U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–398 2016

SUBSIDIZED JOB PROGRAMS AND THEIR 

EFFECTIVENESS IN HELPING FAMILIES 

GO TO WORK AND ESCAPE POVERTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 30, 2014

Serial No. 113–HR13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

TOM REED, New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of July 30, 2014 announcing the hearing ............................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Sandra Collins, Assistant Manager, Goodwill Olympics and Rainier Region, 

Testimony ............................................................................................................. 7 

Amy Dvorak, Employer Relations Coordinator, New York State/Erie County 

Department of Social Services, Testimony ......................................................... 13 

Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow, Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Testimony .......................................................................................... 19 

Dan Bloom, Director, Health and Barriers to Employment Policy Area, 

MDRC, Testimony ................................................................................................ 26 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

APHSA–NASTA ....................................................................................................... 51 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
(1) 

SUBSIDIZED JOB PROGRAMS AND THEIR 

EFFECTIVENESS IN HELPING FAMILIES 

GO TO WORK AND ESCAPE POVERTY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave 

Reichert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 

No. HR–13 

Chairman Reichert Announces Hearing on 

Subsidized Job Programs and Their Effectiveness 

in Helping Families Go to Work 

and Escape Poverty 

Congressman Dave Reichert (R–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on subsidized jobs programs and their effectiveness 

in helping families escape poverty. The hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, July 30, in room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. 

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

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include individuals 

with experience administering subsidized employment programs and experts who 

have studied the effectiveness of these programs. 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: 

Helping people find full-time jobs is the best way to reduce poverty. Over 97 percent of individuals age 18–64 who work full-time have earnings that place them 

above the poverty line, while almost one-third of individuals in that age range who 

do not work are in poverty. Working full-time also helps individuals move up the 

economic ladder. Of households in the bottom 20 percent of the earnings distribution, fewer than one in five had a household member working full-time, and more 

than 60 percent included no one who was working. Households in the top 20 percent 

of earners had on average two household members working, in almost all cases full 

time. 

The major accomplishment of the 1996 welfare reforms was to help more low-income families and individuals find jobs, so they could escape poverty and dependence on government benefits and move up the economic ladder. Since the workbased welfare reforms were enacted, the employment rate of adults receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare benefits has more than doubled. Child poverty rates fell dramatically in the years immediately after welfare reform, while welfare caseloads declined by 60 percent through June 2013. In addition 

to expecting more welfare recipients to work and prepare for work, welfare reform 

provided more flexibility for States to support work by providing child care benefits, 

transportation assistance, and other work supports. 

While welfare reform moved many low-income families into work, more can be 

done to help welfare recipients work and escape poverty. States now report spending 

only a small share of their TANF funding—6 percent in FY 2013—on activities designed to get welfare recipients jobs. Although States are required to engage 50 percent of welfare recipients in work or work-related activities, 22 States face effectively no such requirement because of loopholes in the law. Further, in the most recent State data on work performed by welfare recipients (FY 2011), States reported 

that almost 60 percent of adults performed no hours of work or work-related activities, such as education or training. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
3 

A number of States have taken steps to more quickly move welfare recipients into 

the workforce, in some cases providing wage subsidies to employers to hire these 

individuals so they can earn a paycheck instead of receiving welfare. State approaches to subsidizing employment have been varied, including by the type of recipient placed in subsidized jobs, whether the placement is in the public or private 

sector, the length of the subsidy, and the amount of the subsidy. Specific Federal 

funding for this purpose was provided under the 2009 economic stimulus law (P.L. 

111–5), under which $1.3 billion was spent on subsidized jobs programs between 

2009 and 2010. Placing welfare recipients in subsidized jobs can help these individuals gain skills that will help them find and maintain full-time employment. However, because research on the long-term impacts of subsidized jobs is mixed, it is 

important to review the structure of different subsidized jobs programs to determine 

which features appear most likely to make these programs successful. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Reichert stated, ‘‘Our nation’s welfare 

programs should be focused on one thing’’ helping people in need find 

work, so they can escape poverty and move up the economic ladder. The 

1996 welfare reforms achieved this goal by requiring States to get welfare 

recipients working or preparing for work. One of the ways States have 

done so is by connecting recipients quickly with employers, sometimes by 

subsidizing their wages. Welfare reauthorization is on hold as the Administration continues to insist—despite 15 years of TANF law and precedent to 

the contrary—that it can waive the critical TANF work requirements. So 

now is a good time for us to review how these subsidized job programs are 

working. I look forward to hearing more about these State efforts so we 

can improve our nation’s welfare system and move more people out of poverty.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

This hearing will focus on State subsidized jobs programs designed to move individuals from welfare to work, including what research reveals about the impact of 

such programs on employment and earnings. 

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 

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

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Please click here to submit a 

statement or letter for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, 

submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in 

compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by August 13, 2014. 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 or (202) 

225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any 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 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. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
4 

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. 

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. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at http:// 

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. The committee will come to order. 

I had a chance to visit briefly with our witnesses. They are so 

excited to be here, and we are excited to have you. A couple of 

them are a little nervous, so I told them we would go easy on them. 

So it will be no big deal. 

I want to thank you again to our guests and witnesses for joining 

us today for this important hearing to review what we can do to 

help more parents go to work and help families escape poverty. We 

clearly have lots of work to do as we enter the 6th year of the socalled Obama recovery. Not only has this been the worst recovery 

for jobs and growth ever, but record numbers of Americans are not 

working or working only temporary jobs. More people dropped out 

of the workforce during this recovery than during the recession 

that preceded it. And the median household income is down over 

$2,000 since this recovery started. All of which may be why nearly 

half of Americans think that the U.S. is still in a recession. 

Over 51⁄2 years after Democrats’ trillion-dollar stimulus plan, 

Americans are still asking, where are the jobs? Make no mistake, 

work is not only what parents need and what they are looking for, 

it is the only real path out of poverty. 

We know this implicitly, and the data confirms it. Less than 3 

percent of full-time workers are in poverty, while the poverty rate 

for people who don’t work is 10 times higher. Work also addresses 

inequality, the inequality of households in the bottom 20 percent 

of the earnings ladder. Less than one in five had a household member working full-time, and more than 60 percent had no one in the 

household who was working at all. In contrast, households in the 

top 20 percent of earners had an average two workers in the household, with almost all of them working full-time. 

Looking back, we see the 1996 welfare reforms confirm the centrality of work to reducing poverty. Since the work-based 1996 welfare reforms were enacted, the employment rate of welfare recipients more than doubled and child poverty rates fell dramatically 

and are still below the level in the early 1990s. Welfare caseloads 

have declined by 60 percent. And still in many places loopholes 

have allowed States to keep welfare recipients on the rolls too long 

without working, reducing their income and increasing their dependence on taxpayers. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
5 

States now spend only a small share of their TANF funding, 6 

percent in 2013, on activities designed to get welfare recipients 

back to work. The most recent data from States for 2011 shows almost 60 percent of adults on TANF who were required to work had 

no reported hours in any work or work-related activity. 

So the question is this, how can we get more low-income adults 

into jobs so they can better support their families and move up the 

economic ladder? And as we will learn in the testimony today, one 

approach to achieving this goal is through supporting subsidized 

jobs. For years, some States have placed welfare recipients in subsidized jobs, providing payments to public and private employers to 

hire welfare recipients so they earn a paycheck instead of just collecting a welfare check. 

