WELFARE REFORM:

SUCCESS IN MOVING TOWARD WORK

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 16, 2001 

Serial No. 107-33 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

80-214 pdf 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman PATSY MINK, Hawaii

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RON KIND, Wisconsin 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATON AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ...................................................... 2 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATON 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.............................................................................................. 3 

STATEMENT OF LYNN A. KAROLY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, LABOR AND 

POPULATION PROGRAM & POPULATION RESEARCH CENTER, RAND 

INSTITUTE, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA .................................................. 5 

STATEMENT OF E. MONA GARLAND, DIRECTOR, OPPORTUNITIES 

INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER OF GREATER MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

WORKS, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN................................................................ 9 

STATEMENT OF LaSHUNDA HALL, FORMER WISCONSIN WORKS 

PARTICIPANT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN .................................................. 11 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY CARROLL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE 

WELFARE TO WORK PARTNERSHIP, WASHINGTON, D.C. ...................... 13 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, LEGAL DIRECTOR, NOW-LDEF, NEW 

YORK, NEW YORK............................................................................................. 16 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BROOKS, DIRECTOR, SELF-SUFFICIENCY 

PROGRAMS AND POLICY, WIDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN, 

WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................................................ 18 

APPENDIX A -- WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATON AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

............................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX B -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LYNN A. KAROLY, Ph.D., 

DIRECTOR, LABOR AND POPULATION PROGRAM & POPULATION 

RESEARCH CENTER, RAND INSTITUTE, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

............................................................................................................................... 41
iv

APPENDIX C -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF E. MONA GARLAND, 

DIRECTOR, OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER OF 

GREATER MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN WORKS, MILWAUKEE, 

WISCONSIN ......................................................................................................... 63 

APPENDIX D -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LaSHUNDA HALL, FORMER 

WISCONSIN WORKS PARTICIPANT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN............ 79 

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RODNEY CARROLL, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE WELFARE TO WORK PARTNERSHIP, 

WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................................................ 87 

APPENDIX F -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, LEGAL 

DIRECTOR, NOW-LDEF, NEW YORK, NEW YORK...................................... 95 

APPENDIX G -- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BROOKS, 

DIRECTOR, SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND POLICY, WIDER 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C. .............................. 109 

APPENDIX H – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE AND 

CONSERVATION CORPS REGARDING “EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN 

WELFARE.”........................................................................................................ 133 

Table of Contents................................................................................................. 138 
1

WELFARE REFORM: SUCCESS 

IN MOVING TOWARD WORK 

______________

Tuesday, October 16, 2001 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon presiding. 

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Castle, Souder, Mink, Wu, 

McCollum, and Hinojosa. 

 Staff Present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; Scott Galupo, 

Communications Specialist; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Whitney 

Rhoades, Legislative Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Ruth Friedman, Minority Fellow; 

Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education; Brendan O'Neil, Minority 

Legislative Associate/Education; and Michele Varnhagen, Minority Labor 

Counsel/Coordinator.

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness will come to order. 

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on the effects of welfare reform. 

Under Committee rule 12(B) opening statements are limited to the chairman and 
2

ranking minority member of the Subcommittee. That should be easy. Therefore, if 

other members have statements, by unanimous consent the hearing record will 

remain open 14 days to allow members' statements and other extraneous material 

referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

 Hearing no objection, so ordered. I will begin with my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” 

McKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATON AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this important hearing. The 

Subcommittee is holding its second meeting to date to hear testimony on the effects 

of welfare reform and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to continue to examine the effects of 

welfare and its impact on work and families. In particular, we will focus more 

specifically on the work requirements within the welfare reform bill passed by the 

Congress in 1996. Even with the strong economy of the late 1990s, studies are 

confirming that welfare reform is largely responsible for the declining caseloads and 

the increase in work. 

 At our first hearing on the issue last month, we heard that welfare reform has 

had a number of positive effects. Caseloads are down more than 50 percent. 

Incomes are up and child poverty has fallen further than at any time since the 1960s. 

There are many factors behind these results, but none more important than work. 

The focus on work requirements has changed the whole culture of the program for 

all those involved; state staff, recipients, and even the general public. 

 During the strong economy of the 1980s, families did not leave the welfare 

system for work because they really had no incentive to do so. Unlike the old AFDC 

program where individuals lost all of their cash assistance if they went to work, 

States now have the flexibility to create incentives for families to go to work. 

 States and Federal welfare reform laws have created a new work ethic in our 

welfare system and for the families that had come to depend on it. However, at the 

same time, we continue to be concerned about family outcomes. 

 All of us are interested in the impact of welfare reform on poverty. There are 

some interesting recent statistics on this topic that I would like to share. 

 Recently released Census Bureau data show that female-headed families had 

their lowest measured poverty rates ever in the year 2000. One of the hallmarks of 
3

welfare reform has been the reduction in the number of single mothers without 

earnings and the increase in the number of single mothers with earnings. People in 

female-headed households with no workers have the highest poverty rate among 

household groups; two-thirds were poor. However, the proportion of single mothers 

with earnings has increased dramatically in the last few years. 

 A recent study shows that the number of single working women who head 

families with children rose by 20 percent from 1993 to 1999. As a result of 

obtaining earnings, these families moved from a category with a deep poverty rate, 

those without earned income, to a category with a poverty rate less than 20 percent.

And we know welfare reform played a significant role in helping women make this 

transition into work. While we know that there is still work to be done the progress 

has been significant. 

 Today, we will hear from an analyst who is examining the multitude of 

research that has been done to date on welfare reform. In addition, we will hear from 

a practitioner and former recipient who will be able to share with us how aggressive 

work programs have changed people's lives. We will hear about the business 

community's commitment to hiring former recipients and researchers looking at 

welfare leavers and outcomes for families. I know all will offer us insight into the 

strides that have been made, as well as thoughts on further steps that need to be 

taken; and we look forward to their comments. 

 With that, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Mink for her opening 

statement. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” 

McKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATON AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATON AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate and 

compliment you for calling this series of hearings on the condition of the poor in our 

society and the impact that the Welfare Reform Act, known as TANF, has had on the 

women, particularly who are single moms and who have desperately tried to provide 

for their families and found circumstances wanting. 

 And it is appropriate, I think, for this Committee to engage in early 

discussions about shortcomings in the TANF legislation, because we will 
4

undoubtedly be dealing with it next year during the reauthorization of the welfare 

bill. And one of the issues that we will be discussing today has to do with the very 

limited education and training opportunities under TANF. 

 Under the law that we passed, there is only a 1-year possibility of work 

training or vocational education being considered as work activity. And if you are 

not in work activity, then the time counts against you in terms of your eligibility for 

continued protection under the welfare program. 

 As you know, there is the initial 2-year limit then and the lifetime 5-year 

limit. So we, I think, need to look very, very carefully at the limitations that were 

structured in the Federal legislation and to understand that the potential for welfare 

recipients to improve is proportionate to their opportunities for education. 

 And so I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to look critically at this 

issue and look forward to the impact it will have on next year's deliberations. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

 Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to remind the 

members that we will be asking questions of the witnesses after the complete panel 

has testified. In addition, Committee rule 2 imposes a 5-minute limit on all 

questions.

 I would now like to introduce our panel. We have Dr. Lynn Karoly, Director 

of the Labor and Population Program and Population Research Center from the 

RAND Institute in Santa Monica, California; Ms. Mona Garland, the Director of the 

Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee, Wisconsin Works, 

from Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ms. Lashunda Hall, former Wisconsin Works 

participant, also from Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Mr. Rodney Carroll, President and 

CEO of the Welfare to Work Partnership from Washington, D.C.; Ms. Martha Davis, 

Legal Director, NOW-LDEF. 

Ms. Davis. Yes, Legal Defense of Education Fund. 

Chairman McKeon. That is the acronym then. 

 Ms. Davis from New York; Ms. Jennifer Brooks, Director of Self-Sufficiency 

Programs and Policy, Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington, D.C. 

 Let's hear first from Dr. Karoly, please. 
5

STATEMENT OF LYNN A. KAROLY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, 

LABOR AND POPULATION PROGRAM & POPULATION 

RESEARCH CENTER, RAND INSTITUTE, SANTA MONICA, 

CALIFORNIA

Dr. Karoly. Good morning, Chairman McKeon and members of the Committee. 

My name is Lynn Karoly. I am a Senior Economist and Director of the Labor and 

Population Program at RAND, a private nonprofit research organization based in 

Santa Monica, California. The testimony I present today draws on my ongoing 

research at RAND and does not necessarily represent the position of RAND or any 

of RAND's research sponsors. 

 I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you this morning 

about the impact of welfare reform on work, including the effect of work 

requirements. My remarks today are based on an extensive review of the national 

research literature that aims to identify the impact of welfare reform as a whole, as 

well as specific reform policies, such as work requirements, on various outcomes 

including employment and earnings, welfare use, income and poverty, and child 

well-being. This extensive literature review forms the core of a project known as the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, synthesis project, which is 

being conducted by RAND through a contract from the Administration for Children 

and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

 I serve as the principal investigator of the project, which is a collaborative 

effort with Jacob Klerman and Jeffrey Grogger. 

