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

70–677 PDF 2011

DUPLICATION AND INEFFICIENCIES IN FEDERAL

SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 1, 2011

Serial No. 112–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York, Vice

Chairwoman

CONNIE MACK, Florida

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Ranking

Minority Member

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

JACKIE SPEIER, California

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 1, 2011 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Dalton, Patricia, Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability Office; Robert Rector, senior research fellow, the Heritage Foundation;

John Mashburn, executive director, the Carleson Center for Public

Policy; and Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director, Ohio Association

of Second Harvest Foodbanks ...................................................................... 13

Dalton, Patricia ......................................................................................... 13

Hamler-Fugitt, Lisa .................................................................................. 77

Mashburn, John ........................................................................................ 60

Rector, Robert ............................................................................................ 46

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 11

Dalton, Patricia, Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 16

Hamler-Fugitt, Lisa, executive director, Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, prepared statement of ...................................................... 79

Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 3

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Map of Ohio ............................................................................................... 96

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Supplemental prepared statement of ...................................................... 112

Mashburn, John, executive director, the Carleson Center for Public Policy, prepared statement of ............................................................................ 62

Rector, Robert, senior research fellow, the Heritage Foundation, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 48

(1)

DUPLICATION AND INEFFICIENCIES IN

FEDERAL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Jordan, Buerkle, Cummings and

Kucinich.

Staff present: Gwen D’Luzansky, assistant clerk; Christopher

Hixon, deputy chief counsel, oversight; Mark D. Marin, senior professional staff member; Michael Whatley, professional staff member; Jaron Bourke, minority director of administration; and Claire

Coleman and Carlos Uriarte, minority counsels.

Mr. JORDAN. I think we will go ahead and get started. I might

get finished with my opening statement. Hopefully, Ranking Member Kucinich will be able to join us.

Let me thank you all for coming to this hearing on duplication,

overlap and inefficiencies in the Federal welfare programs. I will

start with an opening statement and hopefully, Mr. Kucinich will

be here. As I speak, he walks in. It is great to have you with us.

In March, the Government Accountability Office released its first

annual report on duplicative and fractured Federal spending. The

report estimated that conservatively, $100 billion could be saved

each year by eliminating duplication, overlap and fragmentation in

numerous Federal programs.

Congress considers the Federal budget on an agency by agency

or program by program basis. The GAO report was the first attempt at a comprehensive view of Federal spending by function.

Today, in what will likely be the first of a series of hearings, the

subcommittee will begin taking a more focused look at GAO’s findings, starting with the area of social welfare programs.

Since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, Ameri- cans have spent $16 trillion on welfare at the State and Federal

level. Under current administration plans, $10 trillion more will be

spent over the next decade. How much of that spending will be

wasted on duplicative programs, each with their own overhead, IT

budgets, bureaucracy and advertising budgets. How much of that

spending will be wasted on a program that fails to help the people

2

it is designed to help, the targeted population while a different program with an identical mission may be succeeding with less money.

GAO found that the Federal Government spent more than $90

billion on 18 different domestic food and nutrition assistance programs, more than $18 billion on 47 different programs providing

employment and training and $3 billion on 20 different homelessness programs. The Federal Government also currently funds 80

programs in 8 different agencies to provide transportation services

to ‘‘transportation disadvantaged persons.’’

While GAO was unable to figure out exactly how much these 80

programs cost the American taxpayers, it was able to determine

that a small subset of them totaled $2 billion annually. GAO has

also concluded that not enough is known about the effectiveness of

many of these programs.

For example, they found that only 7 of 18 Federal food assistance

programs had been associated with positive health and nutrition

outcomes, while the remaining 11 have not been effective. The

President signaled his intent to address Federal program duplication in his State of the Union Address where he stated ‘‘We

shouldn’t just give our people a government that is more affordable, we should give them a government that is more competent

and more efficient.’’ The American people would certainly agree

with that.

Two weeks later, the President addressed the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce reiterating his plan to address duplicative programs,

‘‘So, in the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate and reorganize the Federal Government

in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.’’

I hope the administration is serious about duplication and waste.

More than a month ago, I invited the White House Office of Management and Budget to participate in today’s hearing. Unfortunately, as was the case with the previous full committee hearing

on GAO’s duplicative programs report, the White House of Management and Budget has refused to engage with this committee on

meaningful oversight of wasteful Federal spending. I think it is

amazing, the Office of Management and Budget refuses to come

talk to this committee about the management of the 70-some different means-tested social welfare programs.

The American taxpayers deserve better than our current system

provides. They deserve a budget system in which all programs providing in aid can be viewed in full, easily tracked and evaluated

for effectiveness and efficiency. They deserve a welfare system

whose goals actually help people quickly reach the point where

they no longer need it and provide for themselves, one in which

multiple departments and multiple agencies manage programs that

waste money through overlap and inefficiency.

I appreciate the willingness of our witnesses to join us today for

what I think is a very important hearing in these crucial fiscal

times when we are trying to help the very people in this tough

economy who want to be helped.

With that, I will yield to my good friend, the ranking member,

Mr. Kucinich.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling

this hearing.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presence.

Today’s hearing addresses a recently issued Government Accountability Office report that focused on duplicative Federal programs and highlighted opportunities to potentially enhance Federal

revenues by reducing inefficiencies and overlap. In a 339-page report, GAO devoted just 18 pages to addressing opportunities that

may exist for reducing costs and improving efficiencies of certain

Federal programs, most notably food assistance programs and job

training programs. In both the continuing resolution votes as well

as other budget proposals, these programs, in particular, were targeted for severe cuts.

GAO’s findings are valuable as long as they are not misunderstood. GAO recommended streamlining, the administration of multiple programs delivering comparable benefits to similar, overlapping populations. Reducing administrative inefficiencies in Federal

welfare programs is an important goal that we should work together to address, but GAO did not find waste, fraud or abuse in

administration and delivery of these programs. GAO does not recommend delivering fewer benefits to those in need.

In the aftermath of the most economically destructive recession

since the Great Depression, poverty has been on the rise. According

to the Food Research and Action Center, nearly 1 in 5 Americans

struggled to afford enough food for themselves and their families

in 2010. In Ohio, my home State, there were 1.7 million people living in poverty in 2009, many remaining in poverty even though

they work full time year round.

As Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association

of Second Harvest Foodbanks, who is testifying before us today,

will confirm, in the State of Ohio the level of food insecurity is

greater than 13 percent, the highest level in a generation. This statistic alone shows how dire the need is and how critical Federal

food assistance programs are in Ohio and nationwide. Our economy

is showing positive signs of improvement but unemployment is still

at 9 percent. It is certainly no time to be pulling the plug on food

assistance programs.

Mr. Chairman, I had a visit from Ms. Hamler-Fugitt and she

gave me these plates which are filled out by people who are participating in one of the food programs. In my remaining time, I just

want to give these individuals for their voice to be heard.

‘‘To whom it may concern, the Hunger Center to me is like a

Godsend. Without the Food Center, I don’t know how I would survive every month. Food stamps don’t make it each month. Thank

you for your support.’’

Another one says, ‘‘I would like thank God for Avon Baptist

Church. God is good and I am thankful for Avon Baptist Church

helping me and my grandchildren at a time of need.’’ ‘‘The Food

Center has been so good to me and my family and my grandchildren. Time is hard and I thank God for the Center.’’ ‘‘The Food

Pantry helped me and my kids have food and some days I don’t

know what me and my kids would have done without the Center.

The Center really helps people and their kids.’’

6

Again, this is about the Avon Baptist Church. ‘‘The Food Bank

has been an enormous helping hand to my family and I greatly appreciate the three course meals that lasts us all month. It is only

by the grace of God that my family and I have been fed when we

have no money at all. The volunteers at the Food Bank have

helped this community the best way they can and they will be

blessed. Thank you.’’

‘‘Thank you, Avon for providing nutrition for my family. May God

continue to bless you. Through the hard times, I am able to get

food and clothing here at Avon and also smiles with good people

who really care. I don’t know what I would do without their help.

God bless’’ and finally, ‘‘Helped me to feed my family, great help

to make it through the month. They give good food that you can

make meals.’’

Mr. Chairman, I would ask, with your indulgence, if I could put

this into the record, signed by people, and maybe it could be transcribed so that these voices of people who are affected by this program have a chance to be heard.

Mr. JORDAN. Certainly. Without objection.

[NOTE.—The information referred to may be found in subcommittee files.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate

that.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

7

8

9

Mr. JORDAN. I just want to echo too that I have had the opportunity to visit one of the Second Harvest Food Bank centers and

do appreciate the work they do. The whole focus of this hearing is

to look to do things more efficiently and more effectively to help the

very people you were just quoting.

