my ears when I would mess up, 

so thank you. 

You had mentioned improving the child tax credit. I have some 

bad news. Just about 2 weeks ago, the House and the Senate both 

completely eliminated the child tax credit in the budget that was 

passed. I concur with you. It’s such an important thing, and I appreciate what you have pointed out, which is some key substantive 

changes we can do to help make a difference. I would like to follow 

up with some of you at some later date. 

I would like to ask you all—and it’s not really a test question— 

it’s a very serious question. If the Federal Government gave you 

$600 billion, could you help fix this poverty problem? Let me start 

here, with Mr. Podesta, maybe. 

Mr. PODESTA. I think that—Congressman, that we put forward 

a series of proposals, some of which cost money, some of which 

don’t. For example, the proposal to raise the minimum wage to 50 

percent of the average hourly wage, which it’s been in the past. 

Throughout the fifties and sixties, it sat at that level. It would cost 

the Federal Government no money, in essence, and it would actuVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
67 

ally probably raise a little bit of money, because it increases payroll 

taxes. 

There are other things in our proposal that don’t cost money, as 

well. We think that there are some targeted efforts, and that they 

should, again, support work and responsibility: the expansion of 

the child tax credit; the expansion of the EITC. Some, I think, require—one other that I would mention, because I think we have 

been talking about lifestyle, and that’s getting people a stake by accumulating assets. 

So, expanding and simplifying the saver’s credit, which is already 

in existence, would, I think, help people accumulate, even if it’s in 

a small way, some assets to give them, again, a stake in their own 

well-being, and also give them a little bit of a safety net. 

Other proposals we have made require, I think, some greater direct intervention, particularly connecting youth—and, again, there 

has been some—amongst the other panelists, some focus on young 

men, particularly, getting them into the workforce, keeping them 

into the workforce, what we do about people who have been incarcerated, who are going back home, we don’t want them to sink back 

into a life of crime and drugs and addiction, but that takes, I think, 

a little bit more direct intervention. 

I think you can do a lot of this without building any kind of bureaucracy, but just simply supporting good, sound public policy that 

supports work, family building, and good social behavior. 

Mr. PORTER. Again, I would reiterate, you are all experts, and 

I applaud you for what you are doing. 

I serve on the Budget Committee, and I am not sure how many 

zeroes are behind the $600 billion, but it is a lot. What we try not 

to do is lose sight that every person in America has a face, has a 

family, has serious individual challenges. 

Right now, we are spending $600 billion out of the Federal budget, just for welfare. I e-mailed my staff 1 day, and I said, ‘‘Can you 

divide that into 20-some million kids,’’ which varies, based upon 

the time. Let’s say it’s 20 million kids. We’re spending, right now, 

about $30,000 per poor child. It troubles me that it’s not getting to 

the child. 

This may not help today, but in the future, we may be better off 

to give them a check for $30,000. Of course, I’m being facetious, but 

we are spending money, and there is a lot of duplication. I want 

to make sure it goes to the kid, and to the family. I would like to 

give—again, it’s impossible—to Father Snyder, that $600 billion, 

and see what Catholic Charities could do for our kids and our families. 

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying today. I think 

there is a serious problem. I would say it could be closer to $60,000 

a year, just to break even. These figures are wrong, there is no 

question. We can debate what the poverty level is. 

What we really need your help with is how we can make sure 

you get the funds to go where they belong. $20,000 or $30,000 per 

child—and if there are 37 million families, which is probably underestimating—there has got to be a way for these State, local, and 

Federal programs to be more efficient, and not hurt the child, but 

help the family. That’s where we really need your help. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
68 

So, if you have any thoughts in my, I guess, 10 seconds left, I 

would appreciate—— 

Dr. MEAD. Let me offer this reaction. Welfare reforms succeeded 

for, basically, two reasons. One was that we set up these basic policies that I talked about. Another was, however, that we focused on 

the adults. It’s true, the ultimate concern is children, but the focus 

was really on the mothers, getting them to work. We assumed 

there would be pay-offs to the children, and there were. 

Getting the mothers to work required a rather elaborate administrative set-up. The unsung heroes of welfare reform are not the 

Federal policy-makers, but State politicians and the administrators, who put this thing together at the local level. Although there 

is a lot of variation on how well they did it, overall it’s an amazing 

success story. 

Now, if we want to continue with success in this area, we have 

to keep doing those things. We have to focus on the adults. They 

are the ones who create the problems for children, or the opportunities for the children. They have such influence on the children 

that there is really no way to get to the children, except through 

the parents. We have to get them working and functioning in the 

various ways we’re talking about. That is going to require an administrative structure. 

So, I wish I could tell you that we’re about to save money on bureaucracy. I don’t believe that’s true. I think we’re going to have 

to spend more money in bureaucracy in order to solve the poverty 

question. We have to create the structure in which lives can be 

supported, and also, to a certain extent, overseen, to make sure 

that people do, in fact, work and go to school, and do the other 

things needed. That’s what, in fact, gets results. 

Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Porter, I guess I would just question your 

number, though, too. Unless you guys are spending a lot more 

money than when I left the government, I think $600 billion on 

those kinds of figures, I don’t know what you’re including in that, 

but it sounds like maybe the entire—— 

Mr. PORTER. Well, there is medical care of—— 

Mr. PODESTA. But you’re including Medicare, and—— 

Mr. PORTER. Cash aid, $112 billion, food benefits, $50 billion, 

housing aids, $40 billion, job training, energy aid, all up to $583 

billion a year. 

Mr. PODESTA. Medicare money is not flowing to children, and 

that’s 50 percent of what you’re talking about, with respect to 

the—— 

Mr. PORTER. Medical care going to children is $322 billion. 

Again, I am not here to argue, I’m just saying we have got to find 

a way to deliver it better, and we need to find a model—and you’re 

the experts. I know we can talk about tax credits and all that, and 

we need to do that, or however else we need to help the bottom 

line, because we may need to spend twice this. I don’t know. 

Right now, what I need your help with is to find a way to make 

it better and easier for families to receive the benefits. You’re the 

experts. You see, firsthand, the struggle of a family that’s in poverty if they can’t get assistance. So, that’s where I would need your 

help. So, thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
69 

Mr. Podesta, your point is well taken, but we need to find a way 

to get it to the kids. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I would just say that the reason I 

asked the question about health care was the fact that the biggest 

growth since 1978 has been in health care. It was $71 billion in 

1978, and it’s $322 billion, and that’s the largest increase, by far 

and away. 

It seems to me that if you’re going to use work as the way, you’re 

going to get out of poverty by going to work, you have to get health 

insurance. Lots of places, they cut you off Medicaid when you get 

your job. Once you have done that, you have thrown a cost on to 

people that I think really has to be factored in here in a very direct 

way. Mr. Herger will inquire. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Mead, 

you have mentioned several times in your testimony the importance of work. I just would like to refer to that, just looking at the 

Census Bureau data, how absolutely correct that is, and the difference it makes. 

The Census Bureau’s data indicates for 1995, and then comparing it to 2005, the share of those who did not work at all during 

the year in poverty in 1995 was 22.3 percent. That’s dropped down 

to 21.8 percent in 2005. The share of people working part-time in 

poverty in 1995 was 13.7 percent, and dropped down to 12.8 percent in 2005. Then, the share of full-time, year-round workers in 

poverty in 1995 was 2.7 percent, compared to 2.8 percent, basically 

the same. 

What is most striking about this data is that it confirms what 

would appear to be the obvious, that 97 percent of all those over 

age 16 who worked full time are not in poverty in 2005, or any 

other year. Clearly, full-time work is the path out of poverty, and 

our policies should promote work, and especially full-time work. 

Would you like to comment? 

Dr. MEAD. I totally agree with that. Some of the statistics you 

hear about the working poor are inflated by including as workers 

anyone with any earnings at all in the year. It is, obviously, somewhat significant, if a person works a little. 

The thing that really gets a family out of poverty is steady work. 

If you work full-time full year, the poverty rate is about 3 percent 

for individuals, family heads 4 percent, female heads 10 percent. 

Even female heads with children under 18, 13 percent. These are 

very low figures. Obviously, that’s not sufficient, we would like to 

totally abolish poverty, but it is difficult, indeed, to be poor, by the 

current definition, if you work full-time, full year. 

Again, I wouldn’t really focus so much on the income/outcome, 

but rather, on the fact that people are working serious hours. 

That’s the thing that really takes you out of the poverty class. 

Now, it may be necessary to subsidize work. Certainly the EITC 

is a good idea. The other benefits that we’re giving are a good idea. 

I don’t think the implication of this argument is that government 

does less. government may actually do more, but it’s more constructive because you are supporting people who are employed, and 

therefore doing something to help themselves. The negative effects 

that subsidies can have are mitigated very considerably by this. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
70 

So, we should see this as a joint operation. This is what Isabel 

has said, and I strongly support this. We need government action. 

We also need individual action. We have to take steps in our policies to make sure that people actually do work. We can’t just promote it and incentivize it, and so on. We actually have to require 

it. It’s necessary to go beyond mere encouragement, and we have 

to do that for men as well as for women. 

Mr. HERGER. Dr. Sawhill, would you like to comment? 

Dr. SAWHILL. Well, I certainly agree with what Larry has just 

said. I would point out that there is an interesting supply side effect here, if you will. We have done some work at Brookings that 

has shown that, and I think that it’s relevant to many of the other 

testimonies this morning. 

By that, I mean that if you do reward work by encouraging people, and increasing the EITC, or child care assistance, or making 

sure that people in low-wage jobs without health insurance have it, 

you will get—you will draw people into employment who were either working fewer hours or not working at all before. 

We shouldn’t forget about that labor supply effect, because with 

that labor supply effect comes a reduction in what the government 

has to spend, and an increase in the revenues that that group 

that’s now working, or working more, can provide. 

So, the net costs of any program that you might initiate in this 

arena will be less than the book cost, or the gross cost. That’s 

worth keeping in mind, and looking at some of the analysis, to see 

how that works. 

I talked earlier about early childhood education. We have, in the 

last year, created a very sophisticated economic growth model at 

Brookings that shows that because investments in high-quality 

early education eventually increase both high school graduation 

rates and college-going rates, you get a better educated workforce. 

Granted, you have to wait a while for it, and I realize that people 

in Congress may not want to wait that long, but if you did wait 

that long, you would have a big increase in economic growth, and 

you would have a revenue reflow as a result of that, that would 

more than pay for the program, even on a discounted basis. 

So, it is just unfortunate that we don’t look at these long-term 

benefits at the same time that we look at the up-front costs. 

When Congressman Porter was talking about the $600 billion, I 

was thinking to myself I agree that that money is rather diffusely 

spent right now, and also that we have too many funding streams 

and not enough responsibility at the local level, to deliver those 

programs in a way that makes sense to them. 

I am in favor of a little more flexibility for States to spend that 

money better. I am also in favor of doing the kind of prioritizing 

that I think he was alluding to. I made my priorities clear this 

morning, but that’s not an argument for not doing anything. 

Mr. HERGER. Good point. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. I have a question that really comes off of what you just talked about, and that’s 

investment in the future. 

It seems to me that the American economy operates on the Wall 

Street model. That is, the bottom line, quarter by quarter by quarVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
71 

ter. We go year by year by year. Long-term investments are very 

hard to make in the congress. It seems to me, child care is one of 

them, and early childhood education are the two most difficult ones 

to make, although there are some others that we are talking about 

here that come out of the study from the Center for American 

Progress, where you’re talking about Pell grants, allowing Pell 

grants to be used more flexibly. If you don’t work, if you don’t go 

to school full-time, you can’t use a Pell grant. We have a lot of 

ways in which we limit workers who get laid off from returning to 

the work place. 

I would like to hear you talk about long-term investment, because I look at India. Everybody wonders how India got where they 

are in the telecommunication industry. They got it from investing, 

30 years ago, in technical schools that they filled and pumped kids 

through at very direct government expense. It was done by the government, it wasn’t done by the individuals. 