 In my testimony today I want to start by presenting some background on the 

approach of the synthesis project, and then discuss our conclusion in the area of work 

requirements. Finally, I will discuss some issues for TANF reauthorization that 

emerge from this research effort. 

 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

1996, we all refer to that as PRWORA, which implemented the TANF program was 

enacted to further several goals: reduce dependency, increase employment, reduce 

unwed childbearing, promote marriage and maintain two-parent families. With the 

pending reauthorization of TANF, policymakers want to know how much these 

policy reforms embodied in the TANF legislation have been successful in achieving 

these goals. 

 Specifically with respect to work, as you indicated, Chairman McKeon, 

trends in key indicators show improvements in employment rates and earnings for 

women leaving welfare as well, more generally for single women with children, the 

group most at risk of welfare receipt. 

 At the same time, other studies of welfare leavers suggest that long-term 

employment outcomes may be more mixed, with frequent spells of unemployment 
6

and limited earnings growth. 

 While it is tempting to infer that welfare reform explains the observed trends 

or the circumstances of welfare leavers, we know that these types of comparisons do 

not account for other policy changes, and the robust economic expansion that took 

place during the same time period also contributed to these trends. 

 For policy purposes, it is essential to know that the effect of welfare reform 

has been holding everything else constant. This is, in fact, the goal of our research 

effort. In particular, we seek to answer the question: What can we say about the net 

effects of TANF, taking into account the impact of other factors such as the economy 

and other policy changes that may have affected the outcomes of interests? 

 Well, answering that question is not a simple matter. For example, suppose 

we wanted to know the net effect that the 1996 legislation and the TANF program 

implemented on employment of single mothers. To understand this net effect, we 

need to know what would have happened to the employment of single mothers if 

welfare reform had never happened in August of 1996. Of course, since welfare 

reform did happen, we can't actually observe that scenario. 

 Well, how do we untangle this causal problem? Two primary research 

methodologies are available that are designed to measure the impact of welfare 

reform, holding everything else constant. The first is to implement a random 

assignment experiment where individuals are randomly assigned to either the control 

group, which is subject to the baseline policy environment, or the treatment group, 

which is subject to the new policy environment. If randomization is executed 

properly, there should be no systemic differences between these two groups, other 

than those attributable to the different policy environments. 

 For our synthesis, we reviewed the published findings from 28 major random 

assignment evaluations conducted during the 1990s prior to TANF implementation. 

Many of these evaluations were required as part of the waivers granted by DHHS 

prior to TANF implementation. They assess the types of reform subsequently 

implemented by many of the States under TANF. 

 The second research approach is to analyze observational data using 

statistical methods to hold constant as many potential confounding factors as 

possible.

 In our synthesis we review over two-dozen high-quality studies that utilize 

this approach. One specific policy we consider in our synthesis is requirements for 

mandatory work-related activities, also known as "work requirements." The various 

reform policies enacted under TANF requirements for mandatory work-related 

activities are among the best studies; 13 studies have published estimates of the 

impact of work requirements based on a 2-year follow-up period. The specific 

studies we reviewed in this category are detailed in my written testimony. 
7

 The results from these 13 studies support the following three conclusions 

about the impacts of requirements for mandatory work requirements: 

 First, under work requirements, employment rates and earnings increased 

while welfare use and use of food stamps and Medicaid decreased; 

 On average, the treatment groups in the 13 programs increased employment 

by about 6 percentage points during the 2-year follow-up period; 

 The treatment group also increased earnings, but the impact estimates are 

small, an average of about $700 over 2 years; 

 In the treatment groups for 12 of the 13 evaluations, welfare use was lower 

after 2 years by an average of 5 percentage points. 

 The second conclusion is that there appears to be no effect of work 

requirements on income, although poverty may improve; because the composition of 

income shifts from welfare payments to earnings, self-sufficiency as measured by the 

share of income from earnings rises. 

 Twelve of the thirteen welfare to work programs found that mandatory work 

requirements had no significant impact on income at the 2-year follow-up. Impacts 

on poverty were almost all insignificant, although more impact estimates were 

negative, suggesting that these programs may be somewhat more effective at raising 

incomes near the poverty threshold than at the bottom of the income scale. 

 The third conclusion is that there appears to be no change in marriage or 

fertility when work requirements are implemented. 

 As for the impact of work requirements on broader measures of well-being or 

on child development and school progress, the studies show no clear pattern of 

beneficial or harmful effects for children. 

 While under States’ TANF programs, work requirements have typically not 

been implemented in isolation; rather they are combined with other major reforms. 

Our synthesis drew on another set of experimental evaluations that assess the impact 

of work requirements combined with other policy reforms, namely financial 

incentives and time limits. By "financial incentives," I mean features of welfare; 

benefit structures that make work pay either through enhanced earned income 

disregards or reduced benefit reduction rates. 

 These studies point to other key results from this literature. First, work 

requirements, when combined with other reforms, generally increase work and 

earnings just as they do in isolation. However, welfare use can increase when strong 

financial incentives are part of the reform package; or they may decrease when time 

limits are part of the reforms and those time limits become binding. 

 Second, when work requirements are combined with other policies, the 

impact on other outcomes such as income, fertility and marriage, and child well-
8

being can differ from what is observed when work requirements are the only major 

reform. 

 Let me give you one example. The evidence is mixed with respect to child 

outcomes, with some random assignment studies finding some improvements in 

child development when programs include financial incentives, while others show 

little or no impact. Negative impact on child schooling and behavior, particularly for 

adolescents, has been found in one evaluation that includes time limits as part of the 

reform package. 

 Our synthesis points to several issues that are relevant as Congress debates 

the reauthorization for TANF. First, policymakers need to recognize the trade-offs 

between the various goals of welfare reform and the ability of different policy 

components to achieve these goals. While the primary reforms to the welfare 

system, such as work requirements, financial incentives and time limits, generally 

serve to raise employment and earnings, the impacts on other outcomes suggest that 

there are trade-offs that must be made in choosing between reform policies. 

 For example, while work requirements reduce welfare use, they do not have 

much of an impact on income and poverty. Consequently, they also do not appear to 

change marriage and fertility or child well-being, at least during the time interval 

over which we have been able to observe these outcomes, of particularly a 2-year 

horizon.

 In contrast, rather than reducing dependency, programs with generous 

financial incentives generally increase transfer payments since financial incentives 

allow families to keep more of their welfare benefits; as their earnings rise, they also 

increase income, decrease poverty and improve material well-being. Moreover, 

when incomes increase, there is more of a tendency for child outcomes to improve as 

well or at least not to become worse. 

 Second, the Federal Government should continue to coordinate and fund 

evaluation research of welfare reform including longer-term follow-up of existing 

experimental populations and new studies that evaluate specific reform components. 

Understanding the causal impact of welfare reform as a whole and specific policies 

in particular requires a solid base of research of high-quality random assignment 

studies and observational studies of the kinds we review in our synthesis. 

 While the knowledge base is quite strong in some areas such as assessing the 

impact of work requirements, in other areas it is quite weak or actually nonexistent.

For example, we know very little about the impact of various sanction policies on 

welfare-related outcomes. As another example, it is difficult with our current 

research base to isolate the separate impact of time limits on behavior. There is also 

little basis for knowing what will happen under policies that might be adopted in the 

future, for example, as a result of the reauthorization process, such as different forms 

of time limits. 

 It is also worth emphasizing that much of what we know about the impacts of 

welfare reform focus on the short-term impacts, typically over a 2-to-4-year-year 
9

horizon. However, some impacts, such as those on marriage, child bearing and child 

well-being, may take longer to respond to new policy environment. Hence, longerterm follow-up of existing experimental populations is vital for assessing the longerrun consequences of these policies. 

 Both to better understand the impacts of policies already implemented and to 

gauge the impact of policies that might be implemented in the future, it is imperative 

that the Federal Government continues to coordinate and fund new research to 

augment what we already know. In the future, such investments in the knowledge 

base will ensure that policymakers better understand the trade-offs embodied in 

different reform policies at the next reauthorization of PRWORA. 

 Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LYNN A. KAROLY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, LABOR 

AND POPULATION PROGRAM & POPULATION RESEARCH CENTER, 

RAND INSTITUTE, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mrs. Garland. 

STATEMENT OF E. MONA GARLAND, DIRECTOR, 

OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER OF 

GREATER MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN WORKS, MILWAUKEE, 

WISCONSIN

Ms. Garland. Good morning, Chairman McKeon and members of the Committee. I 

am Mona Garland, Director of the Wisconsin Works program with the Opportunities 

Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee, one of the private agencies in 

Milwaukee County responsible for administering the State of Wisconsin TANF work 

program, known as W-2. 

 OIC-GM, along with the State of Wisconsin has a long-term commitment to 

improving the quality of life for the citizens living in our communities and the State. 

Today, I will share some of the State of Wisconsin and OIC-GM's strategies for 

successful TANF programming and why it is critical to maintain TANF funding 

levels and program flexibility. 