The goal of this approach is for the job to continue even after the 

subsidy ends, but it doesn’t always work that way, and raising concerns about effectiveness and cost of such efforts compared to other 

approaches is legitimate. We hope to review those sorts of issues 

today to determine how these types of programs can help low-income families escape poverty. 

The bigger picture is important, too. If we want to promote subsidized jobs or any other way of helping welfare recipients go to 

work, we simply will not make any progress while the administration continues to insist it can waive precisely these sorts of policies. 

The irony is, when the administration announced its TANF waiver 

policy 2 years ago, we were working together across party lines to 

close loopholes that weaken welfare back-to-work rules. 

Those loopholes remain wide open today. We can and should revisit ways to close those loopholes along with discussing ways to 

implement ideas like promoting subsidized jobs in the months 

ahead. But if the administration continues to insist it can simply 

waive any of the rules Congress creates, it is very unlikely that 

that will happen. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and our continuing work together on ways to help low-income parents find the work they so 

desperately need and want. 

And, Mr. Doggett, you are now recognized for your opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that our objective should be to encourage innovation 

without wasting taxpayer money on programs that don’t work that 

are not cost effective. There is not enough TANF block grant money 

available now to adequately fund existing programs designed to 

help poor people secure stable employment and that is despite the 

fact that each year TANF continues to serve a smaller and smaller 

share of poor families. 

Since no additional resources are being proposed to help lift people out of poverty, we are really in a zero-sum game situation here. 

Every dollar that we shift to subsidize employment means a dollar 

less for some other initiative. That doesn’t mean it is not a good 

idea to shift money into subsidized employment. It just means that 

we need to scrutinize what we are moving it into carefully and 

what we are moving it out of carefully. Our decision should be 

guided by what the evidence shows, not what ideology dictates. Before we divert more TANF funds to any particular initiative, let’s 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
6 

ensure that we have that kind of objective evidence to justify how 

the money is being allocated. 

Probably the greatest potential for subsidized employment is for 

those individuals who face the greatest barriers to being hired: exoffenders, those with serious physical or mental health issues, longterm unemployed, and older workers who often face discrimination. 

I know that one of our witnesses that I look forward to hearing 

from, Ms. Collins, will tell us about the transformative effect that 

such a program had on her life, and I am sure that is true of many 

others. 

Overall, however, the evidence is modest and it is mixed as to 

whether subsidized employment programs are actually effective, 

cost effective, in helping a substantial number of poor people secure 

a stable job at a wage that will help them escape poverty. Certainly 

the offer of free or almost free taxpayer-financed labor would have 

appeal to most any business. 

The question is whether when the taxpayer subsidy ends, does 

the job end also or does it truly open the way to long-term employment? Does subsidized employment offer an opportunity or is it 

just another windfall? I think the verdict is largely still out. Probably to ensure more opportunity through subsidized employment 

where it does appear to work, we need some strong safeguards in 

place to protect the taxpayer investment that is at stake. 

Today’s hearing is another way to scrutinize the potential of expanding subsidized employment programs to more people, and it 

deserves the same care and attention that this subcommittee has 

applied in previous hearings to other types of public expenditures. 

I note Mr. Bloom’s testimony indicates that most subsidized employment programs that have been tested have not produced the 

sustained increases in unsubsidized employment we would like to 

see, and Mr. Doar writes that in his experience running a subsidized employment program sometimes proves to be an expensive 

intervention that was not necessarily more effective than some less 

costly strategies at trying to get people from welfare to work. 

Today is an opportunity to learn more about these programs and 

their effectiveness. It will also help us to determine whether we 

can make decisions to support programs based on evidence or 

whether we will simply rely on ideology as a guide. 

I agree that the TANF program, set to expire at the end of September, very soon, is long overdue for serious examination. I voted 

for the 1996 welfare reform law that established TANF because I 

support reducing poverty by promoting work. It is just a matter of 

determining what the most effective way to do that is. And indeed 

this law, in combination with a very strong economy and improvements in the earned tax credit, did help prepare more individuals 

into the workforce back in the 1990s. 

Unfortunately, nearly all of the progress that we experienced 

from the law in increasing employment levels for single mothers or 

reducing poverty for children ended in about 2000, and ever since 

then most of the major trends have been negative. Four years of 

success followed by 14 years of shortcoming is not the greatest 

record. 

Why are we seeing this failure? Well, I think to start with, the 

amount of resources available for TANF, the size of the block grant 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
7 

has declined in real terms by almost a third since 1996. And some 

States, including my home State of Texas, have seen a much sharper decline because Congress refused to renew TANF supplemental 

grants that expired in 2011. 

As I said earlier, a smaller and smaller portion of poor families, 

poor children, receive TANF, and when folks aren’t receiving 

TANF, they are not participating in TANF work activities like 

working, education, training, so forth. 

I look forward to the testimony of each of you so that we can 

learn how to make genuine improvements that really make effective use of our taxpayer money to accomplish the objective of helping people move from welfare to work and stay in that workforce 

with a living wage. 

Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

And without objection, each member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record at 

this point. 

I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral statements to 

5 minutes. And, however, without objection, all the written statements and all your written testimony will be made a part of the 

permanent record. 

On our panel this afternoon we will be hearing from Sandra Collins, assistant manager of Goodwill Olympics, Rainier Region; Amy 

Dvorak, employer relations coordinator, New York State/Erie County Department of Social Services; Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow, 

Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute; Dan Bloom, director, Health and Barriers to Employment Policy Area. 

Now, the first witness we will have testify today is one that I am 

personally proud to have here and to have the privilege to introduce. Ms. Collins came all the way to Washington, D.C., from 

Washington State to be here today to share her story, and it takes 

a lot of courage to share a story that has been a struggle. I think 

all of us can relate to stories within our own families that maybe 

get retold and told and maybe you are going through a current 

story in your own family that you can identify with. But those stories build character, build strength, and build a person like Sandra. 

And we are so happy to have you here to share your success with 

us, and as Mr. Doggett said, to help us, members of this committee, 

subcommittee, and members of the full committee understand what 

we can do to help people get back to work and off welfare and have 

a smile on their face like you have right now. And I know you are 

a little nervous, but you are going to do just fine. So you are recognized for 5 minutes, Sandra. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA COLLINS, ASSISTANT MANAGER, 

GOODWILL OLYMPICS, RAINIER REGION 

Ms. COLLINS. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, 

and Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me to sit before 

you today to tell you my success story. I am Sandra Collins, and 

I am now the assistant manager at Goodwill Outlet store in Kent, 

Washington. I am about to become a homeowner. I have come a 

long way. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
8 

In April of 2007, my life looked very different. I was homeless, 

living in a shelter with two children, had been a meth abuser for 

17 years, a victim of domestic violence, and I felt alone. I had burnt 

all my relationships with my family and friends, I had zero credit, 

no high school diploma, and a stack of legal offenses that kept me 

from a driver’s license. My self-worth and confidence were at alltime lows. It was time for a change, but I didn’t know how to get 

it started. 

I went to apply for TANF and enrolled in the WorkFirst Community Jobs program. I was assigned to my caseworker, Cindy, and 

she was the first of many trusting relationships for me. I was 

closed about my problems with her at first for fear of having my 

children taken away, losing my financial assistance, or being put 

in jail. My license had been suspended, and I didn’t tell Cindy that 

I was homeless. It took a few months to start to build trust. 

Cindy got me placed into a work program at a Goodwill outlet 

store close to my GED class site. It turned out to be the best job 

for me and would change my life permanently. Without a car and 

living 2.5 miles from the bus stop, my commute was 4 hours a day 

round trip, but I was punctual and I worked hard. I even volunteered to do additional work. Things were real dark, but there was 

a glimmer of hope breaking through. 