Mr. KUCINICH. If I can, Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous confidence in your compassion and your quality of heart and I just

wanted to make sure that while we were here discussing this, that

these individuals had a chance to be heard.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cummings, I am going to recognize Ms. Buerkle

for a quick statement and then we will go to you and hopefully we

can get in our witness testimony before we have to run to vote.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling

this hearing today.

When the GAO published its report in March on duplication in

government services, I was very concerned that we were wasting

taxpayer dollars, so I am glad that the committee is digging into

these issues. I think we walk a fine balance. There is no one who

doesn’t understand the need for these services, but we owe it to the

American people to make sure there is an effective and efficient

use of those dollars we are using for the programs. The report covered a very broad range of programs, so we are going to focus on

some of those today.

That report stated that the Federal Government spent over $62

billion on 18 different domestic food and nutrition programs for low

income individuals in fiscal year 2008. The GAO report stated

these programs showed signs of overlap and inefficient use of resources. It also mentioned we fund 47 different programs across

multiple agencies to provide employment and training service to

help the unemployed get jobs.

With trillion dollar deficits, we cannot let this continue. We need

to find the programs that work so that they work efficiently, effectively and reach the people who need their help. We need to end

this duplication and waste and find ways to get people into private

sector jobs which really gives people back their dignity.

I look forward to the opportunity of hearing from all of our witnesses today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentlelady from New York.

I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

courtesy.

In February, the Government Accountability Office issued a 339-

page report on potential duplication in Federal programs. They described areas of overlap in several major programs including Defense, Agriculture, Energy and Homeland Security. The decided to

focus today’s hearing on a tiny subset of these programs that help

some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society,

those in need of food, housing, transportation and job training.

The is targeting these same programs for significant cuts in their

2012 budget proposals. The Center on Budget and Policy estimates

that two-thirds of the Republican budget’s programmatic spending

cuts are to programs that serve people of limited means. That is

$2.9 trillion of a total of $4.3 trillion.

10

The fact that low income assistance is being targeted in this way

is especially troubling given the Republican ultimatum last year to

force the extension of all President Bush’s tax cuts for the Nation’s

wealthiest individuals. It is even more troubling in light of their recent efforts to protect lucrative tax breaks for oil companies making

record profits.

Americans across the country are struggling to overcome the impact of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. According to an October 2010 report issued by the Congressional Research Service, 3.7 million more people fell below the poverty line

in 2009 compared to 2008. These 3.7 million people were pushed

into poverty by a recession they did not create. In 2009, a total of

43.6 million people had incomes below the poverty line here in

America, more than at any time since we began tracking this measure in 1959.

The increase in poverty in America has been accompanied by increased hunger. In fact, in its report in February, the GAO found

that in 2008, nearly 17 million households experienced insecurity

in food, meaning they had limited access to food during some part

of the year. In my hometown of Baltimore, 40 miles from here, 13.3

percent of families with children fall into this unfortunate category.

These are horrible statistics, but they are the benchmarks against

which we measure our success as a society.

I believe with all my heart that our Nation is better than this.

We can do better and we must do better. Of course we must strive

to eliminate unnecessary duplication and streamline the delivery of

benefits. There is no one on this side of the aisle or the other side

of the aisle who would disagree with that.

I hope the Republican idea of duplicative food assistance programs is not breakfast, lunch and dinner. We must be clear about

our priorities, insuring that every hungry child is adequately fed,

that every sick person has access to medical care, and that every

family has a safe place to live. This is the American way.

These efforts not only help our fellow Americans get back on

their feet, but they insure that our next generation is ready to compete and succeed. The future of our country is in their hands. Mr.

Chairman, protecting the poor should not be a partisan issue. In

his most recent State of the Union Address, President Obama

called for an end to unnecessary duplication in government programs. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

He also established an initiative called Government Reform for

Competitiveness and Innovation and he included several program

cuts in his budget to help eliminate waste. I applaud the President’s leadership and I strongly support steps to help streamline

government and make it more effective and efficient for the American people.

I hope we can work together in a bi-partisan way to improve

rather than eliminate services to those struggling to meet the most

basic needs of life.

With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your courtesy

and I yield.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

11

12

13

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.

We will now have our witnesses proceed.

First, we are pleased to have Ms. Patricia Dalton, Chief Operating Officer of the Government Accountability Office. Thank you

for your good work on the report. We also have Mr. Robert Rector,

senior research fellow, the Heritage Foundation, and an expert on

social welfare spending and reform. We have Mr. John Mashburn,

executive director, the Carleson Center for Public Policy. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we have Ms. Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director from the Ohio Association of Second Harvest

Foodbanks.

Pursuant to committee rule, all witnesses must be sworn before

they testify. Please rise and answer in the affirmative after I read.

Please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. JORDAN. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

We will now go right down the row. We allow 5 minutes. You get

the yellow light when it is time to start getting ready to finish.

Ms. Dalton, you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA DALTON, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ROBERT

RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, THE HERITAGE

FOUNDATION; JOHN MASHBURN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

THE CARLESON CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY; AND LISA

HAMLER-FUGITT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO ASSOCIATION OF SECOND HARVEST FOODBANKS

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Kucinich, and Ms. Buerkle. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss GAO’s first annual report on duplication in the Federal Government.

Our report listed 34 areas where there is potential overlap, fragmentation or duplication. Overlap and fragmentation can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. We also identified in the report

47 other areas of potential cost savings or revenue enhancement.

Reducing or eliminating government duplication, overlap and fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually

and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services.

The current situation of multiple and overlapping programs

evolved over decades. Difficult decisions and sustained attention by

the administration and the Congress will be required to determine

what programs are needed now. This will be complicated by the

fact that data showing the effectiveness or lack thereof in current

programs is often nonexistent or insufficient. In addition, in some

cases, we don’t know exactly what we are spending. Today, I will

focus on four areas in our report of programs that provide assistance with food, employment and training, homelessness and transportation.

First, the Federal Government spends more than $90 billion on

domestic food assistance provided primarily through 18 different

Federal programs. The Departments of Agriculture, HHS, HomeVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:37 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\70677.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
14

land Security and multiple State and local governments work to

administer a complex network of programs.

Some of these programs provide similar services to the same population. For example, six different USDA programs provide food to

eligible children in settings outside their homes such as schools,

day care and summer camps. While having multiple programs

helps ensure that those in need have access to food, it also increases administrative costs. Complicating any decisions about

streamlining food assistance programs is the fact that little is

known about the effectiveness of 11 of the 18 programs. In fiscal year 2009, 47 programs spent about $18 billion on employment and training services. Of these 47, 44 overlap with at

least one other program in that they provided at least one similar

service to a similar population. For example, three of the largest

programs provide job search assistance. Nearly all programs track

outcome information but only 5 of the 47 GAO identified have conducted an impact study to determine whether the program is actually responsible for improved employment outcomes.

GAO has previously recommended to Labor and HHS that those

agencies work together to develop and disseminate information

that could inform State efforts to increase administrative efficiencies and examine the incentives for States and localities to undertake such efforts.

In 2009, Federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on over 20 programs targeted to address the various needs of persons experiencing homelessness. In some cases, different agencies may be offering similar types of services to similar populations. For example,

at least seven Federal agencies administer programs to provide

some type of shelter or housing assistance to persons experiencing

homelessness. This fragmentation can create difficulties for people

accessing services and administrative burdens for providers who

must navigate various application requirements, selection criteria

and reporting requirements.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has provided a

renewed focus on coordinating efforts and recently developed a

strategic plan for agencies involved in the fight to end homelessness. However, once again decisions on how to reduce its fragmentation and overlap could be hindered due to lack of comprehensive data. It is exacerbated by a lack of consistent definition.

Finally, GAO identified 80 existing Federal programs across 8

Federal departments that provide funding for transportation services for those who are transportation disadvantaged. An example of

the impact of fragmentation in this area is the Departments of Agriculture and Labor both fund programs that provide transportation for low income youth seeking employment or job training.

As in other areas I have discussed today, some actions are underway. For example, the Interagency Transportation Coordinating

Council on Access and Mobility has taken steps to encourage and

facilitate coordination across agencies but more is needed.

In conclusion, opportunities exist to streamline and more efficiently carry out programs in those four areas. Careful, thoughtful

analysis will be needed to address some of the issues discussed in

our March report and having comprehensive information on the

programs involved would help facilitate that decisionmaking.

15

In our future reports, GAO will followup on these areas as well

as examine other areas in the government for potential duplication.

We also have in-depth work ongoing in several selected areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my prepared statement and I would be happy to take any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you so much.

We will move next to Mr. Rector.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR

Mr. RECTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here today to talk about means-tested welfare assistance,

which means programs that are targeted to poor and low income

individuals providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social

services. For example, food stamps is a means-tested program, social security is not.