Tell me about this country. How do we change the attitude about 

this long-term development? I will just add one more thing. One of 

the things that happened in the last congress was in the Deficit Reduction Act, where they cut the money for child enforcement, child 

support enforcement, knowing, from the CBO, that it was going to 

lose them $11 billion in child support enforcement payments for 

families with children. 

It’s those kinds of short-term things that are very troubling, and 

I would like to hear you talk about how you deal with long-term 

investments at the city level, or in any of your situations. The table 

is open. 

Ms. GIBBS. The poverty rate for a high school drop-out is twice 

that of a high school graduate. The poverty rate of a high school 

graduate is twice that of a college graduate. So, every year you can 

invest in a person’s education is a downpayment in reducing their 

chances of living in poverty. 

So, strategies that help to graduate young people from high 

school, keep them in school, create environments that will help to 

retain them, create special environments for those that are very 

high-risk. We know a lot now about when those behaviors begin, 

and we have a growing body of evidence around what is successful 

in keeping them in high school—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. What do you do in New York? What 

do you actually do to deal with these issues? 

Ms. GIBBS. Well, the papers today in New York reported the increase in the high school graduation rate, the four-year high school 

graduation rate of this past year, of an increase. Another 3 percent 

on top of the 6 percent growth that’s happened thus far during this 

Mayor’s term. 

The investments have been at the same time that—they are 

across the board within the educational system, improving accountability, improving the principal and teacher discretion, and how 

they manage their school, at the same time. 

It also is in building specialized environments for those young 

people who are at highest risk of dropping out, and creating educational settings that keep them engaged, and help them to graduate. So, and now it’s still abysmally low, at 50 percent, but it’s 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
72 

above the 42 percent that was the 4-year graduation rate that occurred. It was investment. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Do you do anything to deal with the 

young men, the disproportionate number of black men who are in 

the correctional system who come back out? 

Ms. GIBBS. Absolutely. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. How do you try and get them back 

into the system? 

Ms. GIBBS. There are a number of strategies. I mentioned earlier that when looking at those with histories of incarceration, 

many of the strategies now in place are about how do we get them 

into work. The assumption is that education isn’t really the option. 

We have increasingly been looking at alternative educational settings for over-age, under-credited young adults, including those 

with histories of incarceration, having systems in place while 

they’re incarcerated, bringing the re-engagement into education, 

into the jails and prisons themselves, and creating assisted support 

to re-enroll them in the schools. 

There is a history of schools not—making it, quite frankly, very 

difficult for these young people to re-enroll, creating environments 

where their history, their experience, is explicitly understood, and 

they are given assistance to re-enroll. 

At the same time, working with the community college level and 

the college level, absolutely, there are many supports, financial assistance, that is critically necessary for young people who have to 

work in order to pay for their cost of living. So, they can’t afford 

to pay for a college education. 

Also, it is a tremendous challenge, even if you have the resources, because the way the class system is structured, the classes 

are really all over the place. One of the things we’re experimenting 

with in New York, through our community college system, is creating special tracks so that a student can be guaranteed that every 

class that they need for their degree is offered in a clearly defined 

timeframe, so that they can commit to their full-time employment, 

that they can go to the job, they can say to an employer, ‘‘Yes, I 

can take that job, I can show up during those hours,’’ because they 

know, then, that they can get all of the classes that they need during a supported track of learning. 

So, there really needs to be an understanding that for the young 

adults that are from low-income backgrounds, that they don’t have 

the discretion of being a full-time student. They really need that 

income to support themselves, and often, to support their own family. 

Dr. SAWHILL. May I, Mr. Chairman, say something more about 

your question? We have had a lot of debate about the value of dynamic scoring with respect to tax cuts. We now have an office, as 

you know, in the Treasury Department that does analysis that 

looks at that. 

There is no reason why we couldn’t have a similar office that 

looks at that, looks at the dynamics of investments in kids, let’s say 

in the Department of Education. I would not be in favor of saying 

to CBO, ‘‘You need to do dynamic scoring,’’ because I think there 

are too many uncertainties there, but it might at least change the 

discussion, and help all of you up here, if there was a little more 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
73 

focus on the effects of—the long-term effects of investments in children that was being done in a systematic way somewhere in the 

government. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Yes? 

Mr. BERLIN. I just wanted to add to that that I think it’s really 

important to think in a two generation way about this set of issues. 

It matters that kids are growing up in poverty. If we do something 

about household poverty, primarily by supplementing earnings so 

that we make up for this long-term decline that has really hurt our 

ability to lift families out of poverty at the same time that we make 

these investments for children, I think it’s possible that we can get 

the kind of quantum leaps that are necessary to really make advancements in this area. 

Dr. MEAD. I just want to express a little skepticism about this 

on two scores. One is that the investments will pay off only if you 

make assumptions about the quality of the programs that the 

money will go into. The experimental programs that show these 

long-term, impressive pay-offs involve much higher institutional 

quality, staff, teachers, than you’re likely to get in the typical Head 

Start program, or pre-school program. 

So, there is a serious danger to just throw money at institutions 

that are really not able to generate the results that we are assuming when we make the projections. 

The second concern I have is that all these programs, in effect, 

are replacing the family. When we say we’re going to invest in children, we’re treating them as some kind of impersonal economic object that we’re going to inflate by a certain percent over time. 

Well, the reality is, these kids are living in families. It’s because 

the families are unable to support them effectively that we talk 

about creating what are really alternative families, through Head 

Start programs and otherwise. 

I am disturbed by that, because, first of all, most Americans 

don’t think of themselves as taking over the job of the family. Second, I doubt that we can really do it. Even the best Head Start program, in my opinion, is probably worth less than having your father in the household. So, we should worry about getting the father 

in the household. 

We should worry about the more fundamental problems that 

these families face. Again, I think we have some potential to go forward, based on welfare reform and other experiments. So, let’s see 

if we can address the lifestyle questions directly, rather than trying 

to work around them, which is what is really involved when you 

talk about these long-term approaches. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Well—— 

Mr. PODESTA. Can I add just one word on that? Both in—kind 

of a little bit in response to the last comment. 

I think that there is no question that a more effective K through 

12 strategy and a pre-school strategy are critical to the economic 

future of this country. New York City has kind of paved the way. 

We see important educational reforms going on across the country 

that do pay results in the short term, and in the long term, and 

aligning Federal policy to make sure that we both test—I agree 

with the last comment, that we need to test and see what works, 

but also then to try to model and implement that is important. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
74 

Just one statistic. Of 2,000 high schools in this country with 15 

percent of the students account for 50 percent of the drop-outs. You 

know, there are 2,000 drop-out factors in the country. New York 

tackled that problem, they broke up their big drop-out factories and 

those smaller academies are starting to graduate two and three 

times the number of kids that were coming out of the old schools. 

That is why you see the overall high school improvement rate. 

I think you could apply the same methodology in the health care 

work that you do, Mr. Chairman. We have very little data, because 

of the complexity of our system, of what the most cost effective use 

of our health care dollars are. We are spending 16 percent of GDP 

on health care. We are producing a return that—in which we are 

24th in the world, in terms of health outcomes. 

Now, clearly, something is wrong in that system. In order to 

have the data and the strategy, that has to end up being moved 

and pushed, I think, by smart congressional policy, and some independent research that looks back at those kinds of things. I think 

with this question as well, we know now that the EITC has 

worked. We know that raising the minimum wage will help people. 

We have seen it, both—there are a lot of complaints about raising the minimum wage, but if you look at the States that have a 

minimum wage that is higher than the National average, what you 

see is more small business development, not only higher wages, but 

higher employment growth in those States, as compared to the 

ones with the Federal wage. 

So, I think looking at the hard data, assessing it, and then building for the long term is exactly the right strategy. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for 

Mr. Berlin. Before I do, from the standpoint of Catholic Charities, 

Father Snyder I just want to recognize the role that Catholic Charities plays in my home State, and my community. 

I was one of those who has taken an interest in foster care, unfortunately, as a result of lawsuit abuse, and what I believe certainly is that it’s unfortunate that Catholic Charities has withdrawn from providing foster care in Illinois, as a consequence of a 

lawsuit. There are 700 children now that need to be taken care of 

and attended to by another organization. 

We are going to miss Catholic Charities, and the role that you 

played in Illinois, and I want to acknowledge you, and thank you 

for the role that Catholic Charities has performed. 

Now, Mr. Berlin, Dr. Sawhill and others have talked about the 

importance of work requirements. Your organization conducted a 

study on work requirements for housing benefits. Can you share 

with us some of your findings? 

Mr. BERLIN. I think you’re referring to the Jobs-Plus project. 

The idea here was to change the norm in public housing, so that 

a majority of the residents worked, rather than having most of the 

people not work. 

In a very rigorous study in five public housing communities 

around the country, we offered a range of employment opportunities for people, and we also said that if they went to work, we 

would hold their rents flat, so that they would not have the typical 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
75 

disincentives to work that are built into the way public housing financing operates. 

We got very large increases in employment and earnings, as a result of that experiment. These results raised the question of how 

to transform public housing from places that are predominantly 

about housing, to places that are also about promoting self-sufficiency and stability, both in work and in housing. 

Mr. WELLER. Dr. Sawhill, you have repeatedly come back to 

work requirements as a key component, as we look at how to reduce poverty. Are you familiar with these studies? Do you have 

some comments that you want to share? 

Dr. SAWHILL. I am familiar with the Jobs-Plus program that 

Gordon Berlin just described. I think it has had some of the most 

astounding effects that we have seen. I think it does underscore 

just what he said, which is that if you can add incentives, or remove disincentives, and change expectations, and provide the kind 

of counseling that is needed for people who have not had a lot of 

experience navigating the labor market, you can accomplish a lot. 

We should, therefore, always think about what the expectations 

are in a program, as well as what the benefits are that we are 

going to provide to people. Any time that you are talking to people 

in low-income communities who have been in assisted housing, 

they will tell you that one of the biggest disincentives for going to 

work is losing this housing assistance, if they have it. They also 

worry about losing health care. 

So, those are two huge barriers to get over. Anything we could 

do to ensure people that if they went to work and played by the 

rules they wouldn’t lose those key benefits, could be enormously 

useful. However, it’s challenging, because not everybody gets housing assistance. Housing assistance has always been a kind of lottery in this country. 

I think the proportion of the poor who get it is something like 

20 percent. Anyway, it’s a small proportion. Those people who are 

fortunate enough to have it have a lot of those non-cash benefits 

that we were talking about earlier. Those who don’t have much 

less. I would prefer to move a lot more of that money into providing 

rent assistance through section 8, or some kind of a voucher program, giving people more choice, and spreading the program perhaps across more people. 

Dr. MEAD. I just want to add two points that complement what 

Gordon had said. Jobs-Plus was a substantial achievement, but I 

want to emphasize that it was an administrative achievement. 

What made the program tick was this organization in the housing projects, which beat the drum for these new benefits, made everybody aware of them, created a sort of wave of enthusiasm for 

them. That was part of the treatment. It wasn’t just the incentives, 

it was this pressure and encouragement coming from these other 

activities. 

That was also true in welfare reform. Much of the effect comes 

from diversion, where people get a message about work from the 

overall process, and they went to work, often without going on welfare at all. 

So, ultimately, the solutions lie in building up that organization. 

Policy-makers generate changes in policy, but then those generate 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
76 

administrative changes, in terms of organization at the local level. 

That, in turn, generates the change in the culture. The culture finally does the work. 

We see a microcosm of that in Jobs-Plus. We have to think this 

way about poverty reduction, in general. It’s really an institutional 

problem. It’s creating a structure where people will get a message 

about what’s expected, and then act on it. 

The other thing I want to add is that, encouraging though this 

project was, it didn’t address, predominantly, the problems of men 

that we’re talking about. Most of the men who we are worried 

about here—ex-offenders, people not paying child support—are not 

living in housing projects. They are elsewhere, they are detached, 

they are not part of the kind of family that lives in a housing 

project. 