 Since January 2000, in Wisconsin, 31,600 participants have become 

successfully employed. The attached charts in my written testimony clearly indicate 

that the Wisconsin TANF caseload has decreased. However, State reports indicate 

that the number of new TANF applicants remains steady. The participants remaining 

are the hardest to serve, who live in the urban areas like Milwaukee. 

 TANF work programs must remain flexible to provide appropriate services to 

both groups. For those not nearing Federal or State time limits, preparing for and 
10

entering employment is not enough. We must provide incumbent worker training for 

career advancement. 

 We also continue to focus our attention on the employer community to assist 

the employer with retention of our participants by providing training with potential 

for upward mobility, using work for attachment and advancement funding. However, 

there is a downside to all of this. 

 Some of our participants have not been successful at maintaining suitable 

employment and do need additional services. As a result of this, we are very 

committed to assuring that our participants do participate until they do become 

successful. If participants have been unresponsive, we go out and find them, using 

community outreach specialists. These specialists conduct home-based services for 

those unable or unwilling to come to the agency. Faith-based organizations have 

been especially helpful reaching the unreachable. 

 Often in the course of home visits, we discover a need for immediate 

intervention such as food, housing issues, and clothing. And in response to this, at 

OIC-GM, we opened our support services facility using community reinvestment 

funding. We understand that in order to attain sustained self-sufficiency, we must 

recognize and address the basic needs of our participants. Flexibility of Federal 

funding has allowed local agencies to customize services so that we can adjust our 

services to mirror the needs of our participants. 

 The most important lesson we have learned is that TANF programming is a 

process. It is not a quick fix for long-term community problems and generational 

unemployment. We must consider this program as a vehicle to an economic 

investment in the future of our communities. 

 Our population is ever changing. We know there are more hard-core poverty 

cases in the urban communities. We know that many long-term participants have 

severe problems, including learning disabilities, low coping skills, long-term medical 

issues, AODA issues, mental health issues or dual diagnosis, creating severe 

incapacity. Literacy and basic education are issues that must continue to be 

addressed through TANF. 

 We also recognize that many need more time and services to become selfsufficient. The 2-year Wisconsin time limit, as well as the 5-year Federal TANF 

limit may not be enough time to remediate long-term life problems in our 

communities. For now, we believe that the 20 percent undue hardship category will 

be subject to allowing the State to continue individuals beyond the 60-month Federal 

limit. 

 However, there is an issue that may need to be examined during the TANF 

reauthorization process, as those numbers may continue to increase. It is critical that 

TANF funding levels and program flexibility are maintained. TANF programs, 

vocational rehabilitation, and Social Security disability systems must combine into a 

formalized, seamless delivery system for participants not yet prepared for work 
11

programs. 

 We have learned that States must take a holistic approach to helping families. 

TANF funding supports other community efforts to empower participant families to 

be successful. We use our collaborative efforts within the community-based 

organization network and our institutional partners, technical colleges and other 

educational institutions, county human services departments and work force 

development boards to provide coordinated and collaborative services. 

 We believe that in Wisconsin it is working. 

 In summary, I would like to reiterate, TANF reauthorization must maintain 

current funding levels to States with program flexibility to allow addition of 

components needed by the TANF population, such as basic education, skill training 

and support services to accomplish our goal of moving people toward work. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF E. MONA GARLAND, DIRECTOR, 

OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER OF GREATER 

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN WORKS, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN – SEE 

APPENDIX C 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF LaSHUNDA HALL, FORMER WISCONSIN 

WORKS PARTICIPANT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

Ms. Hall. Good morning. 

Chairman McKeon. Pull it down a little. 

Ms. Hall. Okay. 

Chairman McKeon. There you go. 

Ms. Hall. My name is LaShunda Hall, and I am a single parent of two children, ages 

4 years and 10 months. 

 I come before you today representing the hundreds of families who have 

received help through the Wisconsin Works, W-2, program. I stand as a positive 

example of those who have realized success by participating in a TANF-funded 

program. Through TANF funding, many of us have benefited from temporary 

assistance with supportive services for childcare, transportation, food, shelter and 

clothing. With this help, we have gone on to become productive employees in 
12

America's work force. 

 Thanks to the W-2 program, I can come before you this morning and 

honestly say that I am happy with my life. I am earning an honest living for my 

family. But my life was not always this way. It was not long ago that I thought 

about escaping life permanently. 

 As a child, my life has been filled with abuse. To escape the horrors of 

home, I began to drink alcohol, a deadly habit I copied from other family members. 

My sporadic periods of drug use soon developed into a daily habit. Drugs and 

alcohol became even more common in my life. My self-esteem was lower than ever 

before, and I was suffering from severe depression. 

 I realized that I needed to start making the right choices. Carrying the load of 

displaced anger and frustration, I became involved in several unhealthy relationships, 

pregnant and fearing for my life, my children and I fled my abusive partner's home 

and took refuge in a shelter. Four pregnancies and two children later, there I was all 

alone.

 I had heard of OIC-GM W-2 program and how they specialize in helping the 

families in my community. I heard that through OIC's W-2 program, many of these 

women went from a life of sitting at home to earning a paycheck through 

employment. OIC's W-2 program was able to prepare these women to become 

attached and advanced in Wisconsin's work force. The program empowered them by 

teaching solid skills such as high school diplomas, the GED, job skills training, and 

offered real jobs. 

 With these stories in mind, I began to experiment with the W-2 program. I 

attended a training and motivational program called the Keys to Life Academy. I 

was also assigned a case manager, who gave me the support and guidance I 

desperately needed. As we worked on my plan, it became clear to me that we were 

creating a road map to meet my desired goals, and if I followed it, I would be 

successful.

 Despite my many mistakes and my attitude, my case manager treated me with 

dignity and respect. My success was now up to me. We set realistic goals for my 

education and set objectives for my career development. 

 The lessons I learned in the Keys to Life Academy continue to serve me well 

today. When we graduated, I felt empowered to manage life's biggest challenges.

Upon graduation, I was awarded the class title of Ms. Self-Esteem; apparently my 

classmates saw something in me I didn't even see in myself. I had finally gained a 

level of confidence. 

 The Keys to Life experience also taught me the value of surrounding myself 

with positive people. After graduation, I began meeting with a group of positive 

women called Women of Change. The group meets weekly at a community center to 

receive motivation, emotional support and guidance as they progress through the W-
13

2 experience. 

 I was determined to find a job and achieve my high school education. I 

began my GED courses while aggressively seeking employment. I finally got a job. 

But after a short time, I was terminated. Although it was a severe blow to my selfesteem, I did not allow it to knock me out. My case manager and I reviewed my 

mistakes as she helped me to gain the courage I needed to continue my GED studies 

and aggressively pursue my next job. 

 It was the combination of my GED, my office skills and Keys to Life 

Academy and the support from my case manager that enabled me to obtain my 

dream job as an administrative assistant with my current employer, B.E. Carter 

Development Group. 

 I am proud to say that I have accomplished each of the goals I set when I 

started the W-2 program. I am currently employed full-time with medical benefits. I 

have my GED, a certificate of completion from OIC's office skill training program, 

and a 1-year certificate of completion from a local business-training institute. I am 

currently pursuing my Bachelor of Science degree in criminal justice. I am an 

example to my children of what dedication and determination can do. 

 OIC's W-2 program broke the cycle of poverty and offered temporary 

assistance to my needy family. TANF saved my life. I urge you to continue the 

TANF funding. These are life-changing programs; as we are here today, hundreds of 

families in Milwaukee are participating in W-2 and striving for a successful outcome 

similar to mine. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LaSHUNDA HALL, FORMER WISCONSIN 

WORKS PARTICIPANT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Carroll. 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY CARROLL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE WELFARE TO WORK PARTNERSHIP, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Mr. Carroll. Thank you and good morning, Congressman McKeon and Mrs. Mink, 

Mrs. McCollum, Mr. Castle. My name is Rodney Carroll. I am the Chairman and 

CEO of the Welfare to Work Partnership. I am very happy to be here. 
14

 And you have a written testimony, but if you don't mind I would like to kind 

of just go off the cuff a little bit and tell you about 5 years ago. Five years, for me, I 

was working at United Parcel Service. I ran an operation in Philadelphia called the 

Philadelphia Air Hub. There was a lot of pressure on this job, I don't mind telling 

you; I had about 3,000 employees. Around this time in October is a busy time for 

UPS, gearing up for Christmas and the holidays. And you know, in the airport we 

had airplanes, you name it, a lot of concerns. 

 But I had one additional concern. You see, earlier that year, because of 

previous peak seasons, we had an employment concern. And the problem was 

getting enough people to come to the airport each night; and I had opened my big fat 

mouth during the summer and said, we should hire people from welfare. And 

eventually I was able to win out, and we began a program there. 

 And during that time we hired people, in this case, coming from Camden, 

New Jersey. And I didn't realize at the time what a big deal it would be because I 

was really just trying to meet a business need in this case, having employees come 

over. Long story short, which was, we had a program, there were no buses going 

from Camden, New Jersey, to the Philadelphia Air Hub. 