The big secret here is that the Federal Government runs over 69

major means-tested assistance programs. The problem isn’t so

much duplication, but the fact there are so many programs, no one

in this city has any clue how much money you are spending on the

poor, absolutely no clue whatsoever.

When you look at the welfare state, it is as if you have a jigsaw

puzzle with 69 different pieces. The way Congress operated was to

look at one piece at a time and only one piece and then pretend

that piece and that piece alone was the only thing standing between poor people and starvation. It automatically results in a

massive over expenditure. Imagine if you ran your family budget

that way, you never added anything up. You just looked at each

component, one at a time. That is the way we run the welfare

state.

In fiscal year 2011, total spending on these 69 programs was $940 billion, 75 percent of that was Federal spending, 25 percent

was State spending, mainly State contributions required into Medicaid.

Combined Federal and State means-tested spending is now the

second largest category in government spending overall in the Nation. It is exceeded only by Social Security and Medicare. It exceeds

the cost of public education. Let me repeat that. It exceeds the cost

of public education and it dwarfs the cost of national defense.

In the two decades before the current recession, means-tested

welfare was the fastest growing component of government spending. We never heard that in the Washington Post. It grew more

rapidly than Social Security and Medicare and the rate of increase

dwarfed that of public education and national defense.

Despite the fact that means-tested welfare was at record levels

when he took office, President Obama has increased this spending

by a third, but this is a permanent, not a temporary, increase in

spending. According to Obama’s spending plans, means-tested welfare will not decline as the recession ends but will continue to grow

rapidly for the next decade and will soon be over $1 trillion a year.

He plans to spend $10 trillion over the next decade at least.

About half of this $950 billion goes to low income families with

children. That is about $470 billion a year. If that amount of money

were divided evenly among the lowest income, one-third of all families and children, which is about 15 million families, that comes to

around $30,000 per family. The amount of money being put out

there simply dwarfs one’s understanding. To look at these programs one at a time completely misrepresents the type of assistance. There is virtually no family out there that only gets aid from

one program. They get aid from many different programs.

47

The means-tested welfare system is a vast, hidden welfare state

about which the public and legislators know virtually nothing. You

can’t debate it or make rational decisions solely on a piecemeal

basis. You have to look at the aggregate spending.

I would also say simply the United States cannot afford to spend over $1 trillion a year on low income individuals, money which we

will mainly borrow from the Chinese. We have to get this spending

under some type of reasonable constraint. If we have to continue

to spend, we certainly want to assist the poor but we have to have

some reasonable constraint.

I would propose that we take this aggregate spending and when

the recession ends, we should roll that spending back to the prerecession level which was already a record level, already beyond

anyone’s understanding and then allow it to grow at inflation for

the foreseeable future. That would be a reasonable compromise

that would help us deal with our debt and our deficit but would

continue to provide very generous assistance to low income persons.

Finally, I would say the biggest problem with these programs is

not that they are inefficient, but that they generate poverty themselves. Every one of these programs will reward people for not

working and it rewards people for not marrying and those are the

two principle causes of child poverty. These programs generate

need for themselves. The more money you put into them, the more

people in need of aid you create and therefore, the more need for

future spending you create.

We need a welfare system that changes those incentives and encourages individuals to work and become self sufficient and certainly encourages marriage rather than penalizes it. That is what

Lyndon Johnson said when he launched the War on Poverty. He

said, ‘‘I don’t want to put people on the dole, I don’t want to put

people on government assistance. I want them to become prosperous and self sufficient. That is what we need to do.’’

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. Appreciate that good testimony.

Mr. Mashburn.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MASHBURN

Mr. MASHBURN. As GAO points out in this report, in light of the

Nation’s fiscal outlook, there is widespread agreement that we need

to look at not just near term steps, but at the long term fiscal sustainability of government fiscal policy and government programs.

However, it should be pointed out that this just the latest in a long

series of studies and reports over the past three decades regarding

the need to reform and streamline the Federal Government programs to make them more efficient and responsive.

While a lot of the duplication and overlap exists at the Federal

level, the multitude of Federal programs serving similar populations are usually administered by a small handful of agencies at

the State level such as welfare, human services agencies or State

work force agencies.

Much like the GAO report before us, Congress in the late 1980’s

was confronted with the recommendations of the so-called Grace

Commission which President Reagan had established by Executive

order in 1982. The survey was conducted by over 2,000 private sector executives, managers, experts and special consultants broken

up into 36 task forces who submitted a 47 volume report with a

two volume summary and made 2,478 recommendations. Presidents Reagan and Bush implemented those they could administratively via the executive branch but Congress essentially ignored

those requiring legislative action, the ones that would have saved

the most dollars.

The Clinton administration followed up with a National Performance Review in 1993 which offered approximately 380 major recommendations. Again, the Clinton administration implemented

those that it could administratively in the executive branch but

Congress generally failed to implement those that had to be done

legislatively.

OMB then in 2004 under George W. Bush’s administration, then

implemented the Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART, to rate

all Federal programs on their effectiveness, in an effort to ensure

Federal programs were accountable and achieved the results for

which they had originally been established.

PART evaluations then served as the basis for the Bush administration recommendations for eliminating or cutting 150 programs.

Again, implemented or passed legislation to adopt very few of those

recommendations.

In short, the executive branch for three decades under both Republican and Democratic Presidents have identified Federal programs, including welfare programs, that should be cut, eliminated

or reformed. Congress, however, has failed to act on the vast majority of the recommendations. Hopefully, this hearing marks a different juncture in history.

As we look at the latest recommendations for eliminating wasteful, overlapping and inefficient government as part of Federal programs, or as GAO euphemistically puts it, ‘‘creating efficiencies

that could put these agencies in a position to better assist program

participants while deceasing administrative burdens,’’ we should

61

keep in mind Ronald Reagan’s overarching principle as he grappled

with the problems of welfare reform in California in 1968.

‘‘Welfare needs a purpose: to provide for the needy, of course, but

more than, to salvage these, our fellow citizens, to make them self

sustaining and as quickly as possible, independent of welfare. We

should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.’’

When Ronald Reagan testified several years later as Governor

before the Senate Finance Committee in February 1972, he said

out several tenets he believed were necessary for welfare reform to

succeed. They were: Given broad authority to utilize administrative

and policy discretion, the States are better equipped than the Federal Government to administer effective welfare programs; a system, whatever it may be called, would not be an effective reform

of welfare, but would tend to create an even greater human problem; a limit should be set on the gross income that a family would

receive and still remain eligible for welfare benefits; for all those

who are employable, a requirement be adopted that work in the

community be performed as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits without additional compensation; and the greatest single

problem in welfare today is the breakdown of family responsibility

and strong provisions should be made to insure maximum support

from responsible parents.

The TANF block grant for welfare cash assistance was based on

these principles and is one of Reagan’s greatest legacies. The now

undisputed success of the TANF block grant is a testament to the

leadership of President Reagan and Bob Carleson, for whom the

Carleson Center is named, who was Reagan’s welfare policy adviser

both when he was Governor and when he was President and

Carleson continued his efforts toward block granting welfare even

after Reagan left office.

Under Reagan’s vision, welfare reform is not just about saving

taxpayers’ money, but moving beneficiaries from dependence to

independence as was often said during debate on passage of the

1996 welfare reform law.

As Reagan was quoted during an address to the International

Committee for the Supreme Soviet, USSR, September 17, 1990,

‘‘We have found in our country that when people have the right to

make decisions as close to home as possible, they usually make the

right decisions.’’ I would note that was before the Soviets.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mashburn follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Mashburn.

They have just called votes but we want to hear from Ms.

Hamler-Fugitt and then we will recess and come back for questions.

STATEMENT OF LISA HAMLER-FUGITT

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Good afternoon, Chairman Jordan, Ranking

Member Kucinich and distinguished members of the committee. I

would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I represent the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks,

Ohio’s largest charitable response to hunger. We provide food,

funding, training, technical assistance and Ohio Benefit Bank services to a network of 3,000 food pantries, soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Eighty percent of our charities are faith-based, volunteer-driven, operating on budgets of less than $25,000 a year. Half

of all the food we distribute comes as a result of Federal and State

funding.

Over the last decade, the number of Ohioans in poverty has

grown by a staggering 46 percent and the effects of the great recession are still with us: deeper poverty, lower fixed incomes, minimum wages, part-time employment and many are suffering from

long term unemployment.

In the last quarter of 2010, our charities served nearly 2.1 million Ohioans and half of those we served were children and the elderly, yet every day more hungry Ohioans are standing in our lines

and their limited budgets are now being further shattered by rapidly rising food and fuel costs. It is bad out there. Those who were

already hanging by their fingertips are now falling into the abyss

and the organizations that we serve are begging for crumbs and

praying for a miracle.