So, we have to create an institution. We need to create a work 

program that will be a home for them, where there will be structure, where they have to work, but also they get help in working, 

and they get these benefits. We need a structure that will somehow 

produce for them the work level increases that we saw in these 

Jobs-Plus evaluations. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Dr. Mead. I just want to request of 

our witnesses here, Mr. Podesta and Father Snyder, you list poverty rates from many different groups in your testimonies. I wanted to ask you if you could provide for the record what those current 

poverty rates would be if we applied the methodology used in the 

Center for American Progress report, and counted current spending 

on the EITC, food stamps, and housing benefits as income, before 

we consider some of the ideas that have been suggested for increasing benefits. 

I think it would be useful to know what is the current benefit, 

when it comes to the benefits that are currently provided for reducing poverty. So, if you could submit that for the record, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. PODESTA. I would at least be happy to try to do that, Mr. 

Weller. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Podesta. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We want to thank you all for taking 

your time to come here, and give us the benefit of your thinking. 

We hope that you have made an investment in the common good 

by giving us your best thinking, and we will try and implement it 

for the people. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 2:44 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions submitted by the Ranking Member to Mr. Podesta follows:] 

Question from Ranking Member Weller to Mr. Podesta 

Question: I wanted to ask you if you could provide for the record what 

those current poverty rates would be if we applied the methodology used 

in the Center for American Progress report, and counted current spending 

on the EITC, food stamps, and housing benefits as income, before we consider some of the ideas that have been suggested for increasing benefits. 

Answer: At the Subcommittee’s hearing on solutions to poverty, you asked if we 

could provide for the record what poverty rates would be if, per the Center for 

American Progress Task Force report, From Poverty to Prosperity, the Federal 

Government counted spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and 

housing benefits as income in calculating poverty rates. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
77 

I am attaching, for the record, the Urban Institute’s report, Estimating the 

Anti-Poverty Effects of Changes in Taxes and Benefits with TRIM3, which 

provides a detailed explanation of the methodology used by Urban Institute in estimating the antipoverty effects of a set of proposals to reduce poverty. In the following paragraphs, I will briefly summarize their approach, but you may wish to 

refer to their full report for a more extensive discussion. 

When seeking to estimate the antipoverty effects of our recommendations, we contracted with the Urban Institute. To conduct its modeling, the Urban Institute used 

the Transfer Income Model. TRIM is a microsimulation model that uses survey data 

from the Census Bureau and detailed information about program rules to simulate 

tax, benefit, and health programs. It is often used to estimate impacts of proposed 

policy changes and is widely respected. 

In our view, the current definition of poverty is deficient. Two principal concerns 

are that it does not effectively measure the resources actually available to households since it does not fully consider income and expenses; and it uses a threshold 

for measuring poverty that is essentially arbitrary, obsolete, and set too low. In our 

task force report, we highlighted a number of deficiencies of the current measure, 

and recognized that there were significant virtues in the approach proposed by the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Citro and Michael, ed., Measuring Poverty: A New Approach (National Research Council 1995). 

In modeling the effects of proposed approaches, we concluded that because the 

problems with the current measure are so significant, it was important to use a better yardstick to evaluate the impact of our proposals. Accordingly, we opted to follow 

a set of recommendations from the NAS report. Specifically, the Urban Institute 

began by calculating income and poverty rates under the official poverty measures, 

and then, consistent with NAS recommendations: 

• subtracted tax liabilities and added tax credits, such as the EITC, to income; • included Food Stamp benefits and housing subsidies as income; • subtracted out-of-pocket child care costs from income. 

In addition to these adjustments to resources, the NAS also recommended adjustments that would increase the poverty thresholds. Had we used these thresholds, 

along with the above adjustments to income, the result would have been an increase 

in the number of individuals counted as poor. We thought it was important to begin 

with the same number of poor individuals as occurs under the official measures. So, 

the Urban Institute adjusted the NAS thresholds to the extent needed so that the 

number of individuals in poverty under our measure was the same as the number 

in poverty under the official measure. For example, the adjusted threshold for two 

adults and two children was $21,361, as compared with $18,660 under the official 

measure in 2003. See Table 1 of Urban Institute report for thresholds by household 

composition. 

In its calculations, the Urban Institute used 2003 data, adjusted to reflect subsequent changes in state minimum wage laws and relevant Federal tax law changes. 

Using its adjusted thresholds, the number who were poor under this modeling, before making any adjustments for near-cash benefits, tax, or child care expenses was 

42,753,000 (14.8 percent). After adjusting for food and housing benefits, the total 

would fall to 37,263,000 (12.9 percent). After making adjustments for Federal taxes 

and the Earned Income tax credit, the total poor would be 34,114,000 (11.8 percent). 

After adjusting for child care expenses, the total poor would be 35,338,000 (12.3 percent), a number approximating the number poor under the ‘‘official’’ measures using 

2003 data with adjustments for subsequent minimum wage and tax changes. The 

details are available in Table E1 of the Urban Institute Report. 

These are, of course, the baseline numbers before estimating the effects of proposed policy changes. As we discuss in our full report, a set of recommended policy 

proposals—raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, expanding the child tax credit, and increasing child care assistance— would reduce 

the numbers in poverty by 26 percent, and reduce the number of children in poverty 

by 41 percent. 

In a separate analysis, the Urban Institute calculated the effects of applying the 

changes in counting of income and expenses to a ‘‘baseline’’ number of 35,394,000 

poor, intended to reflect the number poor in 2003 under official measures, with adjustments for subsequent minimum wage increases and tax law changes. In doing 

so, the results were 35,372,000 poor at baseline (for a poverty rate of 12.3 percent); 

28,716,000 after adjusting for food and housing benefits (10.0 percent); 25,846,000 

after adjusting for taxes and the earned income tax credit (9.0 percent); and 

26,748,000 after adjusting for child care expenses (9.3 percent). 

We fully appreciate that if there is no change to the poverty threshold, but one 

simply counts additional items as income, it necessarily reduces the number of peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
78 

ple in poverty. At the same time, we want to emphasize that had we used the full 

set of NAS recommendations, as to thresholds, income adjustments, and expense adjustments, the effect would have been to increase the number of people in poverty. 

For our purposes, the goal was to neither increase or decrease the number of people 

in poverty at the beginning of the analysis, and so we followed the approach above. 

For a more comprehensive approach to poverty measurement, we think it is essential to address both the counting of income and expenses and the setting of thresholds in a way that is internally consistent and that measures what it purports to 

measure. We hope that the Subcommittee will consider such a comprehensive approach in the future as it explores more effective ways to measure poverty. 

Thank you for your continued attention to these issues, and please let us know 

if you need additional information. 

f 

[The report from the Urban Institute follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.201
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.202
80 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.203
81 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.204
82 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.205
83 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.206
84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.207
85 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.208
86 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.209
87 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.210
88 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.211
89 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.212
90 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.213
91 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.214
92 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.215
93 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.216
94 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.217
95 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.218
96 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.219
97 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.220
98 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.221
99 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.222
100 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.223
101 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.224
102 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.225
103 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.226
104 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.227
105 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.228
106 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.229
107 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.230
108 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.231
109 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.232
110 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.233
111 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.234
112 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.235
113 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.236
114 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.237
115 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.238
116 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.239
117 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.240
118 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.241
119 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.242
120 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.243
121 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.244
122 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.245
123 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.246
124 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.247
125 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.248
126 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.249
127 

1See generally Jonathan Barry Forman, Making America Work (Urban Institute Press 2006). 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 

2005 (Census Population Report No. P60–231, August 2006), table B–1. 3 Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 72 Federal Register 8,373 (January 24, 2007). 

f 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of Jonathan Barry Forman 

I am pleased to submit this statement for the record that you are compiling on 

Proposals for Reducing Poverty. I am submitting this statement in my individual 

capacity as the Alfred P. Murrah Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma. 

This statement suggests that we replace most of the current welfare system with 

a system of refundable tax credits and work supports. 1

The Government’s Role in Reducing Poverty and Inequality 

Poverty is a major problem in the United States. In 2005, for example, 12.6 percent (37 million people) lived in poverty, up from 11.1 percent (23 million people) 

in 1973. 2 In 2007, the poverty level for a single individual is $10,210, the poverty 

level for a single parent with two children is $17,170, and the poverty level for a 

married couple with two children is $20,650. 3

Needless to say, policymakers cannot do much about market forces. Adam Smith’s 

laws of supply and demand are every bit as immutable as Newton’s laws of thermodynamics. But policymakers can change how governments influence market operations and outcomes. 

In that regard, governments influence market outcomes through a combination of 

regulation, spending, and taxation. Government regulation defines and limits the 

range of markets and so influences the shape of the initial distribution of economic 

resources. Taxes and spending also have a significant impact on the distribution of 

economic resources. Table 1 shows the Federal Government’s outlays for the major 

federal transfer programs. 

Table 1. Outlays for the Principal Federal Benefit Programs 

(billions of dollars) 

2006 actual 2012 estimate 

Social Security $544 $790 

Medicare 325 482 

Medicaid 181 270 

Unemployment compensation 31 41 

Supplemental Security Income 34 42 

Earned income tax credit 36 43 

Food assistance 48 58 

Family support 24 24 

Housing assistance 17 13 

Retirement and disability programs for civilians, military and veterans 140 185 

Source: Executive Office of the President and Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of 

the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 (2007) table 8.5. 

Most government operations have only a slight or indirect impact on the distribution of economic resources. Spending on the military and other government operations, for example, probably has relatively little impact on economic inequality. 

Even among entitlement programs, relatively few programs are means-tested, and 

only about 10 to 15 percent of the federal budget is spent for such explicit redistribution. All in all, current tax and transfer policies reduce household income inequality by about 20 percent. 

There is some dispute over how much the United States tax and transfer system 

affects poverty levels. As already mention, some 37 million Americans (12.6 percent) 

were poor in 2005 using the ‘‘official’’ estimate of poverty (based on ‘‘money income’’). Based on ‘‘market income’’ however, the Census Bureau estimated that 18.9 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
128 

4 U.S. Census Bureau, The Effect of Taxes and Transfers on Income and Poverty in the United 

States: 2005, (Current Population Report No. P60–232, March 2007), table A–2. 5Timothy M. Smeeding, Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective, 20(1) Journal of Economic Perspectives 69 (2006). 6 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2004 Green Book: Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 

Means (2004), K–10—K–12. 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Making America Stronger: A Profile of the Food Stamp Program (2005). 8 Edgar K. Browning, Commentaries (on papers in a section entitled ‘‘Where Do We Go from 

Here?’’), in Colin D. Campbell, ed., Income Redistribution 207, 209 (1977). 9Leonard E. Burman & Deborah I. Kobes, EITC Reaches More Families than TANF, Food 

Stamps, Tax Notes, March 17, 2003, at 1769. 10 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Stamp Program Participation and Costs web page at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm. 

percent of Americans were poor before taxes and transfers. 4 After taxes and transfers, the Census Bureau estimated that just 10.3 percent of Americans had ‘‘disposable income’’ that left them in poverty. 

On the other hand, a recent comparative study found much more modest effects 

for the U.S. tax and transfer system. 5 That study estimated that our current tax 

and transfer system reduced the poverty rate of two-parent families by just 0.5 percentage points in 2000, from 13.7 to 13.2 percent. That was a mere 3.6 percent reduction in two-parent poverty rates, compared with an average reduction of 44 percent across all 11 high-income countries studied (including the United States). 

Making Welfare Work 

The current system of transfer and tax programs for low-income workers is unnecessarily complicated, inequitable, and expensive to administer; and it needs to be 

reformed. In that regard, the Ways and Means Committee recently identified 85 different anti-poverty programs providing everything from cash aid to energy assistance. 6 Each program has its own eligibility criteria and administrative system. Not 

surprisingly, many low-income Americans never receive the benefits to which they 

are entitled. For example, less than 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps actually receive them. 7

Faced with this much complexity and overlap, we are unlikely to achieve any 

meaningful reform of the welfare system by simply, in Edgar K. Browning’s words, 

‘‘trying to patch up each one of the innumerable and uncountable programs.’’ 8

Instead, we should replace most of the current system with a system of refundable 

tax credits and work supports. The general idea is to ‘‘cash out’’ as many welfare 

programs as possible and use that money to help pay for refundable tax credits. 