I knew the power of having a job would help me escape poverty. 

My manager was willing to flex with my commute schedule. Not 

only did I expand my work skills, but coworkers showed real happiness to see me. I felt special and important. I had meaning in my 

life and gained self-worth. It made me want to return every day. 

Cindy enrolled me in a program that provided me with transportation to the bus stop, making my commute so much shorter. 

Cindy’s role as a case manager was critical. Eventually I did open 

up about my problems, and Cindy provided resources or solutions 

for all of them. I didn’t feel as helpless or alone anymore. She even 

helped me get my license back. When the Community Jobs program ended, I had my GED, and my Tacoma outlet store manager, 

impressed with my hard work, recommended me for the perfect 

full-time job at a Goodwill store. 

I remember my first day very clearly, January 15th, 2008. I 

started at the Lakewood Goodwill as a production worker. That 

April, the original Tacoma outlet store had an opening and asked 

me to return. It felt like a great accomplishment to be wanted 

back. I remember thinking that I am somebody. 

In July of 2008, I was promoted to supervisor at the Tacoma outlet store. Work had changed my life. The people were supportive, 

as I worked hard and proved myself. While working, other Goodwill 

services also made a huge difference. I took the Goodwill financial 

literacy course and opened a bank account. 

The course taught me how to set goals. My short-term goals were 

to focus on staying clean and sober, getting to work every day, 

keeping my kids safe and on a good path. My long-term goals were 

get a car and a house and become a manager. I jotted them down 

as a pie in the sky. 

In 2009, I enrolled in a Goodwill Wheels to Work program, and 

I was able to get financing for my own car. I am proud to say I 

will be buying my own home for my family in August. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
9 

Since becoming a supervisor, I have had an amazing opportunity 

to bring on people who have faced similar problems. Out of the 36 

employees at my store, 13 are community job program graduates 

and a few others are enrolled in the program now. I take great 

pride in serving as a mentor and helping them. People call me the 

volunteer queen because I always have community job participants 

placed at my site. 

Because of my experiences, Community Jobs participants open 

up to me about their lives. I am able to give back to them what 

was given to me—support, encouragement, challenges, and resources. Now it is time for me to set some new goals. I just interviewed for a Goodwill store manager position, and I got it. 

In closing, people like me need a second chance to get our lives 

back on a better path. Goodwill and the Washington WorkFirst 

Community Jobs program gave me and many others that chance. 

I could not have done it alone. 

Thank you, and my family thanks you, for the Federal funding 

and support that has helped me get to where I am at today. These 

programs make a difference, and I am living proof of it, because 

jobs change lives. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 100 here 94398.001
10 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 101 here 94398.002
11 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 102 here 94398.003
12 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, Sandra, that was pretty powerful 

testimony. 

The other three still want to continue? 

Congratulations on your promotion, and congratulations on the 

purchase of your home, too. Good job. 

Ms. Dvorak, unfortunately, you get to follow. You are recognized. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 103 here 94398.004
13 

STATEMENT OF AMY DVORAK, EMPLOYER RELATIONS COORDINATOR, NEW YORK STATE/ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

Ms. DVORAK. Good afternoon, Chairman Reichert, Ranking 

Member Doggett, and Members of the Committee. Before I begin, 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on 

behalf of the Erie County Department of Social Services and the 

PIVOT Program. 

In September of 2000, the Erie County Department of Social 

Services initiated a job training program called the PIVOT Program. This unique wage subsidy initiative was designed to bridge 

the gap between the local business community and welfare recipients and is based on the premise that welfare reform success requires that TANF recipients play an active role and become a part 

of the business community. 

The goal of the PIVOT Program is to provide incentives to employers to hire clients with multiple barriers and those that may 

need more time-on-the-job training. PIVOT provides quality job opportunities for the employable TANF population while serving as 

a resource for the hiring needs of local employers. Job developers 

match employable TANF clients with companies looking to fill existing positions. All candidates are prescreened for job compatibility, including matching up client’s skills, abilities, and education 

with the job specs. The employers must be an existing company 

and have permanent long-term positions. 

PIVOT is always looking to work with companies where there is 

room for advancement and higher-paying wages. The employer benefits include a 6-month subsidy that covers 100 percent of the client’s wages. Employers are involved in the interviewing process 

and provided an opportunity to select from multiple candidates. 

The employer receives a 3-month advance when the client is first 

hired to cover initial training costs. The contract is then reconciled 

before final payment is made to the employer. The employer is able 

to reduce hiring and training costs and is able to participate in 

monthly job fairs, enabling the company to interview and recruit 

new prospective employees. 

Many clients’ cases close within a month of obtaining employment, and case management is provided to help guarantee these 

clients do not return to welfare and receive public benefits. The 

benefits of the social services include client placement into employment and reduction of the cash grant and the closing of cases due 

to employment. Another benefit is the development of community 

partnerships for placement of unsubsidized clients. By developing 

good working relationships with employers, job developers are able 

to make additional placements for other DSS client not eligible for 

PIVOT. 

We have learned from employer feedback that prospective employees lack soft skills needed to be successful in jobs. In an effort 

to address this need and broaden the base of PIVOT-eligible candidates, the PIVOT Program works hand-in-hand with the work experience program. Erie County has developed a model of neighborhood hub sites at various not-for-profit sites located in the north, 

south, east, and west of the city. These work experience hubs were 

developed to increase participation in federally countable work acVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:02 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 094398 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\94398\94398.XXX 94398

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
14 

tivities by making worksites more accessible to TANF clients. 

These sites are located in neighborhoods where TANF clients live 

and combine work experience with vocational and education programs, computer training, high school equivalency, and English as 

a second language classes. 

There is a job developer assigned to every hub site. This person 

goes out weekly and meets with the clients that are ready to be 

placed into employment. The client will continue to work with the 

job developer until placement occurs. 

Several of our supervisors at these hub sites are former clients 

that were working with our development unit. They were referred 

for positions based on their leadership qualities, excellent attendance, and motivation at the worksite. 

One of the biggest problems businesses have is attracting and retaining high quality employees. Businesses want employees that 

can come to work every day, be punctual, communicate with their 

supervisor, and be a good team player. The number one reason people lose their job is time and attendance. The number two reason 

is problems with their supervisor. 

With PIVOT, the job developer initially acts like a mentor between the client and supervisor. The client is provided extensive 

case management services when they first begin their employment. 

Follow-up is provided to assure supportive services are in place, 

which include transportation and child care. 

Some of the businesses that have been targeted and successful 

with PIVOT are nursing homes, hospitals, banks, hotels, call centers, manufacturing and industrial companies, small and large 

businesses, food service, not-for-profits, and community agencies. 

The PIVOT Program currently works with over 300 businesses in 

western New York and is always evolving based on the time of year 

and labor trends. 

Since 2000, over 4,300 clients have been placed in PIVOT, with 

an average of 460 per year. The PIVOT Program is funded through 

the Flexible Fund for Family Services, which is a Federal allocation. The success of PIVOT has proved that when people are given 

support and the opportunity to work, they can be successful in 

their lives, role models for their children, and can be self-sufficient. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Ms. Dvorak. Good job. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dvorak follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
15 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 104 here 94398.005
16 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 105 here 94398.006
17 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 106 here 94398.007
18 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 107 here 94398.008
19 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Doar. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW, 

POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

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

Doggett, and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. I greatly appreciate being invited to 

discuss subsidized jobs programs and their role in alleviating poverty. 