Mr. Chairman, the GAO produced a very balanced report and I

support many of its findings, but there are some real world realities to these findings that must be highlighted. One, program overlap does not always mean duplication. Some of these critical programs already have fixed funding, eligibility and enrollment caps

and cannot respond to increased need, particularly in a weak economy. Many families who struggle with hunger are not poor enough

to qualify for support. The consequences of increasing hunger and

malnutrition are severe, including lowered productivity, educational achievement and astronomical health care costs.

SNAP, the largest USDA program, served nearly 42 million

Americans. One in seven Americans received food stamps in February. It has the lowest eligibility of all Federal nutrition programs

and the maximum benefits lasts less than 21⁄2 weeks out of every

month.

The GAO reports describes the Commodity Supplemental Food

Program as one of the duplicative programs citing that many seniors eligible for this program are also eligible for SNAP, yet seniors

with limited mobility and transportation barriers may not be able

to purchase food at a grocery store and therefore, benefit from both

a box of food provided through the Emergency Assistance Program

and CSFP as well as home-delivered meals.

In Ohio, a fortunate 20,463 seniors receive a 40 pound box of government food valued at $18.77 a month. The waiting list for this

78

program is long and many of our food banks report that seniors in

their communities call and ask for the CSFP box of a recipient that

they know has gone into a nursing home or worse yet, other nonparticipating seniors will read the obituaries and if they see the

name of someone they know who has received CSFP, they ask if

they can receive the deceased recipient’s box of food. This is hardly

a case of people getting too many benefits. Rather, it shows people

do not have enough to eat.

Another example of the real world reality of vulnerable Ohioans

is that one out of every two babies born in Ohio is potentially eligible for WIC, a modest supplemental program like SNAP, it is not

intended to meet the participants’ entire nutritional needs. In fact,

a study conducted by the University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital found that 65 percent of the families reported they had run

out of formula and did not have money to buy more and 39 percent

of the families studied were already on WIC and SNAP, yet were

at risk of hunger.

All too often these programs do not always reach the poor because of rules and requirements that are confusing, requiring families in need to produce multiple documents and verifications multiple times at multiple agencies, using precious time and gas

money, traveling and sitting in waiting rooms of agencies that

would be better spent keeping a job and finding a new one and it

does not make sense for people with limited mobility.

We agree with GAO that programs are decentralized, lack coordination and data sharing, all of which are required to improve efficiencies and effectiveness. I would like to briefly share our association’s experience in reducing efficiencies and unnecessary overlap

while ensuring that people receive access to benefits.

Our association met this challenge head on. We implemented the

Ohio Benefit Bank and Internet-Based Application Assistance Program which streamlines program access and reduces barriers by

providing a single application platform of more than 20 programs.

We have joined together nine State agencies and four Federal agencies and have leveraged public and private resources establishing

yes, over 1,100 not-for-profit and faith-based and community partners and recruited some 4,300 counselors reaching people where

they work, live, play and pray.

Again, we believe that in order to prevent duplicative efforts in

costs, investments are needed to upgrade and integrate systems

used to determine and maintain eligibility across all health and

human service lines.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity and would be pleased to

answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamler-Fugitt follows:]

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mr. JORDAN. Let me thank all our witnesses.

We will be back in probably 25 minutes. There are 9 minutes left

in this vote, so we have to go vote. I appreciate your patience.

We stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Dalton, in Mr. Rector’s testimony, he talked

about 69 different programs, but I look at some of the things in

your report and you talk about 47 Federal employment training

programs, 18 different food programs. Do we have any idea what

the real number is? Is it 69 or 169, 3,000,000? What is the number

of programs?

Ms. DALTON. We looked at functional areas and tried to identify

as many programs as we could in those areas. That is where you

are seeing the numbers of 20, 40, 82, 47 in the employment and

training area. One of the difficulties is trying to define what a program is. There is not agreement on exactly what a program is, so

there may be some differences in definition.

Mr. JORDAN. Did you categorize them the way I think we have,

programs providing food aid, housing, social service programs, education programs, basic cash assistance programs, vocational training, job training programs, medical programs, energy and utility

assistance type programs and then child care programs. Did you

put them in the same broad categories?

Ms. DALTON. We did very broad categories. In some cases, for example, employment and training, we would include the full range

of employment and training services. It may be targeted toward

youth or targeted toward adults.

Mr. JORDAN. If you had to hazard a guess, what would your

number be? I have been using 70.

Ms. DALTON. Certainly if you accumulated the numbers that we

talked about today, it is in the hundreds.

Mr. JORDAN. Hundreds, so more than 70. Would you agree with

the concept Mr. Rector raised that is in the legislation I have introduced and some Members have co-sponsored, saying it would be

helpful if we at least had an aggregate number of what the government spends each and every year on the 100-plus means-tested social welfare programs?

Ms. DALTON. I think it certainly would be good to have a number

of how many programs there are, what exactly are we spending

and what are we getting for that money.

Mr. JORDAN. It would be good to know the real number of programs and the various agencies, the total we spend, the aggregate

number and most importantly, are these things working. Just for

the committee and the record, can you tell how many are having

success with the people they intend to help?

Ms. DALTON. Certainly in some of the areas, there is some information about the success of the programs.

Mr. JORDAN. Give me a number. Of the 100-plus programs, how

many programs? Is it single digits? Is it 20, 50? What is the number based on your report and the work you have done, of the 100-

plus programs, are actually helping the people they are supposed

to help?

Ms. DALTON. It would be difficult for me to give you a specific

number.

92

Mr. JORDAN. Because you can’t give a number? You have no

idea?

Ms. DALTON. No.

Mr. JORDAN. No clue?

Ms. DALTON. I know it is not in the single digits, but beyond

that, I couldn’t tell you.

Mr. JORDAN. Twenty percent?

Ms. DALTON. It is really hard to tell.

Mr. JORDAN. Less than 50 percent?

Ms. DALTON. I really wouldn’t want to hazard a guess.

Mr. JORDAN. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Rector, you talked about the wrong incentives we have. Not

only do we not know how many programs there are or how much

money we spend, but all those programs across agencies, we send

the wrong incentive. I have often said that the welfare system particularly says to the single mom out there, don’t get married, don’t

get a job, have more kids and you get more money. Is that a fair

assessment? Is that across the board in these 100 plus programs

sending the wrong message? Elaborate on that a bit more if you

could.

Mr. RECTOR. All of these programs have an anti-marriage effect

because they are means-tested. The way that works is that in a

means-tested program, the more earned income there is in the

household, the lower the benefits will be. It is automatic. What is

the first way then to have a lower amount of earned income is not

to have a married husband in the household. If you have a married

husband in the household, his income is automatically counted toward eligibility. So each and every one of these programs in almost

every circumstance, the family will get less money as a result of

being married to an employed man. The net result has been that

basically these programs have supplanted fathers as bread winners

throughout about a third of the U.S. population.

When Lyndon Johnson started the War on Poverty in 1964, 7

percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today,

that number is 43 percent. Forty percent of the births in the

United States are paid for by Medicaid. Almost all of those are nonmarital births. There is an incentive right there to begin with.

Basically, for many blue collar families, if the couple is married

and the man does not have a good health insurance policy, which

is quite probable, then the cost of the childbirth to that married

couple will be borne by the couple. On the other hand, if they separate, then Medicaid is almost inevitably going to pick up the full

cost. From the beginning, the moment a child is conceived, the

State is saying as long as you don’t get married, you are on our

dime but if you are married to a working man, basically, you have

to shoulder these costs.

All of these programs have an anti-marriage effect and most of

them have a very strong anti-work effect and as a result, we basically have done the opposite of what Lyndon Johnson said we

should be doing. He said, I don’t want to put people the dole. In

fact, I was reading this marvelous thing in the 1964 economic report of the President where they were first talking about the War

on Poverty where it actually says, we could wipe out all the poverty

in the United States for $20 billion a year. We could pick up this

93

money and give it to people and they would no longer be poor but

we are not going to do that because it would be wrong.

What happened is we completely changed it and then got in the

business of giving people support rather than trying to make them

capable of supporting themselves more effectively. In particular, we

basically displaced marriage in the low income community. The

single, strongest cause of poverty in the United States today is the

lack of marriage. Our society is dividing into two castes. In the

upper part, you have married couples, children raised by married

couples both of whom have a college education. In the bottom 40

percent of our population is mothers who are not married and have

a high school degree or less. That is the poverty population and it

is about over $300 billion a year in welfare assistance there as

well.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.

The gentlelady from New York.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our apologies to all

the witnesses for the temporary recess we had.

My first question is for Ms. Dalton and then I have a question

for the entire panel. This is a followup to the chairman’s question.

You talk about measuring outcomes and understanding the effect

of these programs. I think that is so very important because when

we talk about these programs, it is not an unwillingness on anyone’s part to provide what we need for the neediest but the issue

is, this is not our money. This is the American peoples’ money. We

must be responsible stewards of that money. I think we need to understand the impact studies.