These refundable tax credits could replace personal exemptions, standard deductions, and the many other child and family benefits in the current income tax system. And these tax credits could also replace all or a portion of most welfare benefits. Moreover, the money generated as a result of administrative savings from combining these tax breaks and welfare programs into refundable tax credits could also 

be used for financing. 

For example, imagine a simple integrated tax and transfer system with $2,000 per 

person refundable tax credits, $2,000 per worker refundable earned income credits 

(computed as 20 percent of the first $10,000 of earned income), and two tax rates: 

20 percent of the first $50,000 of income and 35 percent on income above $50,000. 

These refundable tax credits should be paid out on a monthly basis. Each individual would present something like the current IRS Form W–4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, to her employer—or to a bank. Employees would then 

receive advance payment of their credits from their employers in the form of reduced withholding, while other beneficiaries would have their payments directly deposited into their bank accounts. 

This new comprehensive tax and transfer system would be simpler than the current system. It would encourage low-skilled workers to enter and remain in the 

workforce. It would minimize marriage penalties. And it would help ensure that 

low-income families actually get their benefits. Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families currently reaches just 52 percent of eligible families. 9 On the other hand, 

the earned income tax credit reaches 86 percent of eligible households, and it does 

so without any welfare stigma or loss of privacy. 

As an initial step, we should cash out food stamps. Like most welfare programs, 

the Food Stamp Program has arcane eligibility criteria and baffling administrative 

procedures, and the program has high administrative costs. We should repeal the 

Food Stamp Program and use its $32 billion-a-year appropriation to help pay for 

refundable tax credits. 10


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
129 

11See, e.g., Jonathan Barry Forman, Making Universal Health Care Work, 19(1) St. Thomas 

Law Review 137–149 (Fall 2006); Michael Calabrese & Lauri Rubiner, Universal Coverage, Universal Responsibility: A Roadmap to Make Coverage Affordable for All Americans 6 (Washington, 

DC: New America Foundation, Working Paper No. 1, 2004). 12 U.S. Census Bureau, Census Bureau Revises 2004 and 2005 Health Insurance Coverage Estimates (Press Release No. CB07–45, 2007). 

Next, we should cash out low-income housing programs. Instead of providing a 

small fraction of low-income families with rental subsidies or mortgage-interest subsidies, we should give all low-income families $2,000 per person tax credits and let 

them choose their own housing. 

We should also expand the child and dependent tax credit and make it refundable. Under current law, a taxpayer can claim a credit of up to 35 percent of employment-related child care expenses—up to $1,050 a year for one child under the age 

of 13 or up to $2,100 a year for two or more qualifying children. Because the credit 

is not refundable, however, it is of little or no value to low-income families with children. To help low-income families with their child care expenses, the credit should 

reimburse low-income families for 50 percent, or even 80 percent, of their child care 

expenses, up to, say, $4,000 per child. 

Finally, we should use refundable tax credits to help provide universal health care 

coverage. 11 According to the Census Bureau, 44.8 million people, 15.3 percent of the 

population, were without health insurance in 2005, including 27.3 million Americans between 18 and 64 years old who worked during the year. 12 We should require 

everyone to have an adequate but basic level of health care coverage. That coverage 

could be paid for with a combination of employer and employee contributions and 

refundable tax credits calculated on a sliding scale based on need. 

In a complex society like ours, economic rewards are determined by a combination 

of market forces and government policies. Markets arise automatically from the economic interactions among people and institutions. Here and there, government policies intervene to influence the operations of those markets and to shape the outcomes that result from market transactions. 

To be sure, it will take more than just a system of refundable tax credits to solve 

the problem of poverty in America. We would also need to provide additional benefits to individuals who are not able to work. For example, many elderly and disabled 

individuals would need additional cash benefits. Those additional benefits could continue to come in the form of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, or they 

could be distributed through additional refundable tax credits. 

Finally, an effective welfare system would need to provide services to at least 

some beneficiaries. Education, training, job-search and placement, and counseling 

services are but a few that come to mind. 

All in all, a comprehensive system of $2,000 per person refundable tax credits, 

$2,000 per worker tax credits, child care tax credits, health care tax credits, and 

other work supports would lead to dramatic reductions in poverty and inequality in 

the United States. 

f 

Statement of Matthew Melmed, Zero To Three Policy Center 

I am pleased to submit the following written testimony on behalf of ZERO TO 

THREE. My name is Matthew Melmed. For the last 12 years I have been the Executive Director of ZERO TO THREE, a national non-profit organization that has 

worked to advance the healthy development of America’s babies and toddlers for 

close to 30 years. I would like to start by thanking the Subcommittee for its interest 

in examining proposals to reduce poverty and for providing me the opportunity to 

discuss the interaction between poverty and the healthy development of our Nation’s 

infants and toddlers and how federal policy can help break the intergenerational 

cycle of poverty. 

Some may wonder why babies matter in public policy. Surely they are the province of their parents or caregivers. Yet, public policies often affect very young children, policies that are sometimes created with little thought as to their consequences for this age group. In addition, many policies focus on the effects of ignoring the needs of infants and toddlers, for example, by having to address the cognitive gaps between low-income preschoolers and their more affluent peers or providing intensive special education services for problems that may have begun as 

much milder developmental delays left untreated in a young baby. Mr. Chairman, 

my message to you is that providing supports to families of young children now can 

increase self-sufficiency and promote long-term benefits for both adults and our 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
130 

1Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6Douglas-Hall, Ayona., Chau, Michelle., and Koball, Heather. 2006. Basic facts about low-income children: Birth to age 3. September 2006. http://www.nccp.org/media/ecp06b-text.pdf ( 

accessed February 5, 2007). 7 Ibid. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Ibid. 

10 Ibid. 11 National Center for Children in Poverty. 1999. Poverty and Brain Development in Early 

Childhood. http://www.nccp.org/media/pbd99-text.pdf (accessed February 6, 2007). 

youngest children. Simply put, babies and their families can’t wait—we know that 

early intervention and prevention work best and we know that living in poverty can 

increase parental stress and compromise the healthy development of young children. 

We need policies that support parents and other caregivers in providing young children with the strong foundation they need for healthy development. 

The early years create an important foundation for later school and life success. 

We know from the science of early childhood development that infancy and 

toddlerhood are times of intense intellectual engagement. 1 During this time—a remarkable 36 months—the brain undergoes its most dramatic development, and children acquire the ability to think, speak, learn, and reason. All babies and toddlers 

need positive early learning experiences to foster their intellectual, social, and emotional development and to lay the foundation for later school success. Research 

shows that it is these early experiences and warm, loving relationships that form 

‘‘both the foundation and scaffold on which cognitive, linguistic, emotional, social, 

and moral development unfold.’’ 2 These years may be even more critical for young 

children living in poverty. 

One of the most consistent associations in developmental science is between economic hardship and compromised child development. 3 The malleability of young 

children’s development and the overwhelming importance of the family (rather than 

school or peer) context suggest that economic conditions in early childhood may be 

far more important for shaping children’s ability, behavior, and achievement than 

conditions later in childhood. 4 Lower-income infants and toddlers are at greater risk 

than middle to high-income infants and toddlers for a variety of poorer outcomes 

and vulnerabilities such as later school failure, learning disabilities, behavior problems, mental retardation, developmental delay, and health impairments. 5 Babies 

and toddlers living in high-risk environments need additional supports to promote 

their healthy growth and development. 

Congress must consider the unique needs of very young children and their families who are living in poverty. Policies should help attack the intergenerational cycle 

of poverty by laying the foundations for early learning and improving prospects of 

later school success on the part of the children. We know that intervening early in 

the life of a child at-risk for poor development can help minimize the impacts of 

these risks and have the potential to improve outcomes for current and future generations. We must ensure that infants and toddlers living in poverty have access 

to quality, developmentally appropriate early learning programs such as Early Head 

Start or quality child care to help ensure that they are ready for school. We must 

also ensure that infants, especially those living in poverty, have time at home with 

their parents in the first months of life. 

Portrait of Infants and Toddlers Living in Poverty 

There are more than 12 million infants and toddlers living in the United States. 

Twenty-one percent—2.6 million—live in poor families. 6 After a decade of decline, 

the percentage of children under the age of 3 living in low-income families is on the 

rise again. 7 Between 2000 and 2005, the number of children of all ages who were 

poor increased by 11 percent. 8 During the same period, the number of infants and 

toddlers who were poor increased by 15 percent. 9 It is important to note that young 

children are disproportionately impacted by economic stress. Forty-three percent of 

children under the age of 3—5.2 million—live in low-income families (defined as 

below 200 percent of poverty). 10

The environmental stresses to which these children are more likely to be exposed, 

such as inadequate nutrition, substance abuse, maternal depression, exposure to environmental toxins, and trauma/abuse can all negatively influence their development. 11 For example, the existence of maternal depression and other adult mental 

health disorders can negatively affect children if parents are not capable of proVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
131 

12 Cohen, Julie, Onunaku, Ngozi, Clothier, Steffanie, and Poppe, Julie. 2005. Helping young 

children succeed: Strategies to promote early childhood social and emotional development. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures and ZERO TO THREE. 13O’Hara, Michael W. 1994. Postpartum depression: Causes and consequences. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag Inc. 14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2003. Early Head Start Evaluation and Research Project, Research to practice: Depression in the 

lives of Early Head Start families. Washington, DC. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ 

ehs_resrch/reports/dissemination/research_briefs/research_brief_depression.pdf (accessed May 

10, 2007). 15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2002. Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts 

of Early Head Start. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs-resrch/reports/impactsexesum/impacts-execsum.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006). U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 2006. Research to practice: Preliminary findings from the Early Head Start prekindergarten followup. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs-resrch/reports/prekindergarten-followup/prekindergarten-followup.pdf 

(accessed October 23, 2006). 16 Ibid. 

viding consistent sensitive care, emotional nurturance, protection and the stimulation that young children need. 12 Maternal depression, anxiety disorders, and other 

forms of chronic depression affect approximately 10 percent of mothers with young 

children 13—this number is even higher for families in poverty. In fact, findings at 

enrollment from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project indicate 

that 52 percent of mothers reported enough depressive symptoms to be considered 

clinically depressed. 14 Early and sustained exposure to the aforementioned risks 

can influence the physical architecture of the developing brain, preventing babies 

and toddlers from fully developing the neural pathways and connections that facilitate later learning. 

Early Head Start: A Beacon of Hope for Babies Living in Poverty 

Comprehensive high quality early learning programs for infants and toddlers, 

such as Early Head Start, can help to protect against the multiple adverse influences that may hinder their development across all domains. Very young children 

living in poverty are more at-risk for a variety of poor outcomes than low-income 

families. Programs like Early Head Start not only set the stage for later school readiness and success, but also for the parent’s road to self-sufficiency. 