 I tried with New Jersey Transit Authority. I asked them, encouraged them to 

put a bus on. They said, we really can't do that; it is interstate lines and that kind of 

thing. So I tried with Philadelphia Transportation. I said, Could you go over and get 

people? They said, No, we can't do it; it is a different union. You almost need an act 

of Congress to get a bus to go from Camden over into the air hub. 

 Eventually I was able to convince UPS to put their own buses on and to 

spend the money to get buses in this case from Camden to Philadelphia. And when I 

was doing this, the district manager of UPS asked me a question that all businesses 

ask, which was, what's in it for UPS? Why would we put on a bus, spend our 

money? We deliver packages. We don't transport people. And I told him if we were 

to do this, that I believed we would have a higher retention rate with hiring people 

from welfare. 

 He said, how do you know that? Do you have a study? I said, No, but my 

gut feeling is if you give people an opportunity, a chance, that they will make a 

difference and they will want to make a difference in their life. And, fortunately, 

during that time, we had a 92 percent retention rate with the people coming from 

welfare, compared to 60 percent, which was our normal rate. 

 Two years later, well, actually the next year, the Welfare to Work Partnership 

began in 1997 and launched with five businesses; United Airlines, Monsanto, Burger 

King, Sprint and UPS. The goal was for businesses to join on board and to begin to 

hire people from welfare to work. Simply just hire a person, give them a chance. 

And now I am proud to say that those five businesses have grown into 22,000 

businesses throughout the U.S. 

 Let me give you an idea of what these businesses have accomplished since 

1997. They have provided over 1.1 million opportunities for people coming from 
15

welfare to work. I could name all the big companies, the Fortune 100 companies I 

am sure you would recognize. But you should realize that half of these companies 

are small businesses that you probably wouldn't have heard of. They haven't hired 

thousands of people. They have hired one or two, maybe three people. But yet they 

are just as important a business partner as we have. 

 Now we come here today, 5 years later, and as Mrs. Mink said, next year we 

will be talking about reauthorization. And somebody will say whether it was a 

success or not. And they will probably be divided. Some people will say it was 

really a success; some people say not quite, and go on. And I guess I would like to 

tell you this. If the measurement is welfare to work and getting the caseloads down, 

you might have a compelling argument that it has been a success. 

 But I am here to tell you today that I don't believe it ever has been about 

welfare to work. It has really been about a journey from a life of dependence to a 

life of independence. And if you measure it along those lines, then I think you have 

to say, well, we have got a ways to go. 

 Surely, we have people that have made transitions like Ms. Hall right next to 

me, and thousands and millions of people across the country, but yet some people are 

still very tenuous. As a matter of fact, their lives are still on the edge, and one or two 

things could happen and they might find themselves back on welfare or back looking 

for a hand. 

 You see, in 1999, we also opened up offices around the country in L.A., 

Chicago and New Orleans, Miami and New York. And those goals were to hire 

what they call "the hardest to place." See, it is not bad enough that you are on 

welfare, but now you might be in a label of "the hardest to place" category. 

 And the hardest to place person is not who you think it is. It is not a person 

that is coming from drug habits or from substance abuse or poor education. The 

hardest to place person is a person that does not want to be placed. 

 I am here to say also that we have hired in L.A., for example, over 567 

people from this category. Some people with ex-offender backgrounds, people that 

would really have barriers to employment in the law firms, accounting firms, places 

that you would not necessarily believe that welfare recipients would have the 

opportunity to work. 

 I am here to encourage this Committee to continue the reauthorization, 

continue the funding under the current level and let's really take a system that took 

60 years to put in place. I don't think that 5 years is adequate enough time to say that 

we have raised the flag for success. 

 Certainly there are people like myself and across this country not looking for 

a handout, simply looking for a hand up. Thank you. 
16

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RODNEY CARROLL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE WELFARE TO WORK PARTNERSHIP, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. Davis. 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, LEGAL DIRECTOR, NOWLDEF, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Mink, Ms. McCollum and Mr. 

Castle, members the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. 

 Welfare reform reauthorization, which is coming up, provides an occasion to 

evaluate the successes and failures of welfare reform and to make course corrections 

where appropriate. And I think such an evaluation must certainly take into account 

the special challenges facing many who remain on welfare and the economic 

challenges ahead that we know the economy is going to pose for us. 

 Today, I want to discuss the research finding on the relationship between 

training and education and low-income workers' job retention and advancement. 

These studies, which are cited in my written testimony, so I won't provide the cites 

now, indicate that training and education are important components of a welfare 

program that moves people from welfare to long-term, stable and sustaining work; 

and we just heard Ms. Hall's testimony to that effect, the importance of her getting 

her GED and moving ahead. And what that means is that mixed strategy programs 

have really been shown to be the best programs for achieving the goals of welfare 

reform. 

 When TANF was enacted in 1996, the strong desire to make it a "work first" 

program led Congress to place limits on States' ability to include training and 

education in their welfare programs. But over the past few years it has become clear 

that these restrictions on States are too extreme and that a correction is necessary in 

order to free States to address the needs of poor families and help them achieve selfsufficiency. 

 Numerous studies, including one conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, indicate that the most effective welfare to work 

programs have a flexible, balanced approach that offers a mix of job search 

education, training and work activities and tailors those activities to the needs and 

abilities of individual recipients and to the opportunities of the local job market. 

 So, for some, education would be the best approach; for others, something 

that focuses more on vocational training, a variety of things. It depends on the 

individual and the local job market. For some, postsecondary or basic education is 

appropriate.
17

 And, again, studies, including one completed by the U.S. Department of 

Education, show that people with a college education earn substantially more than 

those who have not attended college. These effects are also true for lower levels of 

education, for people; for example, people with post-high school training earn more 

than those whose education ended with high school. 

 Recognizing the importance of education in providing long-term poverty 

reduction, a number of States have found ways to use State funds to support 

education. For example, in Maine, the Parents of Scholars program enables up to 

2,000 students, which is not an insignificant percentage of Maine's welfare 

recipients, to receive aid without being subject to TANF work participation 

requirements and time limits. 

 Wyoming has also pioneered programs to support postsecondary education. 

 Several States have promoted job retention and advancement by helping 

former TANF recipients continue their education after leaving the roles. For 

example, Florida pays the cost of education training and necessary support services 

for up to 2 years for anyone who leaves TANF for employment and wants to obtain 

further education and training. 

 In part, States have been able to implement these programs because a strong 

economy ensured that they would meet TANF work participation requirements even 

if portions of their caseload were participating in educational programs that would 

not count as work activities under the current Federal strictures. In addition, States 

holding surplus TANF funds were able to apply those funds to programs for former 

TANF recipients. 

 But with an uncertain economy, States may not be in a position to continue 

including education and training programs if they do not count toward work 

participation goals under the Federal system. This would be a tragedy, since such 

programs have greater long-term success in addressing poverty. 

 In considering welfare reauthorization, Congress should look for ways to 

encourage States to continue successful programs that allow education as a 

component of welfare reform and, in particular, by permitting States to count 

education as an allowable activity under TANF. Even within a "work first" 

framework, job skills training is critical. Studies show that although welfare to work 

programs that promote rapid labor force attachment may increase earnings and work 

hours for participants in the short term, the most persistent rise in earnings is found 

in programs that emphasize human capital development, i.e., investment in training 

and education. And that is looking over the longer term, 5 years or so. 

 For example, one study analyzing the cost-effectiveness of Job Training 

Partnership Act-funded programs found that for low-skilled welfare recipients, job 

search assistance alone produced little or no benefit, while more intensive skillbuilding training was the most cost effective in the long term. 
18

 These research results suggest a number of best practices, which should be 

strongly encouraged by Federal Government and in some instances, may be required. 

Many of these are incorporated into H.R. 3113, the TANF Reauthorization Act of 

2001, which was recently introduced by Representative Mink. 

 First, job-training programs should target high-quality jobs, an example, 

training women for occupations typically filled by men. That is an important 

example of such a best practice. Not only do nontraditional jobs provide higher 

entry-level wages, which is one of the factors in job retention and advancement. But 

they also provide career ladders to higher wages. 

 Another best practice is to focus on longer-term job retention and career 

advancement instead of initial job placement. 

 And finally, an important best practice is for job training programs to address 

barriers to self-sufficiency, such as domestic violence and lack of childcare. And 

this is certainly an area where I think the Federal Government should consider a 

mandate to look at domestic violence. 

 In sum, the cumulative research in the wake of welfare reform shows that a 

one-size-fits-all approach serves neither the public policy goal of increasing selfsufficiency nor recipients who have individual needs and are striving toward leaving 

long-term poverty. Instead, the research points towards a more flexible approach 

that supports training and education as one of many routes off welfare and out of 

poverty.

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, LEGAL DIRECTOR, NOWLDEF, NEW YORK, NEW YORK – SEE APPENDIX F

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mrs. Brooks. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BROOKS, DIRECTOR, SELFSUFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND POLICY, WIDER 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Mink, members of the Committee, good morning. 