You stated that 5 out of the 47 programs have completed an impact study since 2004 and that in those five programs any positive

effects tended to be small, inconclusive or restricted to short term

impacts. I want to be sure that I understand what you are saying.

Basically, for the vast majority of the 47 employment training programs run by the Federal Government, using $18 billion of taxpayer money, there is little or no information about whether or not

these programs actually work?

Ms. DALTON. All the employment and training programs, there

is some performance information that is collected. The most common measure is entered employment, did the person get a job, but

that information alone really doesn’t tell you the impact of the program, did the person get a job, did they retain the job, are they

making a sustainable wage. That is the type of information really

gets at impact. That requires some pretty thorough study.

You are also trying to see whether or not the particular program

is the causal agent of creating the impact. In these areas where

you have multiple services coming from different programs, it is

difficult to isolate it, but it is important to know that because then

you have a better idea of what is really working and where do you

want to invest your money.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. My next question is for all four of the

panelists.

The GAO’s testimony today states the Federal Government spent about $90 billion on domestic food and nutrition assistance in fiscal

year 2010. This is an update to the $62 billion for fiscal year 2008.

That is a 44 percent increase over 2 years.

94

I would like to hear from each of you on this. Is this a temporary

increase, is this a result of the financial crisis or do we have reason

to believe that these increases in other social welfare programs will

continue to increase?

Ms. DALTON. Much of the increase is, in fact, due to an increase

in benefit levels that was included in the Recovery Act. My understanding is that increase will end in November 2013. A large percentage of that increase is due to the Recovery Act legislation and

will recede to prior levels in November 2013.

Ms. BUERKLE. Do we have any idea of the dollar amount?

Ms. DALTON. I can get that for you.

Ms. BUERKLE. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Rector.

Mr. RECTOR. I can get you the exact numbers on that. I believe

that food stamps goes down slightly a few years from now, but

overall, food assistance, I believe, grows at more than the rate of

inflation for the foreseeable future.

Overall, when you look at cash, food, housing, medical care and

social services, there is no decline in government spending even as

the recession ends. I can provide you those numbers but they in the

back of President Obama’s budget where no one would look at

them, but they are all there. In fact, all the spending continues to

grow quite rapidly as far out as the President can project it.

A lot of people regard spending on the poor or welfare spending

like it is a roller coaster that in a recession, it goes up and in good

times, it comes back down. If you look at the back of my testimony,

this is the picture of welfare spending adjusted for inflation since

1950, since the Korean War. You don’t see too much coming down

there. It is more like the Alps slope, it goes up rapidly or goes up

at a moderate pace. It never comes down. There are only about 2

years in this entire period where it actually came down.

The nature is that during a recession, this money gets pumped

up—we have pumped it up by 30 percent over the last 2 years—

and then it never comes back down. I believe that is what the Nation simply cannot afford to in the future.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

I apologize, Mr. Mashburn, I am out of time.

Mr. JORDAN. Go right ahead.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mashburn.

Mr. MASHBURN. As Ms. Dalton mentioned, ARRA, our stimulus

bill, as many call it, increased the SNAP benefits by about 15 percent. In addition, the reasons the numbers might not come down

is it also expanded eligibility and many of those expansions of eligibility are proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2011 and his new

fiscal year 2012 budgets, such as it eliminates the 3-month time

limit on benefits for able bodied adults without children, so they

are just free. They don’t have any limits, so now food stamps are

available to able bodied men who aren’t working as long as they

don’t’ have children.

It increases the household income dollar limits and disregards

the amount of money people can make but the income disregards,

the things you don’t count as income, has also gone up. The EITC

used to be disregarded for 3 months. I think the President’s proVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:37 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\70677.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
95

posal disregards it for 12 months. If you disregard it for 12 months,

you have completely disregarded it. That is a $5,000 a month benefit and it is not income.

As long as those asset tasks and other eligibility requirements

that restricted the caseload to the truly needy keep expanding, I

don’t see how you are ever going to get the program to fall. Just

this month, a man won $2 million in the Michigan State Lottery.

He is eligible for food stamps. He was on food stamps before and

he is still eligible. Michigan has been trying for 2 or 3 months to

get him off, but they are restricted by the Federal asset test—there

is no asset test.

Even though he bought a new house, a new car, the income he

has comes in from the remaining part of his winnings he has left

after the house, the car and everything else, is less than the eligibility cutoff for his benefits. The State Human Services Department spokesperson mentioned it is a Federal policy. We have been

trying but we can’t do it which is why a lot of people are proponents of block grants because you can see the State knew that

wasn’t right and wanted to do something. It is the feds that are

keeping them from doing the right thing.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Mashburn.

Ms. Hamler-Fugitt.

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Food stamp participation has grown by 60.4

percent since February 2008. It is at an all time record high. Expenditures are up directly as a relation to the economy and the

number of individuals who now find themselves in many cases

working but earning wages that don’t lift them or their families out

of poverty. In many cases, it has been the long term unemployed,

many who have been unable, despite their best efforts, to find employment in their area.

Certainly we are concerned and again, this is a supplemental

program. Individuals who are suffering from hunger and food insecurity don’t first turn to the SNAP Program. They use five to seven

different other coping strategies before they ever ask for help. They

are selling their personal possessions on ebay, Craigslist and at

yard sales; they are sending their children to the homes of friends

and neighbors in order to eat. The last place they turn is to the

public welfare office.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.

Mr. JORDAN. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for

holding this hearing and for inviting Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, who plays

such a critical role in providing food to families across our State,

to testify at this hearing.

The statistics she has provided to this committee are shocking.

Yesterday, when I met with her, she showed me this map of Ohio

which I would like to enter into the record with unanimous consent.

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

96

97

98

99

Mr. KUCINICH. It shows that in Ohio today, 70 of Ohio’s 88 counties now have more than 25 percent of the residents eligible for

emergency food. I look at our State and I think of all of us who

serve it. We are representing counties in which 30 to 35 percent

of the population is at or below 200 percent Federal poverty level

which is the threshold for eligibility for food assistance programs.

We share a desire to ensure our constituents in Ohio and across

the country that we are able to put enough food on the table so the

children don’t go hungry and the elderly aren’t forced into even

more unfortunate circumstances, trying to find available supplemental food. Families are still struggling with hunger even as they

rely on current Federal food assistance programs and local resources.

I would like to make a commitment to you today, Mr. Chairman,

to work together to determine how we can best streamline these

programs to eliminate administrative inefficiencies, but as we have

this conversation about finding program inefficiencies, I am very

concerned that we don’t weaken programs’ ability to meet needs either by reducing benefits or cutting eligibility for those who need

assistance.

I am letting you know that I look forward to working with you

so that we can ensure that these critical food programs are protected from further budget cuts and from current levels of food assistance. Can we do something together on that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for his focus. Our job is to

make the assistance work better and ultimately help the people the

programs are intended to help and by so doing, you save money for

the taxpayer at this critical time in America’s fiscal situation. That

is our focus as conservatives. We want to help those who need help

and by so doing, you save money.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a real weight that is put on us because we have to make

sure that as we analyze these programs in our desire to streamline

them, that we don’t inadvertently lowering the available benefits at

a time of highest demand. That is one of the reasons Ms. HamlerFugitt came forward in her testimony that is so important to people she serves. This, again, is trying to make sure that people who

are hungry have some resource, somewhere so they are not left out.

We can get an ideology about how this happens, and I might

agree with you on some of those things, but I am concerned that

we stay focused on wherever there are programs that are working

and feeding people that we keep doing it.

I want to say to Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, you said there have been

two problems with food assistance and other service programs

available in Ohio. First, do you not believe they are adequately

funded? That is obvious from your pitch. Is that right?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. You believe that some of the different rules and

application processes are causing eligible and needy people to miss

out on benefits for which they are eligible, is that right?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. What can we do to make accessing benefits simpler and more efficient?

100

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. One is that we have to align and integrate

the systems that manage them. I think certainly the frustration

and my own frustration in reading the GAO report is that we lack

data. We lack data because we have antiquated systems that were

developed on a COBOL platform which is more than 50 years old.

IT graduates are not trained in COBOL. In fact, in our State, we

need to bring people out of retirement to reprogram basic systems.

I see the chairman smiling, he remembers this at the State.

We need to invest in technology that is available. We have

worked on this at the State level. We need to mandate that both

the Federal and the State agencies with jurisdiction over these programs work together, ensuring that we are not writing redundant

rules and regulations. We need to ensure access points, but also at

the same time, maintain integrity.