Research from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, and its 

companion follow-up results, concluded that the program is making a positive difference in areas associated with children’s success in school, family self-sufficiency, 

and parental support of child development. For example, Early Head Start produced 

statistically significant, positive impacts on standardized measures of children’s cognitive and language development. A smaller percentage of Early Head Start children scored in the ‘‘at-risk’’ range of developmental functioning. Early Head Start 

children also demonstrated more positive approaches to learning than control group 

children and were more likely to attend formal preschool programs than control 

group children. 15

Early Head Start also had significant impacts for parents, promoting family selfsufficiency and parental support of child development. Early Head Start children 

had more positive interactions with their parents than control group children. They 

engaged their parents more and parents rated their children as lower in aggressive 

behavior than control parents did. Early Head Start parents were also more emotionally supportive and less detached than control group parents and provided significantly more support for language and learning than control group parents. In addition, Early Head Start significantly facilitated parents’ progress toward self-sufficiency. Although there were not meaningful increases in income, there was increased parental participation in education and job-training activities. Overall, impacts were particularly large for families that enrolled during pregnancy, African 

American families, and those with a moderate number of demographic risk factors 

(lacked a high school education, single parent, teen parent, received public assistance, not employed or in school). 16

In the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project follow-up results, which 

measured progress as the children entered kindergarten, a new benefit emerged for 

parents—a reduction in their risk of depression. At enrollment, and at age 3, there 

had been a high level of maternal depression in both the Early Head Start and control group parents. Early Head Start did not have an immediate impact on depressive symptoms, but did have positive impacts on the parent-child interactions of depressed parents. And two years after the end of the program, former Early Head 

Start parents reported fewer symptoms of depression, allowing parents to have more 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
132 

17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2006. Research to practice: Preliminary findings from the Early Head Start prekindergarten followup. 18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2003. Early Head Start Evaluation and Research Project, Research to practice: Depression in the 

lives of Early Head Start families. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 2006. Research to practice: Preliminary findings from the Early 

Head Start prekindergarten followup. 19 Note: 61,243 is the exact number of children under three served by Early Head Start in 

Fiscal Year 2005. Head Start Program Information Report for the 2004–2005 Program Year, 

Early Head Start Programs Only. Retrieved October 23, 2006. Note: 2,552,000 children under 

three in the U.S. live below the federal poverty level. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Current population survey, 2006 annual social and economic supplement. POV34: Single year of age—Poverty 

status: 2005. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/pov/new34-100-01.htm. (accessed October 

23, 2006). 20Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23Schumacher, Rachel, Hamm, Katie, Goldstein, Anne, and Lombardi, Joan. 2006. Starting 

off right: Promoting child development from birth in state early care and education initiatives. 

Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy and ZERO TO THREE. 24Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. 

positive responses to their children. 17 This new finding is significant given the link 

between poverty and depression, the association of depression with poorer child outcomes, and the fact that more than half of mothers reported enough depressive 

symptoms to be considered clinically depressed when they enrolled in Early Head 

Start. 18

The experience of Early Head Start suggests that parents of young children can 

be engaged in activities that are good for their own development as well as that of 

their children—if resources are available. Although the benefits of Early Head Start 

are clear, the program is only reaching a small proportion of at-risk children and 

families. Currently, only 10 percent of the overall Head Start budget is used to 

serve 61,243 low-income families with infants and toddlers in the Early Head Start 

program—less than three percent of those eligible. 19 In order to ensure that the 

program can serve more eligible babies, Congress must increase the Early Head 

Start set-aside to at least 20 percent over five years and expand funding for Head 

Start to make those increases a reality. We can’t wait until these at-risk children 

are already behind at age four to intervene. Investing early in the future of at-risk 

families and their children can have positive long-term benefits in our efforts to 

break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. 

Quality Child Care for At-Risk Infants and Toddlers 

Most proposals aimed at reducing poverty look to promoting family self-sufficiency 

through meaningful employment. Yet, it is particularly difficult for mothers with 

young children living in poverty to afford child care because of the kinds of jobs they 

tend to have (i.e. service jobs), the nontraditional hours they are often required to 

work, and the poor quality child care that is available. Young children living in poverty are much more likely to have a mother who works nontraditional hours compared with young children living above the poverty line. 20 Service jobs, which often 

entail very low wages, few benefits and nontraditional work hours, are disproportionately filled by less-educated women who now comprise a large group of mothers 

who are entering the labor force as a result of welfare reform and federal work requirements. 21

Second only to the immediate family, child care is the context in which early 

childhood development most frequently unfolds, starting in infancy. 22 According to 

2005 data, 42 percent of one-year-olds and 53 percent of one-to-two-year-olds have 

at least one regular non-parental care arrangement. 23 The increase in the number 

of working parents with babies and toddlers comes at a time when science has demonstrated the critical importance of supporting the development and learning of children ages birth to three, and makes the need for quality child care even more significant. 

The evidence associating the quality of infant and toddler care with early cognitive and language outcomes ‘‘is striking in consistency.’’ 24 High quality child care 

is associated with outcomes that all parents want to see in their children, ranging 

from cooperation with adults to the ability to initiate and sustain positive exchanges 

with peers, to early competence in math and reading—all of which are key ingrediVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
133 

25 Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. 1995. Cost, quality and child outcomes in 

child care centers, Public Report, 2nd edition. Denver, CO: Denver Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver. 26Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 

ents to later school success. However, more than 40 percent of infants and toddlers 

are in child care rooms of poor quality. 25

Research indicates that the strongest effects of quality child care are found with 

at-risk children—children from families with the fewest resources and under the 

greatest stress. 26 Yet, at-risk infants and toddlers who may benefit the most from 

high-quality child care are unlikely to receive it—they receive some of the poorest 

quality care that exists in communities across the United States. 27 Poor quality 

child care for at-risk children may diminish inborn potential and lead to poorer developmental outcomes. 28

Congress should ensure that all babies and toddlers, particularly those living in 

poverty, have access to quality child care. An increase in federal funding for child 

care would lead to increased investments in quality and would help to ensure that 

more low-income infants and toddlers have access to quality child care settings to 

allow parents to reach and maintain self-sufficiency while being assured that their 

children are in safe nurturing environments. More funding needs to be directed specifically to improving the quality of care for infants and toddlers, and providing professional development opportunities with infant-toddler content for early childhood 

staff who work with this age group. 

The Importance of Unhurried Time 

The need for infants, especially, to spend time with their parents should be balanced against society’s goal of moving adults quickly into the workforce. In addition 

to examining the costs of providing quality child care for at-risk infants and toddlers, we must also examine the importance of unhurried time during the early 

years. 

According to a groundbreaking report released by the National Academies of 

Science, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, parents structure the experience and shape the environment within which a 

young child’s early development unfolds. 29 Infants and toddlers need unhurried 

time with their parents to form the critical relationships with them that will serve 

as the foundation for social, emotional, and cognitive development. The better parents know their children, the more readily they will recognize even the most subtle 

cues that indicate what their children need to promote their healthy growth and development. For example, early on infants are learning to regulate their eating and 

sleeping patterns and their emotions. If parents can recognize and respond to their 

baby’s cues, they will be able to soothe the baby, respond to his or her cues, and 

make the baby feel safe and secure in the world. Trust and emotional security enable a baby to explore with confidence and communicate with others—critical characteristics that impact early learning and later school readiness. 

At-risk infants and toddlers in particular need time with their parents because 

their early attachments can help serve as a buffer against the impact of the multiple risk factors they may face. Early attachments are critical for infants and toddlers because a positive early relationship, especially with a parent, reduces a young 

child’s fear in novel or challenging situations, thereby enabling her to explore with 

confidence and to manage stress and also strengthen a young child’s sense of competence and efficacy. 30 In addition, early attachments set the stage for other relationships, foster the exploratory behavior that is so critical to early learning, and 

play an important role in shaping a young child’s ability to react to stressful situations. 31

The need for time with infants has direct relevance to welfare to work policies, 

and Congress should consider the developmental needs of infants and toddlers in 

shaping these policies as proposals to reduce poverty are examined. Excessive mandatory work requirements for low-income parents who are receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) make unhurried time difficult. While states have 

the option of exempting parents with infants from work requirements, many do not 

take advantage of this option or exempt these parents for only a few months. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
134 

32 Ibid. 

There is evidence to suggest that long hours of maternal employment in the 

child’s first year, can be a negative factor for infant development. 32 Finally, we 

know almost nothing about how the TANF program with its work requirements has 

affected infants and toddlers, for good or ill. Some studies have looked at the impact 

of TANF on older children, but ignore the impacts on the youngest. I urge Congress 

to require research into the impacts this program has on the well-being of infants 

and toddlers. 

Conclusion 

During the first three years of life, children rapidly develop foundational capabilities—cognitive, social and emotional—on which subsequent development builds. 

These years are even more important for infants and toddlers living in poverty. All 

young children should be given the opportunity to succeed in school and in life. We 

know that access to comprehensive, high-quality, developmentally appropriate programs and services—whether Early Head Start or child care—can serve as a protective factor for at-risk infants and toddlers. We also know that all babies, especially 

those at-risk, need unhurried time in the first months of life with their parents. 

Too often, the effect of our overall policy emphasis is to wait until at-risk children 

are already behind developmentally before significant investments are made to address their needs. I urge the Subcommittee to change this pattern and invest in atrisk infants and toddlers early on, when that investment can have the biggest payoff—preventing problems or delays that become more costly to address as the children grow older. We know that the early years represent an unparalleled window 

of opportunity to support very young children. We do not need to accept that vulnerable children will inevitably have already fallen behind at age four and then provide 

special education and intensive pre-kindergarten services to help them play catch 

up. We know what at-risk babies need to help them grow up healthy and ready to 

learn. 

Providing supports to low-income at-risk families will have a trickle down effect 

on our youngest children and thereby have even more positive long-term benefits 

in our efforts to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. I urge the Subcommittee to consider the very unique needs of babies living in poverty as you address proposals to reduce poverty. 

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to our Nation’s at-risk infants, 

toddlers and families. 

f 

Statement of New America Foundation 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony in reference to the 

subcommittee’s hearing on proposals to reduce poverty in the United States. Below 

we outline an anti-poverty policy agenda that seeks to move beyond traditional income supports in helping families achieve true economic self-sufficiency through personal asset ownership. A comprehensive listing of policy options to promote savings 

and asset ownership by low- and moderate-income Americans is available in The Assets Agenda 2007, available upon request and accessible at www.newamerica.net 

and www.assetbuilding.org. 

American families who subsist at or below the federal poverty line face lives characterized by tremendous volatility. A steady stream of earned income can be instantly disrupted by illness or personal injury, leaving many families at the brink 

of complete destitution. Savings and asset ownership can provide low-income families with the financial cushion they need to weather unexpected income shocks, especially as they work to move from public assistance to self-sufficiency. Assets and 

savings can also be leveraged to provide access to quality forms of credit that is otherwise unavailable. While an asset-based approach to poverty alleviation is meant 

to compliment-and not replace—traditional forms of income support, it is personal 

asset ownership that has the potential to provide low-income families with a new 

path out of poverty in 21st century economy. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
135 

1 Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). 

2 Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). 

3 Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), page 251. 

4 Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), page 253. 

5 Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), page 253. 

6 Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), page 253. 

7 Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). 

8Di (2003). 

9 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2007). 

Ownership of Assets 

Mean Wealth Holdings by Wealth Class* 

Wealth Class 2004 

Top Fifth $1,822.60 

Bottom Four-Fifths $ 82.50 

Fourth 243.6 

Middle 81.9 

Second 14.4 

Lowest -11.4 

Median $ 77.90 

Average $ 430.50 

*in thousands of dollars 

Source: Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 

(2006), pp. 253. 

To understand the inherent challenge in creating an inclusive ownership society, 

it is useful to consider what ownership in America looks like today. Recent data 

from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances estimates that the median 

family net worth in 2004 was $93,100, and the mean value was $448,200. 1 Between 

2001 and 2004, the median family net worth rose 1.5 percent, while the mean value 

grew 6.3 percent, indicating larger increases in net worth for higher-wealth households. 2 Over an extended period of time, there has been a faster increase in average 

wealth relative to median wealth, indicating that those at the top of the wealth distribution have increased their share. This is reflected in the ratio of median-to-average wealth, which sunk to 0.18 in 2004, down from 0.27 in 1962. 3

The average wealth of the top 1 percent of wealth holders grew from $13.5 million 

in 2001 to $14.8 million in 2004, a 3 percent annual increase. 4 During this same 

period, the average wealth for households between the 40 percent and 60 percent 

of wealth holders increased by 0.8 percent annually, from $80,000 to $81,900. 5

Meanwhile, the bottom fifth of U.S. households sunk further into debt; the average 

debt of this cohort increased to $11,400 in 2004. 6

Aided by policy incentives, Americans build wealth in both financial and non-financial assets. Between 2001 and 2004, financial assets as a share of total assets 

fell 6.3 percentage points, to 35.7 percent. This is the lowest share recorded by the 

survey since 1995. 