My name is Robert Doar, and I am the Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Prior to joining 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 108 here 94398.009
20 

AEI, I spent 18 years working in government social services programs for the State and city of New York. My experience with the 

management of subsidized or transitional jobs programs has given 

me considerable insight into how these programs are actually serving welfare recipients, insight which I would like to share now. 

The most important objective and key outcome for assistance programs is lasting employment for the recipient. Not only is full-time 

employment the surest way to avoid poverty, but earnings are the 

most important form of income for a family. Only 3 percent of all 

full-time workers are defined as being in poverty by our Nation’s 

official poverty measure. The strong emphasis that programs such 

as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families place on helping 

applicants and recipients move into employment as rapidly as possible clearly acknowledges the fundamental role employment has in 

helping people out of poverty. 

In the years following the passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 

1996, it became apparent that resulting increases in work opportunities and consequent earnings was the main reason child poverty 

and overall poverty fell during those years. More workforce participation, especially by single mothers, resulted in higher earnings 

and a substantial decrease in poverty. 

While employment and its consequent earnings are key to alleviating poverty, it is also important to remember that we already 

subsidize jobs. The earned income tax credit, public health insurance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and 

child care assistance are the largest but not the only government 

assistance programs that can greatly increase the resources available to low-income working households. 

It is in this context, with the recognition of existing programs 

that already work to shore up low wages and the focus on rapid 

employment in unsubsidized jobs, that we must evaluate whether 

subsidized or transitional jobs are an effective tool to help people 

in need. In New York City, we ran a large and I believe effective 

subsidized jobs program, but it was only a limited part of our overall effort. 

In New York, we HAVE worked with the Parks Department to 

form the Parks Opportunity Program, which created job positions 

lasting 6 to 9 months and consisting of 4 workdays and 1 training 

day each week. The program was designed to serve a discrete subset of welfare recipients. Participants were primarily compliant, 

hard-to-place clients who had been on welfare assistance for more 

than 1 year and were not in sanctioned status. 

Additionally, for a time we offered subsidized jobs to clients in 

shelters who agreed to leave the shelter. We also offered transitional jobs to compliant, though out-of-work noncustodial parents 

whose children were on welfare assistance. 

While this program worked well for some recipients, participants 

did not exit the program with any increase in their probability of 

finding future employment over those cash assistance recipients in 

our regular program. The placement rate was similar to the rate 

for welfare recipients in our program in both our back to work and 

work first programs. 

The key lesson we took away from the Parks Department program was while the availability of subsidized jobs was beneficial 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
21 

for a portion of our caseload, the program itself was more costly 

and not effective enough to justify more than a limited investment. 

Upon exiting the program, placement rates were roughly equal to 

other work programs, but they had incurred a much higher cost. 

Ultimately, we need to ensure that the actions we take in creating job opportunities end in positive results and provide paths to 

consistent long-term employment. While subsidized jobs programs 

may produce those results for some individuals in some sectors, 

they cannot replace the focus on rapid attachment to unsubsidized 

employment for regular public assistance recipients. 

I should also point out that there were also other benefits associated with the Parks program. First of all, the Parks Department 

got additional assistance in manpower to do jobs they might not 

have been able to do without the support of a program like ours. 

In addition, for those members of our public assistance caseload 

who would not be able to receive the generous work supports that 

generally go to households with children in them, these are mostly 

single individuals and often young men, subsidized programs were 

an avenue to get them into work that we did not have and we did 

need. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doar. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doar follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
22 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 109 here 94398.010
23 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 110 here 94398.011
24 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 111 here 94398.012
25 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 112 here 94398.013
26 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Bloom, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN BLOOM, DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND 

BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT POLICY AREA, MDRC 

Mr. BLOOM. Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to 

testify about the research evidence on subsidized employment. My 

name is Dan Bloom, and I am with MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. I would like to use my time to 

make three general points about subsidized employment. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 113 here 94398.014
27 

The first point is about goals. Subsidized employment is a broad 

term that means different things to different people. Some subsidized employment programs are designed primarily to provide 

work-based income support, that is, to put money into the pockets 

of unemployed workers during periods of high unemployment. 

These are sometimes called countercyclical programs. The best 

known of this type of program operated during the Great Depression, but many of the State programs that were supported by the 

TANF Emergency Fund in 2009 and 2010 also fit into this category. 

Other subsidized employment programs are explicitly designed to 

improve people’s long-term success in the labor market. They are 

much smaller, and they target people facing serious obstacles to 

steady work—people coming home from prison, long-term TANF recipients, and others. Some models, called transitional jobs programs, place people into what might be called practice jobs with 

nonprofit organizations so they can learn to work by working. Others offer subsidies to private employers to hire program participants, and some programs do both. 

When assessing the success of a particular program, it is critical 

to consider the program’s goals. A large, broadly targeted countercyclical program might be judged on its ability to get going quickly 

and provide meaningful work to large numbers of people who 

would not otherwise be working. In this respect, I think the TANF 

Emergency Fund experience was quite positive. States were able to 

scale up programs in a very short period, and they put about 

280,000 people to work, including youth in summer jobs. 

In contrast, transitional jobs programs that are designed to improve participant success in the labor market could be assessed at 

least in part based on the longer-term employment patterns of 

their participants, as well as other related measures, like reduced 

recidivism for ex-prisoners or reduced reliance on public benefits 

for welfare recipients. 

My second point is about evidence. Over the last 30 or 40 years 

there have been a number of rigorous evaluations of subsidized employment programs. Many of these studies use a random assignment design, which is the gold standard for studies of this type. 

These studies tested the kinds of programs that were explicitly designed to improve people’s long-term success in the labor market, 

and the results are mixed. 

On the one hand, we have seen that programs can generate very 

large increases in employment initially because they give subsidized jobs to lots of people who would not otherwise be working. 

We studied one program for ex-prisoners that also reduced recidivism and saved money for the government. 

On the other hand, most of these programs did not lead to sustained increases in unsubsidized employment. In other words, it 

doesn’t look like the subsidized work experience helped people get 

or keep regular jobs. The main exception to this pattern is a few 

programs that provided temporary wage subsidies to private employers who hired people from certain disadvantaged groups. There 

is some evidence that these programs have increased employment 

even beyond the subsidy period. The issue has been that most of 

these programs have been small and selective in who they served. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
28 

One key question for any program that subsidizes private employers is whether employers are receiving a windfall for hiring the 

same kinds of people they would have hired anyway. Unfortunately, this is a hard question to answer. Studies can test whether 

providing subsidies for a particular group of job seekers improves 

the odds that they will find work, but it is almost impossible to 

know for certain whether this ends up displacing other similar 

workers. 

My final point is that I think there is some hope for the future. 

The Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services are 

both conducting multisite evaluations of the next generation of subsidized employment programs. Although the projects were developed separately, DOL and HHS are collaborating closely in carrying them out, and MDRC is fortunate to be leading both projects. 

Together, the two projects are using random assignment designs 

to evaluate about a dozen different subsidized employment models. 

Here is one example. In Los Angeles, we are testing two programs 

for TANF recipients who completed an initial job search activity 

but were unable to find work. One model provides fully subsidized 

jobs with public or nonprofit employers for up to 6 months. 

In the other model, participants are placed with private employers but remain on the program payroll for the first 2 months of employment. Then they move to the employer’s payroll and the employer receives a partial subsidy for 4 additional months. Employers are expected to retain participants after the subsidy ends. 