In our shop, data equals dollars. It is very clear to me that is

what we are missing. We have undertaken independent research

on our benefit bank. In fact, we have been working with the

Voinovich School at Ohio University to evaluate not only the impact of integrating programs and service delivery, but also doing

longitudinal studies on those who are participating in the programs

so we can make informed decisions about where we go.

To blame the poorest of the poor, the hungriest of the hungry,

because of the failure to collect adequate information is unconscionable.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, you said participation in your

programs is up currently?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. JORDAN. By what percentage?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. We are up nearly 47 percent.

Mr. JORDAN. So a few years back when the economy was in a

much better situation, you had much fewer participants in your

program, much less need for your food assistance program?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. It has been climbing, not as drastically as

it has in the past few years as a direct result of the great recession,

but it has been climbing since the onset of welfare reform. Certainly we saw many folks who left the system, did not know that

other supportive services were available.

Mr. JORDAN. Do you anticipate as the economy improves your

numbers going down? Has that been the pattern in the past? Have

you seen in good economic times, you have less and in bad economic times, you have more participants?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. No, unfortunately, we haven’t.

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t anticipate when the economy improves—

which we all hope it does sooner rather than later—any less participants in your program?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. I don’t. If you look at the data, Ohio currently ranks 50th out of all States in income growth.

Mr. JORDAN. I am going back to the point Mr. Rector made. Most

people assume when the economy improves, there is less need for

social services.

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. It would be so if the jobs that are coming

back paid a livable wage, but certainly what we have seen is surge

in minimum wage jobs being created in the State and over half of

101

the 31,000 jobs that were created over the last year came in the

retail sector were paying minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage.

Mr. JORDAN. You said there has been a higher growth rate in the

last few years but it was growing even in 2005 and 2006. Is any

of that attributable to a broader definition of who qualifies? How

does it work?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. On the Food Stamp Program, we certainly

have made some changes and I would say that some of those policy

changes have brought in more people. It has also been about education, assuring people standing in our food lines that the Food

Stamp or the SNAP Program was available. We have been pretty

aggressive in our outreach. Our goal is we want people standing in

grocery store checkout lines instead of food pantry lines, making

healthy decisions for themselves and their families.

Mr. JORDAN. Would you agree that it would help if we knew how

many social welfare programs actually exist in the Federal Government, how much we spend totally and whether those programs are

actually helping the people they are intended to help?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is good government.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Mashburn, talk to me a bit more about this

whole block grant concept. It seems to me you get the dollars to

the local level to people like Ms. Hamler-Fugitt who will actually

work with the folks on the State and local level. That makes a lot

of sense and how it was used with TANF. Give me the broader perspective on the block grant concept.

Mr. MASHBURN. The block grant concept as far as TANF was

concerned, initially was a bare bones block grant which was you

sent an amount of money to the States, you didn’t do a maintenance effort requirement on the States and in the negotiations—

the Clinton administration and others—there was a maintenance of

effort requirement imposed on the States. Then the Governors

came in and said, if you are going to require us to keep spending

what we are spending, you at the Federal level have to keep spending what you are spending. You guaranteed that level at the Federal level, you didn’t index for inflation.

That had a strange effect in that the State bureaucracies knew

they were going to get a guaranteed amount of money and knew

if they reduced the rolls, they weren’t going to lose any of that

money. Whatever savings they had, they were required to spend it

on a harder to place population.

That had a lot of the effect and changing the welfare bureaucracies from basically a caseload enrollment center into employment

agencies, getting people trained, getting people off the rolls. The

work requirement changed the attitudes and the motives of the recipients, but the funding mechanism through the capped but guaranteed level of Federal spending changed the motivations and the

economic incentives for bureaucracies themselves. They didn’t have

to worry about losing money.

They also weren’t able to count of being given more money like

under AFDC where every time you enrolled a new recipient, you

got 80 percent of your costs from the Federal Government.

102

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask one more question for both you and Mr.

Rector.

The first piece of legislation I got passed as a member of the

Ohio General Assembly was time limits for able bodied adults receiving cash assistance. We argued at the time, and I think we

were proven right, deadlines influence behavior. If able-bodied

adults know there will come a point where they will no longer be

eligible for the benefit, in this case, it was cash assistance, it influenced what they did. It was amazing no one got kicked off the program because they found work, they found opportunities. They had

the right incentive in place to actually find employment prior to the

deadline. Deadlines influence behavior. Deadlines change things.

Do you think we need to move more in that direction with many

of these programs, both Mr. Mashburn and Mr. Rector?

Mr. RECTOR. That is the basic point about whether these programs accomplish their goals. The problem is that in 95 percent of

these programs, the goal is to give people stuff. That is the only

goal and the government can give away a lot of things. It has given

away $16 trillion since the beginning of the War on Poverty. When

you give people free food or free housing, they have something they

didn’t have before.

The problem is that in doing this, we have created a culture of

dependency and the more money you give, the more dependent people you generate. The work ethic goes down and marriage disappears as the welfare checks serve as a substitute for the husband. That is why you can never stop spending in these programs.

The more you spend, the more you need for assistance you generate.

In all of these programs, you need to basically say, we want to

assist you, but we want to assist you in such a way that we encourage the best efforts on your part. We are going to require you to

prepare for work or take a job. We are going to create a welfare

system that isn’t hostile to marriage. By the way, we are also going

to tell young people that if you don’t want to be poor, the No. 1

thing you can do in the United States is be married before you

have a child. It is more effective than graduating from high school.

No one ever knows that. Suppose we never told high school dropouts that dropping out of high school was bad for them. In terms

of the No. 1 cause of poverty, which is non-marital birth, we never

tell anyone about that. We need to create a system that supports

but at the same time encourages positive behavior.

None of these programs have that objective, except for TANF

perhaps. Therefore, they can succeed but what they are succeeding

in is giving people assistance and making future generations dependent on welfare.

The other thing we need to be very careful about is exaggerated

statements about need. As I have indicated, and these figures are

correct, we are spending close to $30,000 when you take all these

programs together for each low income family with children. If we

are spending that amount of money and still have all these kids

with empty stomachs, I am a critic of the government but my goodness, that would be worse than anything I could possibly imagine.

The reality is when we look closer at this, and I agree that food

assistance needed to go up during the recession. It has gone up but

103

if you look at the USDA data, which has a survey of food security

and hunger, it shows during 2009 of all the poor people and the

poor children in the United States, only 4 percent of them had any

disruption of food intake that might relate to hunger; 96 percent

of poor children did not experience that; 80 percent of poor adults

did not experience any disruption of food intake at any point during the year. It is right in these reports which are national surveys.

I think that is good. That is not something I am complaining about.

As we look at spending of the dollar, we have to be realistic in

understanding what the nature of the need is and not to constantly

exaggerate and constantly say all we need is more money.

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask Ms. Hamler-Fugitt one question and

then I will go to Mr. Mashburn.

Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, what percentage of the people you serve

come from single parent homes?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. We don’t track that data, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JORDAN. Hazard a guess.

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Don’t track the data.

Mr. JORDAN. You sort of have a feeling. Getting to Mr. Rector’s

point, is it that we have a system that encourages people not to be

married? I am just curious if that is what you are seeing in the

food side of things versus some of the other programs?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. I would agree that certainly looking at the

latest census data that has come out on the community survey, we

are seeing an increase in poverty among single female heads of

households. I do want to make a statement that in welfare reform,

there was a lot of work we did at the State level, as you know, with

the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

around looking at these issues and incentives including around

family formation. I think to some degree the States have done a

good job.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Mashburn, then Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. MASHBURN. I would just point out there is another GAO report that came in February 2010, Temporary Assistance to Needy

Families. Fewer eligible families have received cash assistance

since the 1990’s. When you first look at that, it sounds like there

are a lot of people out there eligible for benefits that aren’t receiving them and the government ought to do something about it to

make sure they receive it.

When you did into the report, they mention you go from 57 million eligible families in 1995 down to 53 million eligible families in

2005 which is a lot less than the reduction in the TANF caseload

over that period of time. You realize that the way they count nonparticipation is a person found a job on their own, the government

found them a job before they got on TANF, there are people not

participating because they can actually make more money in some

of the other welfare programs if they don’t take the TANF benefits

because TANF benefits count toward your eligibility and your level

of benefits in other programs like SNAP.

Finally, a lot of the non-participants didn’t like the hassle of having to prove to the taxpayers that they were deserving of help from

the taxpayers because they didn’t like having to go to the job interviews, the work requirements, all the other stuff so they just said,

104

I won’t take TANF. I will get SNAP or some of these other benefits.

Those were counted as non-participants.

If you have a job and you are not participating, you may in the

income eligibility framework to be eligible for TANF, but the fact

you got a job and you are self-sustaining doesn’t mean the government needs to sign you up for TANF and get you to quit your job.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Rector, I just want to make sure that I heard

you correctly. Did you say that welfare checks are substitutes for

husbands?