My name is Jennifer Brooks and I am the Director of Self-Sufficiency Programs and 

Policy at Wider Opportunities for Women, or WOW for short. WOW is a nonprofit 

organization that works at the local, State and national level to help women achieve 

economic independence and a quality of opportunity. 
19

 For more than 37 years, WOW has focused on literacy, technical and 

nontraditional skills, the welfare to work transition and career development. I have 

been asked to talk about what we know about the incomes individuals making the 

transition from welfare to work are earning, what it takes for those families to meet 

their basic needs and the importance of skill-building opportunities for these 

individuals.

 So what do we know? We know caseloads are down, and we know that most 

welfare leavers are working. We know that wages for welfare leavers have been 

relatively low. We know that welfare leavers have not worked steady, and we know 

that for a substantial proportion of the welfare population they are back on the rolls 

within a year. Although those findings may not be surprising, it is within this 

context that Congress will consider the next phase of welfare reform. 

 WOW shares the views expressed by Health and Human Services Secretary 

Tommy Thompson when, on the anniversary of the Welfare Reform Act, he said, 

Welfare reform is not about slashing caseloads or saving money; it takes a strong 

investment to ensure that families can successfully move from welfare to work. If 

families can't afford childcare, they can't afford to work. If they don't have a way to 

get to work, they simply can't work. If they have no training or education, few jobs 

will be open to them. 

 So the question for policymakers is, how do you structure a system that gets 

welfare leavers on that path to economic independence? 

 The reality is that no single answer works for everyone. Rather, the system 

of support should be tailored to recognize the different needs of families of different 

sizes, compositions and locations. For example, the support to families with two 

preschoolers in Los Angeles needs will be substantially different than that of what is 

needed for a family with two older children in Omaha, Nebraska. 

 The self-sufficiency standard, which was developed by Wider Opportunities 

for Women and Dr. Diana Pierce at the University of Washington, recognizes that 

there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to helping families achieve economic 

independence. The standard which has now been calculated in 16 States define the 

income that a family requires to meet its most basic needs; food, clothing, shelter, 

health care, transportation, child care and paying taxes without any frills. It varies by 

a family's makeup and where they live. 

 The standard also tells us how work supports can lower the amount that 

families need to earn in the short term while they gain experience and skills to move 

to higher-paying jobs. It is clear that if we are to meet the goal in the welfare reform 

law of moving families to self-sufficiency, that education and training opportunities 

must be made more widely available both after welfare recipients have taken a first 

job and in preparation for that job. 

 There is ample evidence that education and training work. Education and 

training increase the likelihood that single mothers will be in the work force. 

Education and training reduce the likelihood that families will be poor. And 
20

education and training increase wages and job retention. 

 We also know what kind of education and training programs are most 

successful. As Ms. Davis noted, the most effective welfare to work programs are 

those that have flexible, balanced approaches, that offer a mix of job search, 

education, job training and work activities. These programs offer more 

individualized services. They have a central focus on employment. They have close 

ties with employers. They set high expectations for participation and they have job 

quality as a central goal. 

 Right now the TANF program lacks that balance. It severely limits access to 

education and training. Vocational education is permitted for only 1 year and for 

only 30 percent of the caseload. Higher education is not permitted at all. According 

to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, between 1996 and 1997, the 

percentage of families on welfare participating in education and training fell sharply. 

Local reports also indicate steep declines in the percentage of TANF recipients 

enrolled in postsecondary education. 

 Given the events of September 11 and consequent layoffs in a slowing 

economy, now is the time to make an investment in skilled development. Those with 

the least amount of work experience and skills will be the first affected by rising 

unemployment. We need to make sure in times of job scarcity that individuals have 

opportunities to prepare themselves for jobs that are in demand by both employers 

and the community. 

 As you consider economic stimulus packages and the reauthorization of the 

TANF law, we hope that you will invest in families, provide States with the tools and 

incentives to help them; not just move families off welfare, but to self-sufficiency. 

We encourage you to support programs that increase better access to better jobs by 

rewarding States that, number one, meet locally based self-sufficiency goals for 

welfare leavers; number two, identify higher-wage jobs that meet employer, worker 

and community needs, including those that are nontraditional for women; number 

three, encourage postsecondary education participation and provide literacy 

programs that strengthen basic skills in the context of employment by counting such 

education as fulfilling work requirements; number four, increase the number of 

families that receive work supports; number five, are responsive to barriers such as 

domestic violence that impede success in obtaining and retaining employment; and 

finally, stop the clock for families receiving TANF who are engaged in work, but 

whose earnings are so low that they remain eligible for partial TANF grants. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BROOKS, DIRECTOR, SELFSUFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND POLICY, WIDER OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C. -- SEE APPENDIX G 
21

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

 This has been very educational for me. I wish I had the ability to sit down 

with each of you for several hours and pick your brains. 

Mrs. Mink. I will arrange that. 

Chairman McKeon. Ms. Mink says she will arrange that. She will take care of my 

schedule for me. I appreciate that. 

 Actually, that makes a good point. It is much easier for us to take care of 

something for somebody else many times than for ourselves. But, you know, as I 

listened to each of you speak, I was reminded that the way we see things is often 

where we sit. 

 And as I was listening to Ms. Hall tell her story and how she was brought up 

and how she was told, some of it, I don't think that you talked about what you have 

in your written testimony, was not conducive to giving her a high level of selfesteem. And I compared that with my own parents and how fortunate I was that I 

happened to be born into a different situation; otherwise, I could be where you are 

and you could be where I am. 

 I think we need to realize, as we go through this whole program, that many of 

us just happen to be born into a lucky place; and it makes it very difficult to get out 

of our shoes and into somebody else's shoes and try to understand exactly where they 

are coming from and what they are going through. 

 I think that you have all said some very interesting things. As we go through 

this process, it is going to be very important that we continue to have a relationship 

where we can continue, as you feel that you want to participate, that you have that 

ability to do so. And I hope you know that members of the Committee will be open 

to continued discussion with you as we move forward. 

 I think, Mr. Carroll, when you talked about it is not just welfare to work, it is 

dependence to independence, that does signify a much longer period of time and, you 

know, really different than just finding somebody a job and then walking away and 

saying everything is taken care of. 

 Each of you, I think, mentioned education and how important education is to 

the overall process to achieve that goal; and I am really, as each day goes by, 

happier, I think, to be on the Education Committee as I see how important education 

is and what a big responsibility we have. 

 You can't fix all the problems out of Washington. I think we can try, we can 

give it our best; but it is what you are doing, working with people on the local level 

to really make people's lives better, that really makes a big difference. And if we can 

just try to help you to be successful in that, then we have accomplished something. 

But if we try to tell you how to operate every day as you get up and go out to work, 
22

then we have really messed things up. 

Dr. Karoly, you talked about, you know, some important things. What I am 

wondering about now as the economy changes and as people are laid off from jobs, 

do you think that the current system is really going to be capable of handling these 

increased needs and priorities? 

Dr. Karoly. Well, I certainly think that one of the benefits we have had in the last 5 

years has been a very robust economy and that, as I indicated, part of the success and 

many of the outcomes that have been referred to today can be attributed to the fact 

that there have been jobs for people to move into; employment opportunities have 

been strong. And, of course, now we are facing a different prospect in the coming 

years; and without any indication as to how deep the slowdown may be, of course, 

there is a great deal of uncertainty. 

But I think we can expect that there will be job loss among those who have 

moved from welfare to work, and the prospect that some will want to move back to 

welfare because of the loss of employment income. One of the great uncertainties is 

the extent to which time limits will prevent return to welfare for particular 

individuals who may have exhausted benefits or may be near to exhausting their 

benefits. Another area of uncertainty is the extent to which some who might have 

formerly been on welfare have now had significant employment experience might 

qualify for unemployment benefits as an alternative form of social support during a 

period of unemployment while they continued to search for a new job. That is one 

area.

 Unfortunately, the research phase is quite limited. There are likely to be 

some for whom that will be an alternative system, but it will not apply to everyone 

because as we have heard, many who have moved to work, have moved to jobs that 

may be sporadic where they do not gain sufficient experience to qualify them for the 

unemployment insurance system. So I think another area that we must look to is the 

extent to which the broader set of social supports, such as food stamps, Medicaid 

benefits, those supports are also there for families who experience job loss. 

 We know that many individuals who have moved from welfare to work have 

not continued to receive those benefits, even though they might be entitled to them. 

So I think additional diligence in seeing that individuals who may not return to 

welfare, but could still have access to those benefits, that they do so. That will be 

another form of support that might be critical in the coming period when the 

economy slows down. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. Mrs. Mink. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much. I have a number of questions, but I want to say 

how generally pleased I am with an overall emphasis of all of the witnesses on the 

importance of education as a real key to upward mobility. If we are really interested 

in the individual's ability to sustain an existence and to support their families, we 

have to look to ways in which we can enhance that ability, and certainly education is 
23

probably the most direct means. 

Dr. Karoly, in your prepared testimony on page 14, you have a summary 

statement there which says, the available results suggests that work requirements 

when combined with other reforms, increase work and earnings, but just as they do 

in isolation. Both welfare use, that is being on welfare, and income, can increase 

when strong financial incentives are part of the package. Could you explain what 

you mean by that? 