All of the models in both projects are aiming to address the limitations of earlier transitional jobs programs, in part by using subsidies to help participants get a foot in the door with private employers. A key question is whether these private sector-focused 

models can be effective for less job-ready participants. Results from 

these projects will start to become available next year. 

In sum, subsidized employment is a valuable tool for providing 

work-based income support, particularly during periods of high unemployment. To date, the results from programs that try to use 

subsidized employment to improve long-term employment outcomes 

for hard-to-employ groups are mixed, but we are now testing a new 

set of models that were developed specifically to address the limitations of earlier programs. 

Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bloom follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
29 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 114 here 94398.015
30 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 115 here 94398.016
31 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 116 here 94398.017
32 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 117 here 94398.018
33 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 118 here 94398.019
34 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 119 here 94398.020
35 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 120 here 94398.021
36 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 121 here 94398.022
37 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 122 here 94398.023
38 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. We will now move to our questions. 

Ms. Collins, thanks again for being here, and I know maybe 

sometimes you don’t get to pause or maybe you do get to pause and 

think about how far you have come from being homeless and without work in 2007, beating the addictions that you have just talked 

about, and getting your GED, being hired as a full-time employee, 

now being promoted to manager, buying your own home. And now 

here you are in the Capitol testifying before Congress. You have 

come a long way, as they say. 

We want to make sure that others have that kind of success, and 

your testimony is powerful, but I am wondering if you could just 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 123 here 94398.024
39 

share with me a little bit, given your experience as a participant 

in the program and now someone who supervises other people— 

and as you said, you were described as the volunteer queen, people 

want to be around you and they want to learn from you and watch 

you work—what do you think are some of the key features of the 

programs that made you successful and that will help those that 

you are working with now be successful? 

Ms. COLLINS. I think the biggest thing was, was that I was uncomfortable with the case manager being into the Washington, you 

know, the Department of Social Services office. I felt if I was open 

with her and truly expressed the barriers that I had, more bad 

things would happen to me. 

And so I think with people who have bigger barriers, with programs being a little bit longer, being able to have time to get to 

know the person and really dig down and find out what those barriers are, and when the program is going it is designed to be 6 

months, if they are seeing progress in the person but they are not 

yet where they need to be or their barriers still haven’t been addressed or worked through, then maybe expanding the program a 

little longer. 

Chairman REICHERT. Additional help. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. Yeah. Anything else that you can think 

of that really played a key role in helping you get your feet on the 

ground that you can see, thinking of some of the people that you 

work with, anything else that you can see might be helpful? 

Ms. COLLINS. Well, with the people that I work with now, I remember where I came from and I remember the support that I had 

from my case manager. And so I try to work in conjunction with 

their case managers by identifying at the worksite any issues that 

might be of concern, and I share those with the case manager. And 

that usually breaks the ice a little bit, when I am able to see the 

person every day at the worksite versus the case manager once a 

week. 

Chairman REICHERT. It sounds to me like you need somebody 

who cares, somebody who will be with you long term, and somebody that you can learn to trust and open up to and begin to build 

your life. 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Ms. Dvorak, Erie County in New York has and operates a program where you place welfare recipients in subsidized jobs for 6 

months, and you report great success in moving people from welfare to work as a result. And your program differs from some others, I think, as Mr. Bloom has pointed out. You place your recipients in private sector jobs and the employer pays the employee directly versus in some State agencies they basically provide a free 

employee, the State pays the paycheck. 

Do you feel the structure impacts the success of your program? 

And what other features of your program do you believe contribute 

to its success in moving people from welfare to work? 

Ms. DVORAK. I think there is a huge difference. I meet with employers all the time, I work with CEOs, and employers have been 

incredibly supportive. But when I sell the program, I sell it that 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
40 

you are going to hire someone off the street. All I am asking is that 

you give my TANF recipients an opportunity to interview for jobs 

like anybody else. We are giving you the carrot. We are giving you 

6 months of gross wages because they may need alonger time in 

training. We will provide additional supports. We will provide case 

management. But when I sell it, I am selling it as a long-term position, and existing position in the company. 

The position is already there. I am just asking that they look at 

my clients and they consider them. But it is an existing position. 

I never go in saying this is temporary employment. If you don’t like 

the person in 6 months, it is okay, you can let them go. They are 

hiring them like they would anybody else, so that it is a permanent 

position. 

I do think it makes a big difference how it is presented to the 

employer because they are making an investment in this person, 

their staff is training this person to their specifications, and the client is going to the job thinking they have a long-term, full-time job. 

We always try and make the contract full-time, because how are 

they going to be self-sufficient if it is not full-time? 

I think you have got to, like you said, break down the barriers. 

I think it takes a lot of case management to break those barriers 

down, but I truly believe if you can empower somebody, that once 

they start to earn a paycheck—which is a big difference, when they 

are getting a paycheck from a company as opposed to getting paid 

from an agency there is a huge difference in how they start to feel 

about themselves. They want to do better. 

Chairman REICHERT. Right. 

Ms. DVORAK. I think it has a lot to do with how they feel about 

themselves, about their self-esteem. I think it is baby steps. We 

have seen the change. 

Chairman REICHERT. I think that you just validated the comments by Ms. Collins, that long-term relationship and that stability 

in life and building that trust, I think those things all sound very 

key to the success of people that are going through this. Thank you 

for your testimony. 

Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Dvorak, do you keep data on how many of these folks get terminated when the subsidy ends or within a short time thereafter? 

Ms. DVORAK. Well, I will be honest with you. If they decide 

they don’t like the person a day after the 6 months, I call them and 

say, you know what, we won’t be doing business with you anymore. 

Because I know, if they liked the person up to that point and they 

don’t like them the day after, this is not a revolving door, and we 

aren’t going to supply your workforce on a subsidy. So they know 

that I am not going to do business with them again. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Have you had to do that very much through the 

life of the program? 

Ms. DVORAK. No, because I make it pretty clear. But when we 

do do it, we don’t do business with them again. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And what type of services do you provide for the 

employee to try to ensure that they meet the expectations of the 

employer during that period of subsidy? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
41 

Ms. DVORAK. Okay. If there are issues that come up, a case 

manager goes out to that company and meets with that client and 

will say, you are right on the edge, what is going on? Because they 

really do not, they don’t have conflict resolution skills, they don’t 

have a lot of coping skills. That is when we need to intervene and 

provide a lot of support. Because we can get them on the right 

track, but we have to do a lot of hand holding at the beginning and 

slowly we can wean them off of the system. You got to do it individually. Some people have a lot of issues. You never know when you 

can be on the other side. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Exactly. 

Ms. DVORAK. It could just be a crisis, a health crisis in someone’s life, and they have a work history and they can do well. Other 

people have a lot of barriers. So those are big steps to overcome. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I salute what you have accomplished and certainly what Ms. Collins exemplifies. 

I am wondering, in looking at the studies that you are doing, Mr. 

Bloom, what you think you will be able to tell us about the services 

that need to be replicated in order to increase the chances that 

these programs will be successful. 

Mr. BLOOM. I think an important thing to know about these two 

studies that are going on, one with HHS and one with DOL, is that 

they were explicitly designed to try to address the limitations of 

some of the earlier programs that I was talking about. So what we 

are looking at, for example, are programs that use a staged approach. So they will start off with somebody working at a Goodwill, 

for example, and then as people progress through the program, 

they may move into a subsidized position with a private employer. 