Of the non-financial assets, the primary residence continues to account for the 

largest share. The median value of the home was estimated to be $246,800 in 2004 

for those families that were homeowners; a figure that had increased from 2001 by 

well over 20 percent. 7 This demonstrates that home equity continues to play a central role in asset holdings, and for lower-income and minority families that are 

homeowners, homeownership makes up a large share of their asset holdings. While 

their homeownership rates are lower, home equity makes up 77 percent of total assets for lower-income families and 55 percent of total assets for minority families. 8

However, this past year the state of the U.S. housing market began turning away 

from its recent record setting pace. The homeownership rate ended 2006 at 68.8 percent, down from its historic high of 69.0 percent, set in 2004. The minority homeownership rate, which historically has lagged the overall population, remains just 

under 50 percent, although the Hispanic homeownership has increased steadily over 

the past few years—2005 marked the first time that Hispanics were more likely to 

own their own homes than Blacks. 9 Increased volatility in housing markets in the 

past year is expected to lower these rates in the year to come and may undermine 

the asset holding of many families. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
136 

10 U.S. Housing Market Conditions, 4th Quarter 2006 (2007). 11 Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). Includes only all employment-based defined contribution plans plus IRAs and Keogh plans, but not defined benefit plans. 12Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), page 268. 13 Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). 14Wolff (2004); Kochar (2004). 

Unfortunately, many families have spent down the home equity they have accumulated in recent years by taking out heavily marketed low-interest home equity 

loans. The sharp increase in household debt held in home equity loans since 2000 

presents a potentially troubling scenario if the housing market slowdown of late 

2006 continues to cool, and home prices begin to stagnate or fall in 2007. Data from 

HUD’s U.S. Housing Market Conditions report reveal that over the last year mortgage interest rates have increased, along with mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures; home sales are down; and the recent increases in home prices have slowed 

dramatically. 10

While home equity represents the single largest component of household wealth, 

families store resources in a variety of other assets, such as bank accounts, stock 

investments, and retirement accounts. The percentage of families holding assets 

varies considerably. It is estimated that in 2004 over 91 percent of families had 

money stored in checking or savings accounts, while only 20.7 percent owned stock 

directly in a company. Furthermore, 15 percent owned shares of a mutual fund, 17.6 

percent owned savings bonds, and 24.2 percent had assets held in a life insurance 

policy. Meanwhile, slightly less than half of all families (49.7 percent) had a personal retirement account, such as an IRA or a 401(k). 11 This figure represents a 

decline from three years earlier when the percentage of families owning a retirement account exceeded 52 percent. 

Percentage of Families Holding Assets by Asset Type, 2004 

Income Percentile Stocks Mutual 

Funds 

Savings 

Bonds 

Retirement Accounts 

Bank Accounts Life Insurance 

Less than 20 percent 5.1% 3.6% 6.2% 10.1% 75.5% 14.0% 

20 percent–39.9 percent 8.2% 7.6% 8.8% 30.0% 87.3% 19.2% 

40 percent–59.9 percent 16.3% 12.7% 15.4% 53.4% 95.9% 24.2% 

60 percent–79.9 percent 28.2% 18.6% 26.6% 69.7% 98.4% 29.8% 

80 percent–89.9 percent 35.8% 26.2% 32.3% 81.9% 99.1% 29.5% 

90 percent–100 percent 55.0% 39.1% 29.9% 88.5% 100.0% 38.1% 

All Families 20.7% 15.0% 17.6% 49.7% 91.3% 24.2% 

Source: Bucks, Kennickell, and Moore (2006). 

The percentage of families holding assets is strongly correlated with their incomes. Compared to those households in the top 10 percent of income, households 

in the bottom forty percent of income were far less likely to own stock, retirement 

accounts, and transaction accounts. The differences in retirement asset holdings are 

especially revealing. The percentage of families owning a retirement plan drops to 

10.1 percent for families making $18,900 or less, while well over 70 percent of those 

making more than $53,600 have a retirement savings account. In 2004, 27.2 percent 

of households headed by someone aged 47 to 64 did not have enough retirement savings, including social security benefits, to replace half their current income. 12 For 

Black and Hispanic households, this figure jumps to 39 percent. 

Beyond differences in the type of assets households own, there are also differences 

in how much they own. The mean net worth is over $448,000 but the top 20 percent 

of families by income own over 80 percent of the Nation’s wealth. 13 Families in the 

bottom 40 percent by income own approximately 5 percent of the Nation’s wealth. 

Another dimension with which to examine wealth holdings is race. In general, minority households own less than ten cents for every dollar of wealth owned by a typical non-Hispanic White family. 14 Even though their income is roughly two-thirds 

of that of White families, their wealth is only 10 percent as much. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
137 

15For an analysis of the President’s 2008 budget proposals, see The Assets Report 2007: A Review, Assessment, and Forecast of Federal Assets Policy, available at AssetBuilding.org. 16Sherraden (1991). 17Shapiro (2004). 

Shares of Wealth Ownership by Wealth Class, 1962–2004 

Wealth Class 1962 1983 1989 1998 2001 2004 

Top Fifth 81% 81.3% 83.5% 83.4% 84.4% 84.7% 

Bottom Four-Fifths 19.1 18.7 16.5 16.6 15.6 15.3 

Fourth 13.4 12.6 12.3 11.9 11.3 11.3 

Middle 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.5 3.9 3.8 

Second 1 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 

Lowest -0.7 -0.3 -1.5 -0.6 -0.4 -0.5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Source: Analysis by Ed Wolff in Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto (2006), pp. 252. 

The promise of an ownership society will dissipate if it is used only to further concentrate the wealth of those already financially secure. The challenge remains to 

significantly broaden access to asset ownership by those who own little or nothing. 

The current proposals in the administration’s 2008 budget that focus on Social Security, health savings, and retirement accounts fail to get us all the way there. 15 The 

following ideas represent a set of proposals that would. 

1. Establish Children’s Savings Accounts 

One of the most novel and promising ways to achieve a universal, progressive 

asset building system over time would be to provide each generation of children a 

restricted, start-in-life asset account at birth, an idea first proposed by Michael 

Sherraden and, separately, by former IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg. 16 These accounts would establish a universal platform and infrastructure to facilitate future 

savings and lifelong asset accumulation. While every child would have an account, 

it would especially benefit the 26 percent of White children, 52 percent of Black children, and 54 percent of Hispanic children who start life in households without any 

significant asset holdings. 17

Different versions of children’s savings accounts have been proposed over the last 

several years by members of Congress; most, however, are not progressive and are 

focused on building only retirement assets (most notably former Sen. Bob Kerrey’s 

‘‘KidSave’’ proposal). However, in the last couple of years, proposals have emerged 

from both Democrats and Republicans for progressively funded children’s savings 

accounts that could be used for buying a home and going to college, in addition to 

retirement. Outside the U.S., the U.K.’s Child Trust Fund is providing every newborn with a children’s savings account and has already established well over 2 million accounts, and there are comparable programs emerging in Korea, Singapore, 

and Canada. Additionally, the privately-funded SEED Initiative is operating in 12 

sites across the U.S., and is providing highly valuable insights into policy design. 

Below are existing congressional proposals to establish Children’s Savings Accounts, including three that were introduced in the 109th Congress (2005–2006); 

similar bills have been or are expected to be introduced in 2007. 

America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act Every child born after December 31, 2006 issued a Social Security number would have a KIDS Account opened for them automatically. Each account would 

be endowed with a one-time $500 contribution, and children in households earning 

below national median income would be eligible for a supplemental contribution of 

up to $500. Additional savings incentives include tax-free earnings, matched savings 

for eligible families, and financial education. Senate bill 868 is authored by Senators 

Santorum (R–PA), Corzine (D–NJ), Schumer (D–NY), and DeMint (R–SC); House 

bill 1767 is authored by Reps. Ford (D–TN), Kennedy (D–RI), and English (R–PA). 

ASPIRE Act will be reintroduced both in the House and the Senate. 

Young Saver’s Accounts Roth IRAs for kids—called ‘‘Young Saver’s Accounts’’— 

would allow parents, for the first time, to direct contributions to Roth IRA accounts 

for their children, not just for themselves. YSAs were introduced by Senator Max 

Baucus (D–MT) in March as part of the Savings Competitiveness Act of 2006, and 

a similar provision was introduced in July 2005 in the House by Rep. Connie Mack 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
138 

(R–FL) as part of the Lifetime Prosperity Act. YSAs are anticipated to be included 

in savings bills in this Congress. 

401Kids Introduced as HR 5314 by Rep. Clay Shaw Jr. (R–FL) and other House 

Republicans, this proposal would convert Coverdell Education Savings Accounts into 

‘‘401Kids Savings Accounts’’ which would have expanded uses and the ability to be 

rolled over into a Roth IRA. This proposal would make it possible for a restricted, 

tax-advantaged savings account to be opened in a child’s name as early as birth, 

with up to $2,000 of after tax contributions permitted a year. The funds could be 

used for the K–12 and post-secondary education expenses currently allowed under 

Coverdell Education Savings Account rules. Additionally, the accounts could also be 

used for a first home purchase, or rolled over into a Roth IRA for retirement. The 

bill has been reintroduced in the 110th Congress as H.R. 87 by Rep. Biggert (R– 

IL). 

PLUS Accounts As proposed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R–AL), every U.S. citizen 

born after December 31, 2007 would have a PLUS Account opened for them automatically by the Federal Government endowed with a one-time $1,000 contribution. 

Beginning January 1, 2009 individual PLUS accounts would be established for all 

working U.S. citizens under the age of 65 with a mandatory 1 percent of each worker’s paycheck withheld pre-tax and automatically deposited into their account (workers could voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent). Employers would also be required 

to contribute at least 1 percent (and up to 10 percent) of earnings. No withdrawals 

from PLUS accounts could be made until accountholder reaches the age of 65, although there would be a loan program for pre-retirement uses. Sen. Sessions plans 

to introduce legislation to establish ‘‘PLUS Accounts’’ by the end of March. 

2. Create Savings and Asset Accumulation Incentives for the Working Poor 

Enact an ‘‘EITC Savers Bonus’’ Linked to Existing Tax Credits 

Anyone eligible for the EITC would be eligible for a larger refund if they deposited 

a portion of their refund into an existing savings product, such as an IRA or 529 

College Savings Plan. The savings would be matched on a 1–1 basis, up to $500, 

for the amount contributed. The match would be delivered as a higher EITC refund—an ‘‘EITC Savers Bonus’’—and would be deposited directly into the savings 

product. This may be more politically acceptable than creating a new refundable tax 

credit, and would ensure that the government match is saved directly into the account. Alternatively, taxpayers could report contributions they have made to their 

savings accounts during the year—including contributions to company-sponsored defined contribution plans, IRAs, 529 plans, or U.S. Savings Bonds—on their tax returns and this could trigger a higher EITC amount. The larger refund could then 

be received by the taxpayer or, ideally, it would be re-directed to the specified savings product. The cost of this proposal would depend on the size of the bonus and 

the number of people eligible. Eligibility could be linked to the EITC or the Child 

Tax Credit. 

Improve the Saver’s Credit 

The 2001 tax bill created a new voluntary individual tax credit—the Saver’s Credit—to encourage low-income workers to contribute to existing retirement products 

(IRAs, 401(k)s, etc). The 2006 Pension Protection Act followed through on the administration’s proposal to make the Saver’s Credit permanent and also indexed the 

contribution limits to inflation. However, the credit remains flawed in several important ways. It is not refundable, and it offers only a modest matching contribution. Consequently, it benefits only a small proportion of those technically eligible. 

For example, only about 20 percent of filers get any benefit, while only one in onethousand persons receive the full benefit. Mark Iwry of the Brookings Institution, 

who helped design the Saver’s Credit, suggests three ways to improve the credit: 

(1) make it refundable; (2) expand eligibility—instead of a 50 percent credit that 

phases down to 20 percent for joint filers with AGI over $30,000, the 50 percent 

Saver’s Credit should be expanded to cover joint filers with significantly higher incomes within the middle-income range, for example, up to $60,000, phasing out at 

about $70,000 to $75,000; (3) smooth the phase-down of the credit to resemble IRA 

income eligibility, instead of the ‘‘cliffs’’ now in effect. These would offer a meaningful retirement incentive for families currently left out. 