Dr. Karoly. The research that I am referring to looks at two different strategies in 

terms of welfare reform. One is to implement work requirements or mandated work 

activities in isolation or alone. That is the primary reform. The second is to combine 

work requirements with other reforms such as by financial incentives, I mean, for 

example, enhanced earned income disregards that allow individuals, as they enter the 

workforce, to continue to receive some welfare benefits. 

 They would be reduced because they now have earnings. But that reduction 

would be less today than it would have been in the past. In the past there was 

almost, after a small exemption, a dollar-for-dollar tax. As you gained additional 

earnings, you lost welfare benefits. Today, many States have implemented programs 

where a former recipient who moves into the workplace continues to receive some 

benefits but on a more limited basis. 

 As a result of being able to both increase earnings and retain some welfare 

benefits, we do see programs with that feature increase earnings while someone is 

both working and on welfare. The combination is higher than they would have been 

if they were on welfare alone. That is the concept of making work pay. On the other 

hand, one of the things I noticed, that some programs also include time limits in 

these evaluations, and now, of course, under TANF, time limits are a feature that 

every State has. One of the issues with time limits is that means there is a limit on 

the time during which someone can combine work and welfare. 

 So that period of enhanced income, improved well-being, is going to be 

limited by the time limits themselves. So one of the things we see in these studies 

that look at time limits is that when those limits become binding, there is a tendency 

for income to decrease again because of the loss of the welfare benefits. The same is 

true of programs that include earning supplements outside of the welfare system, 

which is another strategy for supporting low-wage workers. 

Mrs. Mink. So it would be your thought then that in the reauthorization, that we 

take a look at the importance of continuing the welfare benefit payments while the 

individual has started or become engaged in employment, at least for a limited 

period? 

Dr. Karoly. I think that is certainly that needs to be examined, particularly with 

respect to thinking about the goals of welfare reform, as I pointed out. If we are 

solely focused on the goal of increasing work, welfare to work, you might not worry 

about what is happening to income, you might not worry about financial incentives.

But to the extent that we also care about improving incomes, reducing poverty, 
24

possibly even enhancing child well-being, then indeed income supports, making 

work pay are one way trying to achieve that goal by combining generous financial 

incentives within the welfare system or outside that system as part of the package of 

reforms. 

Mrs. Mink. So if a person has actually found work and we have a policy that 

continues the welfare cash benefits for a period of time, would it be your thought that 

the clock would stop so that the collection of that cash benefit would not constitute 

continuance on the system, and would ultimately then hasten the day when the time 

limit of 5 years would arrive? 

Dr. Karoly. Again, I think that is a very important policy modification to consider, 

given that we know that these income supports within the welfare system combined 

with employment can have these other benefits in terms of improving well-being, 

more generally, raising incomes, possibly even improving child outcomes, that 

because otherwise, those benefits would be limited by the time clock. The 

alternative of stopping the clock while someone is beating the work requirements is 

certainly one option that would allow the greater possibility of achieving goals, such 

as improving incomes and reducing poverty. 

Mrs. Mink. Would you have the same thoughts with reference to going to higher 

education? 

Dr. Karoly. I think we no less about the extent to which promoting higher education 

among current welfare recipients are going to achieve the same goals that we have 

talked about. By and large, there has not been much experimentation on that 

dimension to tell us whether or not promoting higher education among welfare 

recipients would both achieve the education goals, but also have payoffs in terms of 

earnings and income. I think that is one area that is very ripe for additional 

experimentation. And it would be marvelous to see States experimenting with such 

programs. I would also strongly encourage that any experimentation of that kind 

include rigorous evaluation, because the only way we are going to know about a 

policy like that and whether it works is to carefully evaluate it. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Castle. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having worked on the welfare reform, both 

at a local level in the State of Delaware and here in Congress, I am overwhelmingly 

impressed by what I view as a success of this program, and there isn't a person in this 

room who probably couldn't give us an example of an area where it hasn't worked. 

Statistically, it is apparent, having reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, States 

are still spending the same amount of money they did before, which indicates on a 

per-capita basis, they are putting more money into the programs. And you can go 

through all the statistics about child poverty or income levels or whatever, and we 

also know it is a rising economy as has been pointed out here. 
25

 But having said all this, this is a program that I think has really worked. But I 

will base my real judgment on that, not on the statistics, but on what Ms. Hall said 

here. And I would like to ask her a question or two about it. I hope her case is 

typical of what has happened in many instances. I know when I was in Delaware, I 

went to the first class we had on welfare reform. And there were 19 people in that 

class, one man and 18 women. And I thought they wouldn't be real happy with the 

person who had been involved in having put it in place. And I was astounded. 

These folks have been told to come to class or they would stop receiving welfare.

And to the man and women, they were thankful for the opportunity that they had 

been given for education, job training and later, going into the workforce. 

 And that is exactly what I heard Ms. Hall say when she said that she had 

become a productive employee and is happy with life and that kind of thing. And we 

have always realized that there is going to be anyplace from about 20 percent to 

perhaps a third of welfare recipients who probably are unable, for various reasons, to 

be able to work. 

Ms. Hall, is this something that you have found is true of other people with whom 

you went through welfare? I am sure it isn't 100 percent true, but can you tell us of 

shared values with other people who went through this in terms of how they looked 

at it, and whether it was helpful and productive to them as well as it was to you? 

Ms. Hall. I really can't answer, you know, as far as other people. I know it depends 

on the attitude of the person and as far as like what Keys to Life, the academy, the 

training, the motivation, and it is like if they are willing to participate, they will get 

something out of it. I was willing to change my life. I had been through, you know 

too many ups and downs, and I was ready to keep building and I wanted to be 

somebody. And I think that is the way they have to look at it. They have to want 

change and to continue their education. If they don't want it, a person can only try 

for so long to help you. So I really can't answer for everyone. It was good for me. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Knowing that fell off your hub, no one is 

willing to work there. And you raised the transportation issue from Camden, New 

Jersey to Philadelphia. But did you have a chance to judge transportation in general? 

This is one of the things I’ve heard about welfare reform in terms of this transition, 

because we take care a lot of things, even up to day care, health care, food stamps. 

 Transportation is a major issue. And your comments were because of the 

problems, I guess, going across the State line. Did you run into other transportation 

problems in terms of people on welfare trying to get to work? 

Mr. Carroll. Absolutely. Transportation is still one the more significant barriers to 

work. Only about 6 percent of welfare recipients have access to cars. And many of 

the people, whether they are rural or urban, have difficulty. And it has been those 

types of programs, like UPS and other companies that are willing to do that. So I 

think Congress should still address transportation as one of the leading barriers to 

prevent people from going from welfare to work. 
26

Mr. Castle. It has confirmed sort of what I heard repeatedly, so I do think we need 

to look at that. 

Ms. Davis, going to your testimony for a moment, if I can, and you did touch on this 

in some detail, but I am concerned about it. I think you said the restrictions on the 

States, I guess from our laws here in the Federal Government, are too extreme. 

Specifically, what change, and I realize you may not know it, but what changes were 

you concerned about in terms of the flexibility that is needed? You touched on the 

higher education and some of these things, but in terms of are we writing this law in 

the next year, my concern is exactly what we should be looking for in terms of those 

changes. I tend to agree with you, but I don't know exactly how to put this into 

language.

Ms. Davis. As you know, there is currently a 12-month limit on participation of 

Voc. Ed., and then the prohibition on States that have more than 30 percent of their 

TANF work participants in secondary schools. And then a prohibition on using any 

Federal funds for post-secondary education. So I would recommend that all of those 

restrictions be relaxed, that States should have the ability to use Federal funds to 

promote post-secondary education. I agree with Dr. Karoly, the woman down at the 

end here from the RAND Corporation who talked about the need to evaluate that, 

because right now, there are so few States that have been willing or able to put forth 

State funds to develop these programs, if there isn't a great deal of research on it. 

But I think that that should happen in the context of expanding the ability of States to 

use their Federal TANF funds for post-secondary education as well as for, perhaps, 

longer term vocational education and education at community colleges. 

 One of the principal issues I think we are already faced with and going to 

continue to face with the economy is the need to make sure that people are trained 

for the jobs that are available. And so one of the things that people need throughout 

their career and probably all of us have benefited from is continuing education 

throughout their careers as the job market changes. And the current restrictions on 

even job focus training make it difficult for low-income people and for States to 

address those needs. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Ms. Davis. My time is up. I am going to yield back. But 

before I do, to all the members of this panel and anyone else who comes to us, 

because we are going to reauthorize this law and we have looked at it, I think, for 5 

or 6 years, it is helpful for all of us to know specifically what changes one would 

recommend. Sometimes it is the anecdotal evidence of what is out there and what 

we have to do can be difficult. So if anyone wants to submit that in writing that 

would be helpful. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the panel. This has been an 

interesting discussion. I would like to maybe build on some of the comments that 

have been made by Mr. Castle and Ms. Mink in regards to education and 

transportation. I am very concerned about the State TANF funds and what is going 
27

on in the States right now. The States are feeling economic downturn as well as the 

Federal Government is for revenue. And I know back home in Minnesota, we are 

looking at not having a very rich budget to work from, something that we were used 

to when I was at the statehouse and we were implementing welfare to work. 