And so that is a different model than what we tested before, because in the past we tested a lot of transitional jobs programs that 

had difficulty with the transition. So they were able to give people 

jobs and they did meaningful work, but when it came time to transition them into a permanent job that is where the trouble started. 

So some of the programs that we are looking at now build in a 

more seamless transition through a series of steps so that people 

can try to end up in a permanent position rather than just a subsidized position. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And, Mr. Doar, the experience you describe with 

the New York Parks Department was one where, as I understand 

it, the people that were in the program didn’t do any better in getting long-term employment than those that receive no subsidized 

employment at all. 

Mr. DOAR. Yes, that is correct. We had a large program in New 

York City where the vast majority of welfare recipients went into 

what we call back to work or work first programs that were intended to get them into employment rapidly, and we had placement 

rates in the 25 percent range, measured a certain way. And then 

we had others that we would select for these transitional jobs programs, smaller group, would have this 6-month employment at 

some significant cost, plus training, plus job search, and their 

placement rate in permanent employment in the period after that 

ended was about 20 percent. 

So we had done a great deal of effort to get people into work in 

that circumstance, but the result was not much better than if we 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
42 

just said to someone, let me see if we can get you into unsubsidized, private sector usually, employment right away, rather than 

spend this time in this program along the way. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Do either of you have observations about what 

standards need to be in place, whether the programs need to be focused only at certain populations, or how we can maximize the investment? If every employer had a Ms. Dvorak there saying if the 

employee doesn’t measure up, that is a good reason to dismiss 

them, but don’t count on us to keep circulating people in here every 

6 months just to subsidize your endeavors, we are here to try to 

help the employee. So she can’t be all over the country. How we 

can replicate that kind of thing to ensure that we are helping people get long-term jobs and not just providing a short-term subsidy. 

Mr. DOAR. My view was that we have to recognize that people 

who come apply for public assistance come in a variety of situations. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Exactly. 

Mr. DOAR. And if we build a program around permanent subsidized employment or intensive subsidized employment for everybody, we may be doing much more than we need to do for a lot of 

people. So a lot of people can be helped with getting into employment, job search, get them to employment, take advantage of the 

work supports that are available for everybody, like earned income 

tax credit, and you are on your way. Then there are certain populations that might need specialized attention where transitional 

jobs or subsidized jobs might be appropriate. But it has got to be 

carefully calibrated for populations that are in particular need. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Bloom, can I ask you to provide your 

answer in writing. We have votes about 3, 3:15, so I want to try 

to move quickly. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. If you could, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. Young, you are recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all our 

panelists for being here today. I really enjoyed the testimony. 

Big picture here, we are trying to help people find full-time jobs, 

recognizing that it is the best way to reduce poverty. It also enhances income mobility and really one’s ability to pursue the American dream, go out there and do exactly what Ms. Collins has exemplified. Over 97 percent of individuals age 18 to 64 who work 

full-time have earnings that place them above the poverty line. It 

is really powerful. 

So when we are considering ways to get welfare recipients into 

work and up that income ladder using wage subsidies, we need to 

be careful that what we are actually doing is what we want them 

to do, is get jobs in the end. As policymakers, that means putting 

aside ideological biases, anecdotes we might get back in the district 

and using those to form our opinions as to the optimal public policies, uninformed sentiments, and so forth. We need to actually look 

at the available evidence base, and it is limited but growing, which 

is encouraging, as Mr. Bloom alluded to. 

Some programs, we know, that have focused on helping welfare 

recipients in the past have actually been harmful, and that can be 

instructive. One example would be in the 1980s and 1990s the TarVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:02 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 094398 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\94398\94398.XXX 94398

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
43 

geted Jobs Tax Credit Program, which was a predecessor to the 

current Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program. It was intended to 

encourage employers to hire welfare recipients. 

In 1995, GAO called this program a, quote, ‘‘inefficient vehicle for 

increasing employment among the economically disadvantaged, 

often rewarding employers who would have hired disadvantaged 

workers anyway,’’ a concern on both sides of the aisle. Worse, there 

were some indications that this program actually prevented hiring 

of needy individuals whom employers perceived as lacking the 

skills needed to be hired without the credit, in essence stigmatizing 

the employees. 

I am concerned about the risk of continuing to make this mistake 

as we craft future public policies. And we have pointed in the 

course of this hearing to the existing of some rigorous evidence that 

tells us how to make programs successful, transitioning from a 

part-time position, or a temporary position, rather, into longer-term 

sustainable jobs. We have some evidence there. 

First question would be to Mr. Bloom, and hopefully he can answer concisely based on my time limitations, whether we have evidence as well about avoiding this windfall effect to employers and/ 

or evidence pertaining to the stigmatization of potential employees 

and how we can avoid that. 

Mr. BLOOM. I can tell you from experience more than from hard 

random assignment evidence, but I think there are two things you 

could do to avoid this windfall. One is what we heard about from 

Erie County, which is to be very clear with the employer up front 

that there is an expectation that they are going to take this person 

onto their payroll and make them a permanent employee. 

The other thing, I think, is to be careful with who is targeted by 

these programs. You don’t want to target an individual for a subsidized jobs program if they can find a job without a subsidy. A lot 

of agencies will have people look for a job first with basic assistance, and the ones who are unsuccessful, those are the ones they 

might target for the subsidy program. And I think both of those 

things can help. 

Mr. YOUNG. Excellent points. Well taken. 

I am encouraged about the Department of Labor and HHS 

projects. I think we need to do far more demonstration projects and 

then robustly evaluate them in this country, especially in the social 

realm, and then scale up what works based on that evidence. 

With that said, oftentimes we are hesitant to reveal all of our assumptions, our methodology, and results from these pilot programs 

in government. We issue press releases when we are successful. We 

spin or hide when we are not successful. 

So I have a question. Do you feel as though in these cases, what 

you pointed to, there is sufficient opportunity to critique the methodology and learn from the project design and implementation because of its independent assessment and because of what is being 

provided to policy analysts like yourself? 

Mr. BLOOM. Both of these projects are set up in such a way that 

they are using the strongest possible research designs, and that 

was required by HHS and DOL. I think we have total confidence 

that the results are going to come out and be public regardless of 

what they are. My organization is well known for putting out inforVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:02 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 094398 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\94398\94398.XXX 94398

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
44 

mation whether it makes people happy or not, and I am sure that 

will happen in this case in both of these projects. 

Mr. YOUNG. And I didn’t mean to insinuate otherwise. I thank 

you very much for your work. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Renacci. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

witnesses for testifying today. 

An estimated 1.8 million Ohioans, my home State, are living 

below the poverty line, and we know the best way out of poverty 

is a job. Poverty in my home State of Ohio has increased by approximately 58 percent over the last decade, despite a stagnant 

population and a whole host of Federal programs created to end 

this cycle of poverty. We must find ways to address our struggling 

economy, improve our educational system and workforce training 

programs, and connect individuals to temporary resources they 

really need to success. 

Included in the 2012 unemployment insurance reforms, the Department of Labor was granted waiver authority in the UI program. These waivers would allow States to operate demonstration 

projects to test alternative means of helping the unemployed return 

to work, including the concept we are talking about today, subsidized jobs. 

Since this waiver policy was enacted in February 2012, only 

Texas has applied for waiver, and its application was swiftly denied. States have described the application process created by the 

Department of Labor as onerous and time-consuming. This Congress, I worked with the Department of Labor to introduce H.R. 