Expand the List of Products Eligible for the Saver’s Credit 

If the goal is to promote savings for low-income workers in general, and not just 

retirement savings, a range of existing savings products—529s, Coverdells, Health 

Savings Accounts, U.S. Savings Bonds and Individual Development Accounts—could 

be added to the list of products that would trigger the Saver’s Credit. One could cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
139 

18 Cramer (2006). 

tainly argue that one’s health and pre-retirement assets—especially a first home 

and post-secondary education—are critical elements of retirement security. It also 

should be noted that IRAs already permit penalty-free withdrawals for buying a 

first home and post-secondary education. And among low-income savers, data presented in this paper (page 4) shows U.S. Savings Bonds—which are long-term in nature and must be held for at least five years to avoid a penalty at redemption— 

are a more likely choice for saving than stocks or mutual funds. This change, however, would represent a significant philosophical shift in the purpose of the credit. 

The president proposed to make contributions to section 529 college savings plans 

eligible for the Saver’s Credit in the FY 2008 budget. 

3. Establish Savings Products with Default Features that Promote Savings 

Create an Automatic, Accessible, and Flexible National Savings Plan 

Congress could create a national savings plan structure that would be accessible 

to all current workers. Proposed by Reid Cramer of the New America Foundation, 

this saving plan, called AutoSave, could be available to facilitate flexible, pre-retirement savings. 18 Under this plan, employers that make payroll deductions will make 

deposits to the AutoSave system on behalf of their employees; the self-employed 

would be able to make deposits at their discretion. Employers will facilitate automatic deposits. AutoSave will offer a limited set of low-cost investment options, such 

as money market funds or index funds, administered by professional money managers. Money deposited in this system belongs to the individuals, and since deposits 

will be from after-tax dollars, normal tax rules apply. Individuals will have the flexibility to opt-out of the system or withdraw funds at any time. But workers will not 

have to elect to participate. The AutoSave system will assume you are in unless you 

state a preference to get out. A default contribution rate can be set at 2 percent 

of pay. At this rate, someone earning $50,000 a year would have $1,000 diverted 

directly into savings, which could grow with responsible stewardship. Additional targeted incentives could be applied to encourage longer-term savings, but AutoSave 

would be designed to take advantage of one of the most tried and true savings techniques—inertia. 

Enact, and Possibly Match, ‘‘Automatic IRAs’’ 

‘‘Automatic IRAs,’’ developed by the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation and supported by AARP, is aimed at the 71 million workers employed by small 

businesses that do not offer a pension plan to their workers. Firms not offering 

401(k)s, 403(b)s, and the like could instead offer automatic payroll deductions into 

IRAs. Employers would inform employees of this savings option and would have the 

choice to either obtain from each employee a decision to participate or not, or automatically enroll employees (and then allow the employee to opt-out). While low-income workers would likely be reached through this proposal, there are no matching 

funds involved. Under the Auto IRA proposal, introduced in the 109th Congress as 

HR 6210, firms that do set-up Auto-IRAs would qualify for a one-time, small tax 

credit to offset their administrative costs; one could propose that this tax credit 

could be expanded to cover matching funds provided to lower-income employees. 

Make Retirement Savings Plans Universal and Accessible 

Universal 401(k)s, proposed separately by Michael Calabrese of the New America 

Foundation and Gene Sperling of the Center for American Progress, would offer all 

Americans, regardless of their employment status, generous savings incentives and 

automatic savings opportunities that employer-provided 401(k)s now offer their employees. The components of a citizen-based, Universal 401(k) include: (1) $2-to-$1 

government matching contributions for initial savings of low-income families and 

$1-to-$1 matches for middle-income families; (2) a new flat refundable tax credit of 

30 percent for savings done by all workers; and (3) a single, portable account that 

benefits families by continuing to provide strong savings incentives for parents who 

take time off to raise children or who are between jobs. To facilitate deposits into 

Universal 401(k)s, automatic payroll deductions would be offered by employers. For 

very low-income workers who might initially have very small account balances, or 

who are otherwise unable to navigate the process of setting up and managing a private account, a ‘‘clearinghouse’’ (modeled after the federal TSP) could be set up and 

empowered to create ‘‘default’’ accounts for such workers. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
140 

4. Connect Tax Refunds to Savings Products 

Promote the Split Refund Option 

For the first time in 2007, individuals have the opportunity to split their tax refund across three accounts right when they file, using form 8888. Tax time presents 

a unique opportunity for all families, especially low-income households, to grow 

their personal savings account or invest in savings vehicles such as an IRA or 529 

College Savings Plans. Splitting refunds across multiple accounts is a new and exciting opportunity to save at tax time. The IRS should work to educate both individual filers and tax preparers on the split refunds option, encourage tax-payers to 

take advantage of this simple savings mechanism and encourage the financial services industry to make certain products—529 plans and IRAs, especially—more easily 

funded through direct deposit. 

Allow Tax Filers to Open Accounts Directly from their Tax Forms 

Building on the opportunities presented by split refunds to use tax refunds to 

jump-start both a relationship with a financial institution and savings, tax filers 

should be able to open a transaction, saving, or investment (including IRA) account 

directly on their tax forms. Especially for low income families who receive refunds 

and may not have an account—and a savings or investment account in particular— 

with a financial institution, being able to open such an account directly on a tax 

form could make a major difference in the savings take-up rate. The IRS could 

achieve this goal in several ways. For instance, the IRS could solicit proposals for 

private financial institutions to provide low-cost quality accounts nationwide. Or, 

the IRS could create and maintain a web-based directory of financial institutions 

that open low-or no-cost accounts online for tax filers. The directory’s URL address 

would be printed on all tax forms and it would be searchable by zip code. 

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

An expansion of the EITC, in addition to enabling more low-income Americans to 

save, would provide tax relief to lower-income working families. Previous expansions 

of the EITC have proven to be effective at providing work incentives and lifting families out of poverty. A well-crafted expansion would increase the maximum credit 

for working families with three or more children, expand the credit for married, twoearner couples, and expand the credit for families with two or more children. An 

expanded EITC program will create larger tax refunds, which in turn can be linked 

to savings products. An EITC saver’s bonus, described above, would also serve to 

expand the reach of the EITC while at the same time promoting saving and investment. 

Increase Funds to Low-Income Tax Preparation Sites to Support Financial 

Education and Counseling 

Congress should increase federal funding by $50 million to support the expansion 

of important IRS initiatives aimed at low-income families, such as outreach regarding the EITC and the Child Credit. The receipt of tax returns presents an opportunity for low-income families to connect to financial services and products and 

learn about investments and savings. Linking tax preparation with savings and/or 

investment tools, such as 529 college saving plans, would increase asset-building 

knowledge. To meet these goals, tax preparers need resources to (1) hire and train 

counselors and (2) develop software to maintain client information. Policy-makers 

must more adequately fund and support the development of tax preparation sites 

and education efforts to identify families who qualify for such assistance and maximize potential income tax return benefits. In line with these goals, in March 2007 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D–NM) requested $10 million in appropriations for communitybased Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Centers for Fiscal Year 2008. 

5. Make 529 College Savings Plans More Inclusive 

Create a State Innovation Fund 

A variety of state and private sector actors have enacted innovative programs 

within their 529 plans to primarily help low-income children pay for college. For example, a few non-profit organizations have offered matches to families saving for 

college through parallel 529 scholarship accounts. In SEED for Oklahoma Kids, 

1,000 newborns will receive a 529 plan with a starter deposit of $1,000. Financial 

information and matching deposits will be provided as incentives for families to continue to save for a post-secondary education. Coalitions are being formed in states 

such as Kentucky and Michigan to look into the possibilities of universal 529s for 

every child in the state with progressive savings incentives incorporated to help lowincome families. The Federal Government could encourage these types of innovative 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
141 

activities by sponsoring a competitive grant process where states could receive 

awards to help seed these initiatives 

Add 529s to the List of Products Eligible for the Saver’s Credit 

The Saver’s Credit currently provides a 50 percent match—in the form of a nonrefundable tax credit—to low-and moderate-income people who contribute to a retirement account such as a 401(k) or IRA. To further promote savings in general, 

a range of savings products, including 529s, could be added to the list of products 

that trigger this credit; the administration proposed such a change as part of the 

FY 2008 Budget. Certainly one could argue that pre-retirement assets—especially 

a post-secondary education—is a critical element of retirement security, and it 

should be noted that all IRAs already permit tax-and penalty-free withdrawals for 

post-secondary education. 

Support Matching Grants to Low-Income Savers 

Currently 529 plans are largely underutilized by low and middle-income families. 

A number of states have dedicated funds to match savings in 529 plans as an additional incentive for low-income families. These incentives appear to be successful in 

encouraging families to contribute to 529 plans. Seven states—Colorado, Louisiana, 

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Utah—already provide matching 

funds to low-income savers, and Arkansas will begin providing targeted matches in 

2008. 

6. Foster Access to Wealth Building Financial Services 

Fix the Electronic Transfer Account (ETA) and Expand Its Availability 

Currently, the ETA is available only to those Americans who receive a recurring 

federal payment, like Social Security. Approximately 2 percent of federal benefits recipients have opened an ETA. Yet it is estimated that at least 4.5 million federal 

benefit recipients still do not have bank accounts. The take-up rate is low because 

the ETA is not attractive to either consumers or banks. For consumers, the account 

lacks functionality. For banks, there is an insufficient volume of small accounts. The 

Treasury Department should give banks greater flexibility to offer customers a 

range of options with different fee structures, as long as the bank continues to offer 

at least one low-cost option that is available to any federal benefit recipient regardless of past banking history. The need for a basic bank account is high and the ETA 

continues to represent a potentially useful infrastructure for providing access to financial services—particularly if account eligibility guidelines are expanded and 

banks are given greater flexibility to better tailor the product to meet consumers’ 

needs. Further, the ETA should be made available to a broader segment of 

unbanked consumers, especially those who receive tax refunds. 

Strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act and Improve the Service Test 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has been successful in encouraging banks 

and thrifts to provide credit and make investments in communities in which they 

have branches. It has been less successful in ensuring that CRA-regulated institutions are actually serving the transactional, savings and investment needs of residents of low-income communities, and in encouraging those institutions, and their 

credit-providing affiliates, to provide products with appropriately risk-based prices 

and terms in all communities in which they do business. To score well on the service 

tests, banks and thrifts should be required to demonstrate that they not only provide, 

but also effectively market, fairly priced products and services that meet the needs 

of lower-income consumers. And it is time to consider how to both encourage banks 

and thrifts to extend their best lending beyond their assessment areas and to make 

certain that non-prime lending within the holding company family is well-priced and 

on fair terms. 

Increase Accountability and Responsibility for Financial Institutions 

While the Community Reinvestment Act has been quite successful in increasing responsibility and accountability of banks and thrifts to low- and moderate-income 

communities in which they have branches, the financial services world has changed 

dramatically since CRA was enacted in 1977, and those subject to CRA have a smaller and smaller portion of the consumer’s financial ‘‘wallet.’’ Credit unions, mortgage 

bankers and brokers, insurance companies, securities firms and providers of all sorts 

of alternative financial services from check cashing through pawn broking all compete for the consumer’s financial business. While each industry is subject to, for example, laws relating to unfair trade practices, as well as its own distinct laws and 

regulations (with highly variable levels of supervision and enforcement), there is no 

uniform obligation to serve low- and moderate-income consumers and communities 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
142 

and to do it in a manner that is fair to the consumer while profitable, and thus sustainable, to the provider. The on-going debacle in the sub-prime lending industry 

suggests the need to revisit this situation and open the debate on corporate responsibility in all parts of the U.S. financial services sector. 