 So here are a couple of questions I have in general. And if time doesn't 

permit to hear from a variety of sources, if you could, at some point in time, submit 

in writing back to the Chair so he could share along with us. I am concerned about 

childcare. And I like the Wisconsin example in here when they were talking about 

their welfare to work. They didn't have a waiting list for childcare. We still have a 

waiting list, and it also affects the working poor families in order for them to even 

provide childcare for their children so that they are not doing latchkey. 

 And so one of the concerns I have is what are we looking at looking at the big 

picture? Yes, we are interested in reauthorization for welfare reform, but that also 

affects those who are now off welfare and in the working poor in our communities. 

Health care, we are subsidizing through childcare, health care and housing, the actual 

cost of what it is for an individual to live. And so how is that not only affecting 

people with welfare to work, but the working poor again, especially as we go 

through these economic downturns. And if the States find their budgets being 

slashed through decreased revenues coming in, what is the impact going to be on 

that?

 And I think we need to start putting this puzzle together so that when we do 

the reauthorization, that we do it looking at the bigger picture. And so my question, 

in general, is, you know, with what is going on with increases for the cost of health 

care, with what is going on with the housing crunch, with the waiting list that we 

know that some States have with child care and the downturn in revenue, what are 

we doing not only to look at welfare to work, but for the working poor? And I think 

it is very important to have you here, Ms. Garland, doing the State inventory for us.

And I know RAND and others look at big State pictures. And I think we need that 

information back. 

 The question that I would have that I have kind of gleaned from looking at 

the testimony is, we know that a lot of people don't have a whole lot of success 

staying in long-term employment, so that when there are economic downturns, they 

do qualify for unemployment. And once again, it is quite anecdotal what we hear, 

but any substance information you can give us; lack of transportation, quite often, 

just not having that fit well. People can't make it to work and are told to not show up 

anymore if you can't be there on time. Childcare problems. Well-care for children 

and sick-care for children, what do you when your child is sick? You call that 

employer for the first time. You may have only been there for 2 or 3 weeks and you 

know you are out the door. What do we need to do in that arena? And then one 

follow-up on education. Higher education, we provide some of that in Minnesota, 

the State has done that. 

 If the flexibility isn't there for funds, then Minnesota looks at having 

decreased costs. I think that is one of the first things that goes. But what could we 

do better to prepare people for college, or vocational school, or getting their GED? 
28

We still have basic education needs for much of this population, and I need to know 

if we are making those needs. 

 And Mr. Chair, I know I have more questions and I know they have a lot of 

good answers. And I appreciate any information you can help the Chair in providing 

back some of that. And I know I rambled a lot of questions and I know that we have 

a great staff person who takes all this down. So thank you so much for your time and 

patience. 

Chairman McKeon. You would like all of those questions to be answered for the 

record if they are able to do that? 

Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, at their leisure. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the panel. My plane was 

late so I didn't get to hear the testimony, but I had the benefit of reading, too. And I 

would like to make a comment and then ask a question. I would like to commend 

Ms. Hall on her achievement and what she has done with her life, and particularly 

being here today to be a testimony to that. And I agree with the last paragraph. You 

are a great example to your children. And I am proud of you and I know your State 

is, too. 

Ms. Garland, your recommendation is that we maintain the level of funding 

and give more flexibility at the State level particularly with regard to education and 

training. I looked at your chart on Wisconsin expenditures and the breakdown of 

those expenditures in 1996 versus the year 2000, which speaks volumes to me about 

two things, one is if you change the focus to getting people to work, there comes the 

responsibility to do those things to support that effort, which is obviously where the 

change is. But I also noted that the level of funding or the amount of money 

expended in 1996 and 1998 was virtually the same, about 16 million less in 2000 

than in 1996. 

 Do you know, by chance, what had been happening in the 4 years preceding 

1996 in terms of expenditures? Have they been annually accelerating or they been 

about flat? 

Ms. Garland. Actually, I don't know the answer to that question, but I can provide 

that.

Mr. Isakson. It would be interesting to see if the trend line leveled off or it was 

about the same. I would like to know. And the second thing, I know from reading 

your testimony, you all do a very good job of tracking and staying with your people, 

and in some cases, they are coming back for retraining and additional education. Out 

of curiosity, would you define most of those who have left welfare and are working 

to be working poor? Would that be your definition? 
29

Ms. Garland. Well, that is a very good question. I was speaking with Ms. Brooks 

prior to the testimony, and we were talking about levels of self-sufficiency and what 

is actually self-sufficiency for a person. And I think her research or the information 

she has is very important to answer that question, because what is necessary for a 

person to be successful in Wisconsin may not be the same in Minnesota. And so, 

you know, it is difficult to answer that. However, from my estimation in working 

with the families, I do believe if a person continues to need food stamps, continue to 

need the medical assistance subsidies, that potentially that could be viewed as 

working poor. 

Mr. Isakson. I am going to come back to you one second. Ms. Brooks, do you want 

to elaborate on that since you are referred to as the expert by Ms. Garland? 

Ms. Brooks. Wider opportunities for women calculates what we call the selfsufficiency standard, which is a measure of how much it takes for people to meet 

their very basic needs in different places and for different family sizes. So the 

amount is different in Milwaukee, Wisconsin than in Miami, Florida. And it 

basically is at sort of the county level or that geographic specificity. And it is 

different depending on who is in your family. So if you have a couple of 

preschoolers, your costs are going to be different than if you have a school-age child 

or teenager. 

 What we have calculated, the self-sufficiency standard now in 16 States and 

we will have about 35 States by the end of next year, and what we found is that 

costs, in fact, do vary tremendously and not just State by State, but also within the 

State. And we have also found that costs don't vary in a necessarily regular pattern. 

 So in most of the States we have looked at, there is often an area usually like 

a resort area, that has a small population and is rural in some way, but has higher 

costs than a major metropolitan area. So the self-sufficiency standard really builds 

up what those costs are from the local information. The self-sufficiency standard 

tells us that in most places, families with a couple of children, especially if they need 

full-time day care, their costs are quite high. In order to get to those incomes, we can 

do 2 things or we can do both things, we can increase peoples' incomes or we can 

reduce their cost. To increase their incomes, we need to do things like develop 

skills, get people into better paying jobs. In addition to that, we know that families 

are not going to get into $20-an-hour jobs necessarily as their first job coming off of 

welfare.

 So in the short-term, we need to make sure that families have available to 

them the host of work supports that Mrs. McCollum mentioned, child care, health 

care, food stamps, transportation assistance so they can lower the amount that they 

actually have to go out and earn. 

Mr. Isakson. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I want to say one thing 

about why I asked that because the chart that Ms. Garland provided was outstanding. 

I am big supporter of investing money in people so they can be self-sufficient. It 

would be great, and maybe Dr. Karoly is the person to do this, but I believe that a 

person that goes from welfare to work, although they might have almost the same 
30

amount of money in terms of compensation that they had in terms of benefits, will 

spend the money far differently and far more wisely, and will generate revenue that 

comes back to the government that is not generated in a welfare proposition. 

 In fact, the people that are providing in these services in your second chart, 

those are people that all have jobs to provide those services. I think it would be a 

great thing for us in government to see the payback back to government in revenues 

that come to the States and the government from having a workforce rather than a 

dependent force, for lack of a better term, because I think there very definitely is a 

payback.

 And although the reduction expenditure might have been 16 million between 

1996 and 2000, if you added what I suspect is greater revenues back to the State and, 

to a smaller extent, the Federal Government, we are getting a much bigger payback 

than might just appear from that chart. That is the reason for asking that question 

and I yield back the time I don't have left. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment the members of 

the panel and I also ask for apology for being a little bit late and didn't get to hear the 

testimony other than what I have read. I was tied up at another Committee meeting. 

But I am pleased to start my question to Mona Garland. 

 In your testimony, I read that you pointed out that many of your Wisconsin 

Works participants needed more time to accomplish their goals than allowed for 

what the current 2-year Wisconsin State for services and even the 5-year Federal 

time limits. The area that I represent is predominantly Hispanic. And we have many 

who are limited English proficient. So my question is, in considering the Hispanic 

population where language may be a barrier as well as under-education, how will 

these time limits impact similar programs as yours? 

Ms. Garland. In Wisconsin, we have a 2-year time limit for various different 

categories of cash assistance. What we found is that while there is an allowance for 

an extension to go beyond that 6-month increment, it changes the focus of the 

activities for the participant. For example, if we have someone who is involved in, 

say, English as a second language class or something of that nature, needless to say if 

we recognize that this participant will no longer receive assistance within 6 months, 

the focus of that person's employability plan would change, and it would be more 

geared strictly toward employment and obtaining wages to support the family. 

 Where that becomes a problem is where that individual is not really prepared 

to enter the world of work fully, thus recidivism, or just the family being affected. 