3864, the Flexibility to Promote Reemployment Act, a bill that extends the UI waiver authority and provides greater flexibility to 

States to use existing UI dollars on programs that help the unemployed collect paychecks instead of benefit checks. 

Ms. Dvorak and Mr. Doar, your program has been successful in 

connecting individuals with limited labor force attachments to jobs. 

Would your program be successful in connecting individuals with 

greater labor force attachment, like current UI recipients who were 

previously employed, to jobs? 

Ms. DVORAK. Many of our clients, they have let their unemployment run out, they got their extensions, they let their unemployment run out, and then they have come to us. It is very difficult 

for them because they are very rigid, they let us know, ‘‘this is how 

much I am going to accept per hour, I am not going to work for 

less, these are the skills I have’’, and they are very adamant. 

Well, one of the big pieces about the PIVOT Program is it is not 

a stand-alone program. It is not okay that they are not in a work 

activity. They have to go somewhere every day and be in a work 

activity, which goes hand in hand with them also working with the 

job developer and looking for work. 

So it is really the whole piece with PIVOT. It is not just looking 

for work. It is doing the work activity, whether they need a GED, 

whether they go to the work activity and work in community 

projects. We also have a project in our parks, which are the 

Olmsted Parks in Buffalo. But it is dealing with the whole person 

and providing wrap around services that is tied into getting them 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
45 

back into the workforce. There is a lot of resistance there, but having said that, you have got to work with them and get them back 

into the workforce. Which is why they are mandated to do a daily 

work activity. 

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Doar, do you have any—— 

Mr. DOAR. Our experience in New York was with welfare recipients who come to the TANF program or the general assistance program that existed in New York City, and the One-Stops that were 

under the WIA program dealt more with people who were on UI. 

And so I can’t really speculate on what would happen if in a unemployment insurance program greater flexibility was provided to a 

locality, but the previous folks is right, it is in some respects a different population and may need different approaches. 

Mr. RENACCI. Both of your programs, in your testimony you describe your experience connecting individuals with subsidized transitional jobs in the TANF program. What were really some of the 

common reasons that individuals were unsuccessful in finding employment? 

Mr. DOAR. Well, we had a benefit in New York City of having 

a very vibrant entry-level employment situation for all of the time 

that I was there, including during the recession. The opportunities 

were there, and that was a good thing. 

I think the principal reason people had trouble is one of two factors. One is that they were weak on soft skills and the sort of requirements of the daily rigor of work and they weren’t prepared 

and ready to step up to that responsibility and they needed some 

assistance in getting there. 

Mr. RENACCI. Not to interrupt you, but in that case, it is not 

that they weren’t trained, or was training an issue, too? 

Mr. DOAR. Well, again, there are a lot of opportunities in the 

entry-level position. And then the second would be there were language barriers and literacy barriers. If I would say that was one 

that was the most significant, that would be it. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. My time has run out. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Davis is recognized. 

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

the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Collins, let me commend and congratulate you for your successes, and I think that you are the epitome of what can and does 

happen to and with individuals when they are given opportunities 

and a chance. 

As a matter of fact, in 2010 the State of Illinois put together a 

program called Put Illinois to Work, which placed eligible Illinois 

residents in subsidized employment positions lasting up to 6 

months. Put Illinois to Work was a collaborative of the Illinois Department of Human Services, Illinois Department of Commerce and 

Economic Opportunity, and Heartland Human Care Services, using 

funding from the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, which was 

created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Illinois invested $10 million to leverage a Federal investment of 

$200 million. The Federal emergency TANF funds expired on September 30, 2010. The program was supposed to end November 30, 

2010, but Governor Quinn used approximately $50 million in State 

money to keep the program alive through January of 2011. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
46 

The program was evaluated, and here is what they found. The 

program exceeded the goals demanded by employers and workers. 

It helped tens of thousands of low-income unemployed and underemployed Illinoians. It helped small businesses during economic recession. Generated income and revenue, $13.6 million in Federal 

income and $2.7 million in State income. It provided quality programming that satisfied trainees and employers. 

Ninety-two percent of the workers and 88 percent of the employers said that they would participate in that program or something 

like it if they had another opportunity to do so. And over 52 percent of the employers indicated that they would hire the workers 

permanently if they had the resources and the opportunity do so, 

although only 13 percent of them indicated that they did. 

Mr. Bloom, I was interested to know, given your experiences and 

the work that you do, have you noted anything in particular about 

ex-offenders, individuals who have been incarcerated, and their experiences as they get opportunity for programs like this? 

Mr. BLOOM. I think people who are coming out of prison face 

in some ways a double issue. Many of them have characteristics 

that would make it difficult for them to hold a job, even if they 

hadn’t been to prison. So they may not have finished high school 

or they may have limited work experience. Add on top of that the 

fact that they now have a criminal record, and surveys have shown 

that many employers are very reluctant to hire people with criminal records. 

It is doubly difficult for those folks to get employment. And I 

think that is why a lot of these transitional jobs programs have 

tended to focus on individuals coming home to the community from 

prison, because it is so difficult for them to walk right into the private sector and get hired. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Dvorak, could you just off the cuff think of what 

it is that we might be able to do to make these programs or this 

effort more effective? 

Ms. DVORAK. I feel that subsidized employment works. So I am 

in the trenches, I work with the clients, I work with the agencies. 

So for us it is working. So it is hard for me to say. You don’t always 

have to reinvent the wheel, but I think we have to look at it more 

closely. For us, it is working. 

Mr. DAVIS. So more might be better? 

Ms. DVORAK. We work with ex-offenders and it is very difficult. 

But there are big employers out there, like Home Depot, who will 

give these people an opportunity, and they do promote from within, 

and they are an amazing employer. But you have to work one on 

one with these employers. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I am familiar with the Home 

Depot effort, and they are in fact marvelous and do an outstanding 

job. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thanks, Mr. Davis. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Ms. Collins, let me start off with you, because I know so many 

folks like you. I am also an employer. I have had the best experience in the world with having people come into our business and 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
47 

showing us that they are really wanted and that they truly do have 

value, not just value to the dealership, but value as people in our 

community. 

If you can share that a little bit, because I don’t think there is 

anything better than to wake up and have the alarm go off, wake 

up, throw your feet out over the bed, say, you know what, I am 

going to go to work today and I am going to provide for my kids, 

I am going to put a roof over their head, clothes on them, food on 

the table, and a chance for the future. 

So I don’t think there is any woman or man out there when you 

get up and you have a place to go and a place that you are wanted 

is the key to it. Just share that a little bit. Listen, your testimony 

was fantastic, but you are the person that we are talking about. 

You are the person that wants to get back into society, wants to 

contribute, wants to be part of what makes America great. Just 

share a little bit more because I can’t imagine that transition. 

I have people that have actually; you know what they did when 

they got their first paycheck? They came in and talked to me about 

it, but then they took a copy of it in our copying machine so they 

could keep it in their wallet just to show these other people that 

were down on them, you know what, I actually get paid for what 

I do, and these people like me, and they want me back every day. 

If you could just share a little more of what you do, because it is 

an incredible story. 

Ms. COLLINS. Sure. So one of the biggest turnarounds for me 

was, especially being a victim of domestic violence and being a 

meth user for so long, was that I had to self-worth. So the people 

that I worked with made every day that I went in, made me want 

to go in another day. It was a just a happy, positive place to be. 

When I walked in, they were very excited to see me. Even though 

I went there and I worked really hard, it made it worth coming 

back every day. 