Capitalize an Innovation Fund to Facilitate R&D Focused on UnderBanked Consumers 

The Treasury Department should create an Innovation Fund to spur systemic 

change throughout the financial services industry by providing seed funding for financial services companies to develop products and services for under-banked consumers. These R&D funds would encourage banks—and other financial services 

firms—to engage in the kind of intensive research and planning that they perform 

to develop products and services for higher income consumers. The fund would seek 

to increase the reach of mainstream financial institutions into the under-banked 

market by encouraging innovation both in how products are structured and in how 

they are marketed and delivered. Ideally, products would bundle multiple functions, 

include a savings feature where feasible, use incentives creatively, and be competitively and responsibly priced. 

Encourage TANF Recipients to Open Bank Accounts 

Having a bank account is often one of the first steps towards building savings and 

assets. One way to assist TANF recipients—many of whom are ‘‘unbanked’’—in this 

regard, while potentially curtailing costs of delivering benefits to recipients, is to 

have benefits electronically transferred to an account. Federal law does not require 

or prohibit electronic delivery of TANF cash assistance. Many states distribute 

TANF cash assistance via electronic benefit transfer (EBT) to a debit or stored-value 

card with access to funds via ATMs. Some states also offer recipients the option to 

have cash benefits directly deposited into a bank account. States that do not have 

a direct deposit option already in place could be encouraged to do so by offering 

bonus awards for states that reach a particular direct deposit threshold and by requiring states to specify in their state plans how they will encourage direct deposit 

of TANF benefits, and partner with financial education programs, free tax counseling programs, and mainstream financial institutions (banks and credit unions) to 

encourage unbanked recipients to open free or low-cost accounts. 

7. Revise Asset Limit Rules in Public Assistance Programs 

Eliminate Asset Limits from Eligibility Considerations 

Eliminating asset limits entirely from certain programs should be considered and 

adopted where appropriate. Because states set the asset limits for TANF and Medicaid, the Federal Government has limited control over asset limits, with discretion 

primarily in the SSI and Food Stamp programs. However, the Federal Government 

could support states that choose to eliminate asset limits and commission research 

on the effects of this reform. 

Reform Existing Asset Limits 

Raise the limit. Asset limits could be raised to a more realistic level in public assistance programs, so that families could save more without being penalized, and 

then indexed to inflation to keep pace with rising costs. The raising of asset limits 

will encourage families to save in a variety of saving products, including Savings 

Bonds. Unlike income limits, which are adjusted upwards on a regular basis, asset 

limits in some programs have remained the same for several decades. In effect, 

asset limits have caused eligibility to become more and more restrictive over time. 

Program funding levels may benefit from the recent change to a more temporary 

focus on administering assistance, but families will benefit more from a long-term 

plan of savings and asset-accumulation 

Index limits to inflation. The asset limits currently used in determining eligibility 

for major income support programs such as Food Stamps and SSI have, in some 

cases, not been updated in more than two decades. Over time, these limits become 

increasingly restrictive as they are not updated to reflect the effects of inflation. Indexing asset limits to inflation will work to ensure that the limits retain their original purchasing power and spare Congress and state legislatures from the need to 

continually legislate an increase. 

Exclude certain asset holdings, such as savings for education and retirement; a 

car; and EITC refunds. Currently, employer sponsored 401(k) plans as well as IRAs 

generally are counted towards asset limits. Families needing to go on temporary 

public assistance therefore may have to spend down these retirement accounts even 

if they face a penalty in doing so. These families, who likely already lack sufficient 

retirement savings, will have even less—making it more likely that they will have 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
143 

19 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2007). 

to rely even more on public assistance once again when they are seniors. In line 

with excluding retirement accounts, contributions to 529s and other restricted education savings plans should also be excluded from eligibility consideration. 

Cars are often overlooked as ‘‘assets’’ because they quickly depreciate in value. 

However, the value of a car should not be measured only by its resale value, but 

by the utility it provides in giving families access to job opportunities across their 

region. This is particularly important for families in areas lacking a convenient public transportation system. 

Finally, low-income workers who receive an EITC refund should be allowed to 

save their refund for up to a year after receipt to pay for unexpected expenses, 

debts, and other purposes. This would help families pay for both expected and unexpected expenses throughout the year and offer greater protection from financial 

emergencies that could cause them to return to public assistance. This one-year 

time period has already been set in the Food Stamp program and the SSI program 

allows the EITC to be disregarded for nine months, so these precedents could be 

expanded to other programs which receive federal funding. 

Reform Asset Limits in the Supplemental Social Security (SSI) and Medicare Programs 

Asset limits in the SSI and Medicare programs currently impose an implicit tax 

of 100 percent on all retirement savings—for every dollar withdrawn for use in retirement, an individual’s benefit is reduced by a one-for-one ratio. Under these program rules, individuals who saved for retirement during their working years are no 

better off than if they had not saved at all. SSI and Medicare asset limits must be 

reformed to restore the incentive for low-income workers to save for retirement by 

removing, or reducing, the penalty for withdrawals from retirement accounts. 19 Additionally, asset limits in SSI and Medicare present a tangible disincentive to save 

for pre-retirement uses, such as skills training, homeownership, or home improvement. SSI recipients, who may be capable or working for short periods, are prohibited from saving more than $2,000; when their disability results in an inability to 

work, these individuals must spend down their savings in order to re-qualify for SSI 

assistance. Not only do asset limits prevent SSI recipients from saving for skills 

training or homeownership these rules also prevent individuals from building a personal safety net through precautionary savings for use in a personal or medical 

emergency. The above recommendations to raise and index asset limits in addition 

to excluding all restricted savings vehicles, could make a tremendous impact on the 

financial security of this population. 

8. Expand Responsible Homeownership Opportunities 

Enact a Refundable First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit 

The years immediately following a home purchase can be ones of financial hardship. Family income is devoted to mortgage payments and many auxiliary expenses 

accrue related to the maintenance and operating of a home. There is often a need 

to help sustain homeownership after the initial purchase. In addition to giving new 

homeowners access to information and services to prevent foreclosure, many homeowners would benefit from getting some financial relief in the years immediately 

after home purchase. A Homebuyers Tax Credit should be available to qualifying 

households for the three years after purchasing their first home, helping families 

sustain homeownership after trying so hard to achieve it. Qualifying households 

would apply for the tax credit directly on their tax returns. The credit would be refundable so it benefits families even with low or no tax liabilities. The benefits 

would appear as a lower tax liability or as a tax refund. 

Increase Use of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program 

The FSS program is one of the Nation’s largest programs designed to help working poor families increase their savings. When earnings increase for Section 8 or 

public housing program participants, their rising rent payments are diverted into 

an escrow account which they can access after achieving self-sufficiency goals. While 

public housing authorities have the ability to open escrow accounts, they are required to identify designated case managers. In recent years, the funding to support 

case managers has been restricted and plagued by bureaucratic complexity. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should stabilize these 

funding streams, increase their capacity to hire case managers and more effectively 

seek partnership with agencies already in the case management business. FSS has 

proven to be a successful model, and HUD should expand it by encouraging local 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
144 

partnerships between organizations with complimentary skill sets. Developing and 

publicizing FSS partnership arrangements will provide support for FSS practitioners by sharing best practices and entrepreneurial approaches to program 

growth. Beyond these reforms, the FSS approach should be dramatically expanded 

upon. The number of participants should double within the next four years. Furthermore, policymakers should consider making the link between increased earnings 

and savings accounts a central feature of the provision of housing assistance. 

Expand Viability of Homeownership Uses from Restricted Accounts 

In recent years the number of tax-preferred savings products which are defined 

by rules that govern contributions and withdrawals has continued to grow. While 

many of these accounts are associated with retirement, they have many pre-retirement allowable uses, including first-time homeownership. Though some have described these uses as ‘‘leakages,’’ accrued savings can be used productively to help 

build a bridge to retirement. Policymakers should consider make these uses more 

robust and valuable, especially by updating the provisions related to first-time 

homeownership. First, policymakers should amend the rules for IRAs and Roth 

IRAs to raise the one time homeownership use allowance from IRAs from $10,000 

to $20,000, which would bring this level up to a more contemporary downpayment 

standard. Second, rules which govern 401(k) and 403(b) plans should be amended 

to permit savers to use their funds for first-time homeownership and make the rules 

consistent with those for IRAs. 

9. Strengthen Laws to Protect Assets Increase the Oversight of the 

Homebuying and Refinancing Market, Especially in the Sub-Prime Sector 

The existing protections for high-cost and other potentially dangerous home loans 

must be improved. This would include prohibiting equity stripping practices, such 

as excessive prepayment penalties and fees for payoff information, modification, or 

late payment; requiring a borrower receive counseling before entering into a highcost loan; and prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses on high-cost loans. Consumers must also be far more effectively informed of all the terms of a loan—especially likely changes in payments arising from expiration of ‘‘teaser’’ rates—and 

lenders required to underwrite to ensure customers can pay after teaser rates expire 

and full amortization begins. More effective state oversight of mortgage brokers and 

others under their jurisdiction is also required. 

Reduce the Cost of Tax Preparation and Restrict the Marketing of Refund 

Anticipation Loans 

The IRS should continue to expand the provision of free electronic filing. Further, 

it should ensure that 1) the free services are easier for eligible tax filers to access 

and navigate; 2) the marketing of Refund Anticipation Loans is limited; and 3) options to open IRAs online are included. 

Promote Strategies to Avoid Foreclosure 

Overall foreclosure levels, and in particular foreclosure levels for sub-prime loans 

have hit record levels, and are expected to continue to increase, damaging not only 

families but also whole communities. Borrowers in trouble need access to both information to enable them to understand the potential for trouble while they still have 

the ability to refinance or to otherwise avoid foreclosure; and to non-predatory alternative mortgage products. In neighborhoods at risk of large numbers of foreclosures, 

lenders should be encouraged to make available homes vacated by borrowers who 

must move at no or low cost to community-based organizations that can resell the 

homes to borrowers who can afford the home, using an affordable mortgage product. 

Modifications to loan contracts (especially those that use pre-payment penalties to 

lock borrowers into loans they cannot pay), securities terms or laws (to allow modification of securities to allow loan prepayment or payment at less than par), or the 

Bankruptcy Code (to allow the secured part of a mortgage obligation to be reduced 

to no more than the value of the house) may also be required. 

Increase Scrutiny of Payday Loans 

Payday loans—which are short-term, low-dollar loans secured by a post-dated 

check—have become a serious asset-depleting type of lending, especially in moderateincome, working communities. Auto title lenders and pawn shops serve similar functions. While some states have been able to enact laws that limit or reduce payday 

lending, others have enacted more permissive statutes. Following revelations about 

the damage this type of lending was having upon the military, in 2006 Congress enacted the Talent Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, which establishes 

strict standards for consumer lending to members of the military and their dependVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:49 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 043761 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\43761.XXX 43761

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
145 

ents. While the Department of Defense must write implementing regulations before 

the law goes into effect in October 2007, the statute has focused attention more broadly on why there is a growing demand for such credit, why the demand is not being 

met by traditional financial institutions such as banks and credit unions and how 

consumers can be better served. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 

has issued proposed guidelines to encourage banks to provide both payday loan alternatives and savings products to reduce the need, and is considering a pilot program 

to explore how banks could get back into this business in a sustainable manner while 

helping customers move toward more constructive forms of credit. It is important that 

the FDIC’s efforts are encouraged, that other bank and credit union regulators take 

similar steps, and that efforts to restrict payday and similar lending continue in the 

states. 

Prevent Credit Card Abuses 

The terms under which most credit cards are issued are virtually impossible to understand and present a substantial trap for the unwary and, especially, those who 

are financially stressed. Congress has recently held a series of hearings that have 

highlighted some of the worst abuses, such as double-interest and universal default 

clauses, and some financial institutions have begun to change the most egregious 

terms. But there is need for additional action, both to help card issuers who are willing to improve terms not be undercut by competitors, and to ensure that credit cards 

are offered on terms that are fully, accurately, and timely disclosed in a manner that 

is easily understood; make sense to consumers (e.g., a credit limit is a limit on credit 

granted, not an opportunity to charge an over-limit fee); and fairly enforced. 

f 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
146 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.301
147 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.302
148 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.303
149 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.304
150 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.305
151 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.306
152 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.307
153 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING43761A.308