And it has a rippling effect. So in some cases, we do believe there will be families 

who will not be prepared fully for the world of work at the 5-year limit due to 

multiple problems. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Do you have recommendations for those regardless of what their 

home language is, Spanish, German, Polish or whatever? Do you have any 
31

recommendations to serve those people? 

Ms. Garland. I do believe it needs to be part of the plan for the family. Actually, in 

Milwaukee, we have the United Migrant Opportunities Services, which is UMOS, 

who works primarily with the Hispanic population. And their programming is more 

customized to address the needs of those families. However, that is not our only 

population that has language barriers. But we work very closely with the other 

community-based organizations, which specialize in providing services for other 

languages in the community. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. My second question is to Rodney Carroll. Mr. Carroll, 

what kinds of training and education and how much do your partners find the most 

successful welfare to work participants have? And second part to that question is 

what kinds of supports do the most successful hires have once they have been hired? 

Mr. Carroll. Thank you. The first part is that they need to have education in 

workplace literacy, which is a little different. For example, all the companies that 

you can pick, a company, Xerox, for example, there is a Xerox way of doing things.

We do it this way. One good example is we had a project in Chicago where we got 

people to work in law firms and for pretty good jobs and pretty good wages. But 

they had to go to class, so we had to send them to community college for 13 weeks to 

learn how to work in a law library, how to access the books, how to do the materials, 

how to work a fax machine. Apparently, even to be able to divide and multiply is 

very important when you are sending out multiple faxes to multiple clients. 

 To answer your second part, one of the biggest things that we found is having 

a mentor, whether it is in a company or outside a company is extremely important in 

making the transition. You see that many times a person needs some assistance, 

something that may not be catastrophic for you or I, but they may view it that way. 

So you have a person who works in a company or outside a company that helps them 

make the transition. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. Mr. Chair, my time has run out, but I had one more 

question. Could you give me an extra minute? 

Chairman McKeon. Yes, 1 minute. 

Mr. Hinojosa. This one is to Jennifer Brooks. Can you talk more about how the 

policy of the State of Illinois has been for Illinois, and also talk about how their 

policies allowing post-secondary education to be an allowable work activity. 

Ms. Brooks. I think that you are referencing something in my written statement 

about stopping the clock for people who have entered work, but still are earning 

wages so low that they are eligible to continue to receive TANF benefits. 

Chairman McKeon. Could you pull your mike a little closer? 

Ms. Brooks. I am looking through my notes to find information about the Illinois 

State policy. But basically, what happens in Illinois is that for up to 36 months, 

individuals are able to stop their clock. And the way that happens is that individuals 
32

are put into a separate State-funded program that is funded with maintenance of 

effort dollars, so that they are no longer held to the 5-year time limit. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Souder. 

Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start with Ms. Garland. In 

your written testimony, you said that, I think, 20 percent you estimate will continue 

to need some type of assistance. We projected 20. You estimated closer to 40, 

which would be double our projection. What percentages of those cases have a drug 

or alcohol problem? 

Ms. Garland. Without having an actual number in front of me, I would say, and are 

you referring to the 20 percent or the 40 percent? 

Mr. Souder. Those that are longer-term cases where you have had difficulty getting 

them placed. My assumption is when you said the 20 to 40; it means that there is a 

percent of people that are going to take longer to get into the workplace. And I am 

wondering, roughly, what percentages those have of drug and alcohol problems. 

Ms. Garland. Actually, we found of the estimated 40 percent in our particular 

region in Milwaukee, I would say about 25 to 30 percent of those do have alcohol 

and other drug dependencies. And we have also found that those with drug 

dependencies, they become dual-diagnosis-type cases, because one thing perpetuates 

another, such as mental health issues as a result of drug dependency and other types 

of cases. 

Mr. Souder. Because I am wondering whether or not as we look at welfare reform, 

we should look at a subcomponent because in fact, that may be low, depending on 

whether people are being forthcoming and when they come in and whether they are 

tested, whether we should be looking at drug and alcohol treatment as a component 

to welfare reform and how we look at that question. 

 I have a similar question on those with special needs who may have mental 

handicaps. What percentages of this number have some sort of a mental disability 

that makes employment harder? 

Ms. Garland. Actually, that percentage would be even higher because there are 

cases where there are mental disabilities in addition to the other issues, there are 

specific mental health issues take we run into, I would say more like 30 percent have 

some form of antidepressant or have some major barriers. 

Mr. Souder. Could you separate a little bit of what I would refer to as something 

that is a mental health problem as opposed to a mental disability, which are slightly 

different? Obviously, you probably have both types of cases. 

Ms. Garland. Well, could you explain that a little bit? 
33

Mr. Souder. One of the things we have done in this country is we deinstitutionalized a lot of people who are marginal and self-supporting. And many of 

the hardest to employ are people who used to be institutionalized. And you have a 

certain percentage of those. You also have people who may be depressed at a given 

time who have bipolar personalities or other types of disabilities and mental health 

problems. And the reason I ask these questions is as we look at welfare reform, if at 

least half of our cases, some of these are overlapping, two-thirds of our cases may 

have problems not related to job training, sending them to school or putting them in 

the workforce may not be the solution. 

Ms. Garland. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, as part of my testimony, I did talk 

about working toward a seamless delivery service system along with Social Security 

disability and vocational rehabilitation. I would say that as far as mental disabilities, 

that percentage is probably larger than the first category you mentioned. 

Mr. Souder. Dr. Karoly, is that how you say your name? 

Dr. Karoly. Karoly. 

Mr. Souder. In your research, not only in what you presented today, but also in 

other things you may have seen, have you seen the phenomenon we were just 

discussing talked about? One of the long term questions I think you have done a 

good job of dissembling the data that suggests that yes, maybe the claims we make 

for welfare reform are not as dramatic. But in fact, there are successes that can be 

isolated from the economy; there are successes beyond just the economy. But this 

type of field is looking for incremental gain. We didn't have incremental gain even 

for a decade. The fact that we made incremental gain was good. But as we look at 

the people who are really difficult, those who have been on welfare for 7 years or 

more, we often find a different mix than those who have been on for 2 years or less 

and those between 2 and 7. 

 Do you know any studies or data that would zero in on those differences, 

because when we look at welfare reform, we don't want to redo the system based on 

a short-term economic problem, which is going to be the temptation. We are going 

to get hit and probably need to have some sorts of waivers on the 20 percent, 

anyway, for unemployment rates in a given area and that type of thing. But long 

term, we really have 2 groups that we are trying to deal with. And how can we better 

differentiate between the 2 types? 

Dr. Karoly. Well, I regret that the research that we draw on is relatively silent on 

these issues of the hardest to serve and what types of services and supports beyond 

what we think of as the traditional welfare system are required to best assist those 

individuals in moving towards self-sufficiency. So issues related to mental health 

care, treatment for substance abuse, domestic violence being another issue, those are 

all areas that I think only recently have we begun to focus in on those needs and the 

population that remains on welfare and the extent to which we know what works, I 

think, there is some basis for doing that, for drawing on existing evidence. But it has 

not been incorporated into the broader research base that tells us the extent to which 

we can move individuals who now are recognized as hardest to serve into the 
34

workplace.

Mr. Souder. Anybody else who has input on that I would appreciate for the record.

And also, if I have an additional question, I would like to have asked for the record 

and if people respond, I am very concerned about a phenomenon that has happened 

in the last 5 years is a tremendous influx, certainly true in Indiana, probably true in 

Wisconsin and any other State in the Union, we have an influx of illegal immigrants 

to cover the fact that we couldn't get jobs filled; that what the current downturn in the 

economy is going to do to the welfare system and the eligibility of those children on 

food stamps and so on, will people be afraid to come in? 

 And this is going to be a major test to our welfare reform system. We, in 

August alone, had a 40 percent increase on demands on welfare prior to September 

11. And I believe this is going to isolate some of the variables of when we were at 2 

percent unemployment. We clearly were bringing in people in from other countries 

to meet full unemployment needs, and still, people on welfare were not filling those 

jobs. Thank you for your charity on the time limit. 

Chairman McKeon. I want to thank all of you who have served as witnesses on our 

panel today for your valuable time for the testimony that you have given. And as I 

mentioned earlier, if you think of something later that you didn't get to say, we will 

keep the record open and you can add to your testimony if you so desire. And also, 

if you would continue to work with us as we go through this process, we would 

appreciate any further input from you. This will be at least a year probably in doing 

this reauthorization, so there will be a lot more time for you to participate. And we 

would appreciate it. So if there is no other further business, the Committee stands 

adjourned. Thank you. 

 [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138

Table of Contents 

Chairman McKeon, 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34 

Mr. Carroll, 13, 25, 31 

Mr. Castle, 24, 25, 26 

Mr. Hinojosa, 30, 31, 32 

Mr. Isakson, 28, 29 

Mr. Souder, 32, 33, 34 

Mrs. Mink, 3, 21, 22, 23, 24 

Ms. Brooks, 18, 29, 31 

Ms. Davis, 4, 16, 26 

Ms. Garland, 9, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 

Ms. Hall, 11, 25 

Ms. Karoly, 5, 22, 23, 24, 33 

Ms. McCollum, 26, 28