Mr. RECTOR. In a large part, what welfare assistance has done

is to supplant the role of the male earner in the home. The numbers are just there.

Mr. KUCINICH. You said welfare checks substitute for husbands?

Did you say that?

Mr. RECTOR. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. I just have to say that seems like somewhat of a

simplistic formulation. Do you really mean that to be what you say

for the record because if you do, we have to go a bit deeper into

this.

Mr. RECTOR. Let us go deeper into it. That may be a little bit

crude but yes, I would absolutely say that welfare, not just cash

checks but the whole system, has served as a substitute for the role

of the male breadwinner in the home. In fact, without that massive

level of assistance, there is no possible way that we could have

gone from a 7 percent out of wedlock birth rate in 1965 to a 42 percent rate today simply because these low income mothers would not

be able to sustain those children without government assistance.

Mr. KUCINICH. These low income mothers, do you want to tell me

a little bit about what these low income mothers should be doing?

Mr. RECTOR. I would be very happy to. A lot of people confuse

non-marital births with teen pregnancy. Only about 7 percent of

these births occur to girls under 18. It is mainly young adult

women, 19 to 25. Most of these births are intentional, the mother

desires to have a child, the mother sees having a child as an important role and goal in her life. The data I am reading now comes

from something called The Fragile Family Survey, out of Princeton

University. It is very important to understanding this phenomenon.

These mothers are actually also quite sympathetic toward the

idea of marriage in the wrong term. They would like to have a husband, a house in the suburbs, a couple kids and a mini-van, a dog,

very traditional goal. What has happened is that we have developed a culture where they think it is not important to be married

before bringing children into the world, that you have children first

and then you look to get married.

I am not making this up. I can come to your office and give you

books and books on this, all written basically by liberal scholars.

Our understanding of this has increased greatly.

Mr. KUCINICH. So what do you propose? Do you propose that we

don’t feed these children?

Mr. RECTOR. No, that wouldn’t work very well.

Mr. KUCINICH. What do you propose?

Mr. RECTOR. What I would propose is that each of these programs, as I tried to explain earlier, does have a penalty that if you

105

do get married, you lose some benefits. We ought to try to soften

that a bit.

Mr. KUCINICH. How would you soften it?

Mr. RECTOR. You could either reduce the benefits that go to the

single parent or you could increase the benefit.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why would you reduce anybody’s benefits in a period where people are having trouble making ends meet? I don’t interrupt you, don’t interrupt me.

Mr. RECTOR. Fine.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to submit for the record an article from the

New York Times dated March 21, 2011. The headline says, ‘‘Many

low wage jobs seen as failing to meet basic needs.’’ I am going to

read just a few quotes from this. ‘‘Hard as it may be to land a job

these days, getting one may not be nearly enough for basic economic security. Many of the jobs being added in retail, hospitality

and home health, to name a few categories, are unlikely to pay

enough for workers to cover the cost of fundamentals like housing,

utilities, food, health care, transportation and in the case of working parents, child care.’’

It also says ‘‘A single worker with two young children needs an

annual income of $57,756, just over $27 a hour, to attain economic

stability. A family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year or about $16 a hour per worker.

That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found

that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line

in 2009.’’

There is one other quote I want to read. ‘‘The numbers will not

come as a surprise to working families who are struggling. Tara,

a medical biller who declined to give her last name, said she earns

$15 a hour while her husband works in building maintenance and

makes $11.50 a hour. The couple live in Jamaica Queens and have

three sons, aged 9, 8 and 6. ‘We try to cut back on a lot of things,’

she said, but the couple has been unable to make ends meet on

their wages and visit the River Fund Food Pantry in Richmond Hill

every Saturday.’’

We have a jobless recovery where the Fed is printing money out

of nothing and giving it to banks, banks not loaning money to

mainstreet so jobs can be created. I have never in my time seen

so many people standing in line to get food even in my own neighborhood in Cleveland. We have to be very careful about engaging

in sophistry while people are not just struggling to make ends meet

but people are starving.

I respect all the witnesses, you are very kind to be here and testify but there is a point at which, Mr. Chairman, some of this testimony is a bit tough to take.

Mr. JORDAN. But would the gentleman agree that it is important

for programs to have the right incentives in place and would the

gentleman agree, and I think he would, that many of these 100

plus programs do encourage the wrong kind of behavior. We can

disagree on what the remedy is but I think the gentleman would

agree that when you have incentives in place that don’t encourage

the pursuit of work, maybe encourage more children to be borne

106

out of wedlock, wouldn’t you agree that we at least need to try to

figure out a way to address that?

Mr. KUCINICH. I think the purpose of this hearing that deals

with attempting to streamline programs, I think is a great idea, absolutely. I think we should all agree with that. When testimony

moves from that into value judgments on people, particularly single

women who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, I

would bet there are probably a number of Members of Congress

raised by one parent families, in particular single women, who find

themselves in extraordinary circumstances. The mother’s first concern is to feed her kids. That is No. 1, even before the roof.

Mr. JORDAN. Would the gentleman answer the question? Don’t

you think we do need to at least try to address the incentive situation in these programs?

Mr. KUCINICH. I think we ought to give people jobs. Jobs create

work. There ought to be work, not welfare, for those who are able

to work. That is fundamental. When you have Wall Street accepting that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the

proper functioning of the economy, I think that is a moral question.

Mr. JORDAN. Would the gentleman also agree that when you

have over 100 different means-tested social welfare programs, we

can’t determine the exact number, according to the GAO; we can’t

determine how many of those programs are successful; and we

don’t have any idea what the aggregate cost is or what we are

spending on all those programs, that is a problem as well?

Mr. KUCINICH. I think we have to sort out those things while we

keep feeding people.

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman.

I will yield now to the gentlelady from New York.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mashburn, I want to go back to your testimony and the line

of questioning with the chairman. I just have a quick question.

Do you think if we talk about block grants for food assistance

programs, there should be some requirement and attach work to it

as we did with welfare programs?

Mr. MASHBURN. Certainly.

Ms. BUERKLE. Why do you think that?

Mr. MASHBURN. It provides an incentive for people. It doesn’t rob

their dignity from them; they work for some of their benefits. At

the same time, it keeps people from abusing and gaming the system. As I mentioned earlier, some of the people don’t enroll in the

TANF program even though they are eligible; they enroll in the

other welfare programs because they get more benefits from the

other programs. It is because they don’t want to have to go through

the work requirements and all the other hassles, which is mentioned in the report, hassle of applying for the benefits and complying with the requirements.

If it is too much hassle to do that, that you don’t want to take

TANF, the same situation being in food stamps, if you are not willing to go through the process to justify the fact that you need help

from the taxpayers and your fellow citizens, and that is too much

of a hassle, in my view, I don’t believe you deserve food stamps to

at least go through that process. Work requirements and other requirements like that, whether it is community service or something

107

like that, ensures they are not getting free money from the government, they are giving something back in return. That does give

them dignity as individuals.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Mr. Rector, I want to go back to the line of questioning with my

colleague, Mr. Kucinich. You were starting to talk to us about a

study done at Princeton. We got into the line of questioning about

how we could not penalize. Going to the chairman’s point, I think

we want to make sure everyone gets what they need, but we also

know there are always unintended consequences. You started to

talk about how we can soften that so we don’t discourage single

women from getting married.

Mr. RECTOR. First of all, let me clarify I am not talking about

ripping food away from people in the middle of a recession. I think

everything I was talking about here is long term and I think I have

been very clear that most of these reforms would have to take place

as the recession eases.

You do find you are giving about 75 percent of the assistance

that goes to children, means-tested assistance is going to single

parent households. The welfare state basically exists to support

single parenthood. That is an unintended consequence.

If you had gone back to the 1960’s, at that point, Daniel Patrick

Moynihan warned us about this and everyone said, that is not

going to happen. It was much worse than he ever dreamed it could

be and it is now affecting basically the whole bottom third of the

population. You are giving a lot of assistance now to able-bodied

parents who don’t work, you can begin to make the system more

rational by requiring that all able-bodied recipients in these programs should work or prepare for work as a condition for getting

aid. That would greatly rationalize the system.

You can also provide somewhat greater assistance, less discrimination against married couples but let me talk about the consequence of that. In this Fragile Family Survey, we actually have

data about the mother but we also have data about the father

which is pretty unusual in social science because we are not very

interested in fathers in this country.

The reality is if you take these 40 percent of births out of wedlock, this is the road to poverty in the United States, 70 to 75 percent of child poverty occurs in single parent families. If you took

these mothers and actually married to the actual father of the

child, not a hypothetical, not somebody I dreamed up, in two-thirds

of the cases, the income the father would bring into that home

would bring the family completely out of poverty. In many cases,

the mother wouldn’t even have to work. This is the strongest antipoverty weapon in the United States today.