So what I do now with the participants that are at my store is 

I do the same thing. You have to come with a positive attitude. 

With a positive attitude comes a productive employee. I let them 

know how good of a job they are doing, and I just let them know 

how important they are to be part of our team and our team isn’t 

complete without them. 

It makes them open up to me a lot sooner with any kind of personal problems or any kind of barriers that they have. And just 

being able to, like you said, I spend a third of my day at my job, 

I want to go someplace that is going to be positive and where I feel 

important. And that is how I want my employees to feel. 

Mr. KELLY. I can’t imagine your children, how proud they are 

of their mom, every day she gets up and she is goes to work because of them. So thank you so much. 

Ms. Dvorak, I have got to tell you, your program makes sense to 

me because you take the curse off the call. You say, hey, listen I 

want to come talk to you about employing somebody and it is going 

to work for you, too. This is a win-win situation. That program, 

what made you pivot to that type? Were you having a different experience in the workforce trying to get people to actually listen to 

you? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
48 

When it came time to talk to an employer and say, I have got 

a prospective employee. And they say, really, get back with me. 

And say, well, here is the point, we can actually work together on 

this. You can win, they can win. In the long run you get a great 

employee. But early on, through that 90 days, you are going to get 

a chance, these people can prove themselves. 

Ms. DVORAK. The greatest part to me is going to employers. 

When you change people’s lives and you meet with CEOs and they 

see that they can be a part of it, it is amazing, you get them engaged and they buy in. It is great. It is great because it is a winwin for both the client and the employer. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, I think—and maybe, Mr. Doar, you can go 

with this—I think part of the problem, and Mr. Young and I were 

just talking, we have a criminal justice code that really takes people who are substance abuse people and makes them criminals, 

and they are addicts and they have a very difficult time. They want 

to get back into life and they want to be part of society, but they 

are constantly put down because of the way they are identified and 

the way they are labeled. 

I think the other problem, and maybe you suggested, you talked 

about people with soft work, if you stay off the field too long you 

don’t want to get back in the game. If you make it too easy to stay 

at home, I think you have to attach that work, getting work to get 

the benefit. 

Your experience in New York and people walking away from 

jobs, that is not good enough for me, but maybe for somebody else. 

So the soft issue, what is that exactly, so people understand that? 

Mr. DOAR. Well, one of the things I found most interesting about 

Mr. Bloom’s testimony was his reference to a program called CEO 

in the city that focuses on people coming back from prison. And 

they, my experience with them, I knew them, I worked with them, 

I funded them in part through city funding, I found them to go very 

focused on getting people ready and understanding the basic requirements of a job, and then getting them into work in a way that 

they then felt they were getting something in return. 

So it is both a combination from within and if they get a real return at the end of the day for work done. So it is tricky, all this 

work, but I would look at what CEO was doing with reentry people 

because they had a good model. 

Mr. KELLY. I am sorry, I have run out of time. But I want to 

tell you, I think this investment and the return on this investment 

for the American taxpayer is really a positive one. And you are all 

doing great work. Please keep it up and let us know how we can 

help you. Thanks so much. 

And I yield back, sir. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Crowley, you are recognized. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank each of you for testifying today. I appreciate having this hearing today and particularly focusing on helping families 

go to work and escaping poverty. 

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, this may be the least acrimonious 

subject we have discussed in the entire session. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
49 

And in particular, Ms. Collins, I want to congratulate you on 

your success and your life. It is outstanding, as was mentioned earlier by the chairman. And anyone who follows you does so at their 

own risk. And I applaud the others for having followed through and 

for contributing in a mighty way as well. 

I believe that subsidized job programs are one of the key tools 

in our arsenal to get families into the workforce and out of poverty. 

I support these programs, but I don’t support them at the expense, 

per se, of cutting other worthwhile programs as well. It goes hand 

in hand with programs like SNAP, which, Mr. Doar, I can’t help 

but notice that you list in your testimony as an important work 

subsidy as well. And that is why I am surprised, not to embarrass 

any of my colleagues here, but my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle all voted to cut the SNAP program as part of the Republican budget proposal earlier this year. 

I see Mr. Doar’s testimony also mentions that the Child Tax 

Credit is another important work subsidy. And I guess that is I 

was also surprised to see that my colleagues last week, my Republican colleagues, voted to reduce or eliminate the Child Tax Credit 

for hundreds of thousands of American children and their families. 

I was even more surprised because this came the day after the 

big thinker of the Republican Party, my good friend Mr. Ryan, released his ideas of how to lift Americans out of poverty. And despite all the evidence from every direction that SNAP and the 

Child Tax Credit and other policies are critical pieces of keeping 

Americans afloat, the so-called poverty plan includes cuts to SNAP 

and other vital social programs. 

What it doesn’t include is policies that actually help lift people 

out of poverty, and Ms. Collins has given her own life example as 

an example to us all, like the very subsidized work programs that 

we are discussing here today; like investments in education from 

early childhood to higher education and in the job training; like an 

increase in the minimum wage, which would not only increase 

wages to millions of American workers, but it would also reduce 

the need to put on programs like nutrition assistance in the first 

place. 

I won’t ask Ms. Collins, but I am sure she would like to see a 

raise in the minimum wage, but I won’t ask that question. 

Instead, this poverty plan is just the House Republican budget 

dressed up with a different bow on top. The fact is the Republican 

Ryan proposal is their worst idea since their last idea. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will just yield back to you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. 

I warned the panel beforehand that we might have some comments that might be political in nature, but I think the bottom line 

is that what you heard Mr. Crowley say in the beginning is that 

everybody on this panel, and I think everybody in Congress, including the staff, wants to come up with a way to help people get on 

their feet, get a job, and have a future as Ms. Collins has described. 

And that is the effort here. And those things that we have disagreements on are disagreements—if I can say, Mr. Crowley—disagreements on how we get there. And I think that is where we 

have the battle. I think Mr. Doggett alluded to that also. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the Chairman yield? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
50 

Chairman REICHERT. Yes, I will yield. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you would not interpret the words that I spoke as being political in the sense that everything that I talked about is in bill form and in legislation that 

we Democrats are in support of and would like to see advanced 

here in the House of Representatives. 

Chairman REICHERT. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. CROWLEY. That is not political, that is a legislative position. 

Chairman REICHERT. Reclaiming my time. Matter of interpretation of legislation and the wording in the legislation language is 

always one party or another has a different view. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, would you yield one last time? 

Chairman REICHERT. No. 

I want to take a moment to thank all of you, and appreciate your 

testimony. I think this was a very beneficial hearing in that you 

all provided information that we can all use, all of us together, and 

move forward. Again, the bottom line here is that we are all dedicated to trying to find a way to put people back to work. 

And you may not know some of the background of some of the 

members of this committee. Mr. Davis has an interesting background to share. I think we all do. But every now and then I think 

it is important for you to know that not all of us are Princeton, 

Harvard, Yale graduates. 

I was a runaway myself from my home. I was a victim of domestic violence as the oldest of seven. And I actually lived in the Kent 

Valley, where now you are employed in the Kent Valley. I went to 

Kent-Meridian High School. It is a place that I know very well. 

And maybe I will stop by the Kent Goodwill and say hello to you. 

Would that be all right? 

Ms. COLLINS. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. Okay. 

Thank you all so much for your testimony and have a great day. 

[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
51 

APHSA-NASTA 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 124 here 94398.025
52 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 125 here 94398.026
53 

Æ 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORSInsert offset folio 126 here 94398.027