When you survey these women, you find they are not hostile to

marriage. In fact, they would like to get married but they actually

have this pattern of saying, I want to have a child first, then I am

going to start to look around for a husband, I will get married later

on. We ought to begin to explain that if you want your child to not

be poor, that set of decisionmaking is probably not the best route

for you to go down.

We ought to explain the single largest cause of child poverty in

the United States is having a child without being married and they

108

might want to look at other options to meet their own goal, not to

meet my social values or your social values, but to actually meet

their own personal goals of which marriage is a substantial part.

Not being poor is also another substantial part.

No where in the welfare system do we ever provide these at risk

young people, both men and women, with this information. I think

it is a national tragedy.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. I yield back.

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a point of

note to correct statements that both Mr. Rector and Mr. Mashburn

made. There are work requirements for both SNAP and cash assistance. Let me be crystal clear, people who receive these benefits

must work off those benefits and in my system, thousands of individuals come into a food pantry, a soup kitchen or a food bank

every day and they work hard for those benefits.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Rector, I live among the people you just

talked about and I think unless you are a woman, and unless you

sit in a woman’s place, I think you make some pretty strong statements talking about women not wanting to be married and making

a choice to have a baby first. I am sitting here and I can’t believe

what I am hearing.

Be that as it may, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, one of the things we are

trying to get at in this hearing is whether certain Federal programs are redundant or wasteful. We must strive to eliminate unnecessary duplication and streamline delivery benefits but I hope

that the Republican idea of duplicative food assistance programs is

not breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Help us think about this the right way from the perspective of

families and seniors who are eligible for these programs. I would

like to ask you these questions. Are Ohio families you work with

being overfed?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. No, sir, they are not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can they take a budget cut as the Republican

majority’s budget imposes on food assistance they receive?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. No, sir, they can’t. With rising food and fuel

costs, they are making choices about who eats tonight and who

doesn’t eat.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you deal with the school lunch program at

all?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Yes, sir. We work all of the Federal nutrition programs through our Ohio Benefit Bank, ensuring that people

know about the programs and helping to streamline the application

process. I also want to say that this isn’t only just the greatest generation, this is the next generation that we are losing their ability

to not only for our greatest generation to live out their golden years

with a little bit of dignity to be able to feed themselves, but we are

sacrificing our future to allow hunger and malnutrition to exist at

the rates they do in this country.

Mr. CUMMINGS. While rich folks get the tax breaks.

Let me go to something, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. The other day I was

thinking about when I was a little boy. My mother and father had

limited education, and by the way, they worked every day, Mr. RecVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:37 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\70677.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
109

tor, every day, from sun up to sun down. My mother was a domestic for $7.50 and car fare. My father was a laborer.

We used to get graham crackers and milk every morning. They

worked hard and they were able to educate, on a domestic salary

and a laborer’s salary, seven children, one of whom is a Member

of the Congress of the United States of America today. I think what

Ms. Hamler-Fugitt is trying to say is that we have to make sure

that we take care of our people and we take care of our children.

If I did a rewind, if I took some of the positions that I guess you

are taking, I wouldn’t be here today, nor would my fellow brothers

and sisters be achieving the things they achieve.

Going back to you, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, are they enrolled in multiple job training programs, these folks you see or is there a waiting list for job programs?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Yes. Again, with welfare reform and not

only passage of the Personal Responsibility Work and Opportunity

Reconciliation Act but the Work Force Investment Act, these were

devolved and a lot of what has happened in the fragmented system

is that they were not only devolved to the States but they were also

devolved to the county level were a county-operated the system. It

is the luck of the draw.

Mr. CUMMINGS. A lot of people are trying to train for jobs that

aren’t even there, is that right?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. We are seeing record enrollment in community colleges where people are trying to get new skills and upgrade

their skills, but again, there are limited slots available to these

programs. I would like to speak to one in particular.

Mr. CUMMINGS. While you are talking about that, I want you to

answer this. Do all homeless individuals have access to shelter and

are they getting two beds for the night because of duplicative assistance?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. As to the homelessness question, no. They

do not have two beds and in fact, many now find themselves, if

they are lucky, have a family or friend that has taken them in; we

have seen household demographics increasing substantially because families have lost their homes. The shelters are full. In the

State of Ohio, we have families who are sleeping in cars at roadside rests in the State of Ohio and I suspect it is the same in your

State.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In the United States of America?

Ms. HAMLER-FUGITT. Yes, sir.

Whether there are sufficient job training programs, there is a

program where we are seeing more seniors than ever trying to reenter the work force. Despite their efforts of working hard, thinking they had saved enough for their golden years, they are attempting to re-enter the work force.

There is a program called the Ohio Senior Community Services

Employment Program that is designed specifically to help older

adults aged 55 and older to access meaningful job training, on the

job training. There are a limited number of slots. I can tell you

from firsthand experiences, we get calls every day from seniors begging to get into this program and it pays a modest $7.25 an hour.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. I see

my time has expired.

110

Mr. JORDAN. Just one last question for Mr. Mashburn. If, in fact,

social welfare spending for these 100-plus programs, we can’t determine the exact number, it has steadily increased. That is true over

the 40 some years. If it has always been increasing, why the terrible results? If all we have been doing is increasing money for this

all along, doesn’t it make sense to look at it differently and figure

out if we can combine programs, make it work more efficiently?

If we keep doing the same thing, we will keep spending the same

amount of money and Ms. Hamler-Fugitt will have more people

coming to her needing food and assistance because obviously it is

not working the way it was supposed to.

Mr. MASHBURN. She talked about it devolving to the State level

and the county level. If there are work requirements in the program in Ohio, it is probably because either the State or the county

has required it.

As far as the money spent, you keep spending the money unless

you start giving people incentives and help them find jobs so they

don’t need the system. If you just support them in their status quo

in the system, you don’t train them and there is no penalty for

staying, you will have the caseloads you have plus future caseloads

as well which is why the spending keeps going up.

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Dalton, has the GAO ever come forward with

what you recommend? We know the problem, we don’t know what

we are spending, we know it is a lot and it has been $16 trillion

over the last 50 years. We know we are spending a lot, we can’t

determine the number of programs, we don’t know which are ultimately successful. We do know the food program is working in

Ohio, but we don’t know everywhere else what is going on. Is the

GAO going to come forward with recommendations on what to do?

Ms. DALTON. We are not going to make specific recommendations. The discussion here has shown that this is really a policy

issue. We do talk about the need for good data, the need to rationalize the system. It is a system that in all the areas I discussed,

it evolved over time with very good intentions but now we have 80

programs here, 40 programs there. There is a need to look at what

do we want to achieve, who do we want to serve and what is the

best way to achieve that. I think those are the three basic questions that need to be answered to design the programs to achieve

those.

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Buerkle has one last question and we will be

done.

Ms. BUERKLE. For an organization that receives Federal dollars,

is there no requirement that they track their results? Does anyone

know the answer to that question?

Mr. RECTOR. I do. Basically, for example, with job training, there

are not requirements and when you do have a requirement, for example, to run a controlled experiment, the programs are not very

effective. I would also say when you do have information in the political system, it tends to get disregarded.

I would reference you all to a report called the 2009 Annual

Homeless Assessment Report which is prepared by HUD for the

Congress. I will give you a copy of that. It says very different

things than you just heard here and happens to be a survey of

111

every homeless shelter in the United States conducted on a scientific basis.

It shows actually no increase in the use of homeless shelters over

the last 3 years and the average homeless shelter in the United

States on any given night has a vacancy rate of 10 percent. If we

are not going to use information like that, I suspect we could cut

these reports out and make things up.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentlelady yield?

Ms. BUERKLE. Yes, sure.

Mr. KUCINICH. Just for a moment. May I ask the gentleman a

question? Are you saying that there has been no increase in homelessness or just that there is no increase in the use of homeless

shelters?

Mr. RECTOR. The report shows neither increase which I also find

surprising, but more importantly, it basically shows the level of

homelessness is relatively low and that the homeless shelters on

average on a continuing basis have vacancies.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Ms. Dalton, you appear to have a comment.

Ms. DALTON. Yes. There are a couple points I want to make in

terms of determining whether the programs are effective and what

they are required to do.

Most of the programs do have requirements to present some performance information. Whether or not it is the right information or

whether it is integrated is oftentimes not done. There is a new law

that the Congress passed last year called the Government Performance and Results Act, Modernization Act. That act is requiring improved performance reporting by Federal agencies and most importantly, it’s targeting coordinated performance information trying to

get information about programs that work together.

It will be important to implement that act properly. I think that

may at least start us on a path to some quality performance information.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much. I yield.

Mr. JORDAN. Let me thank our witnesses again for a good discussion.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The supplemental prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J.

Kucinich and additional information submitted for the hearing

record follow:]

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Æ