U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

84–500 2003

WELFARE REFORM SUCCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 2, 2002

University Center, Michigan

Serial No. 107–88

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida 

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

WALLY HERGER, California 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington 

MAC COLLINS, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

MARK FOLEY, Florida 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California 

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff 

Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 25, 2002, announcing the hearing .......................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Carter, Darnell, Detroit, Michigan ......................................................................... 16

Cascade Engineering, Fred P. Keller ..................................................................... 19

Family Independence Agency, Lori Scorsone ........................................................ 23

Hudson, Lisa, Grand Rapids, Michigan ................................................................. 17

Koon, Carol, Evart, Michigan ................................................................................. 15

Michigan, State of, Hon. John Engler, Governor, and National Governors’ 

Association ............................................................................................................ 5

(1)

WELFARE REFORM SUCCESS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

University Center, Michigan. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., at the 

Rhea Miller Recital Hall, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan, Hon. Dave Camp presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025

March 25, 2002

No. HR–13

Herger Announces Field Hearing on Welfare 

Reform Success

Congressman Wally Herger (R–CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a field hearing on welfare reform success stories. The hearing 

will take place on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, in the Rhea Miller Recital Hall, 

Saginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay Road, University Center, Michigan, beginning at 11:00 a.m.

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include Michigan Governor John Engler as well as former welfare recipients, a welfare caseworker, and 

an employer who has hired welfare recipients. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

(P.L. 104–193), commonly referred to as the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, made dramatic changes in the Federal-State welfare system designed to aid low-income 

American families. The law repealed the former Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children program, and with it the individual entitlement to cash welfare benefits. 

In its place, the 1996 legislation created a new Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families block grant, which provides fixed funding to States to operate programs 

designed to achieve several purposes: (1) provide assistance to needy families, (2) 

end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage, (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies, and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

National figures point to remarkable progress in combating welfare dependence 

and poverty since State and Federal welfare reforms were enacted in the mid-1990s. 

The number of children living in poverty has dropped by nearly 3 million and the 

African-American child poverty rate has fallen to a record low; welfare caseloads 

have fallen by 60 percent nationwide, as nearly 3 million families and 9 million recipients have left welfare; and record numbers of current and former welfare recipients are working.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ‘‘Welfare reform has been 

a tremendous success in terms of reducing poverty, ending dependence, and promoting work. But behind all of the remarkable statistics are millions of families 

working their way off of welfare and into the mainstream of American life. This 

hearing will allow us to hear some personal accounts of how reform has worked in 

Michigan, which will help set the stage as we prepare to extend and improve the 

national 1996 welfare reforms in the coming months.’’

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The Subcommittee will review welfare reform outcomes in Michigan, with a focus 

on the perspective of former recipients, employers and caseworkers who have been 

instrumental in the success of the State’s program in terms of reducing poverty, 

ending dependence, and promoting work.

3

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or organization 

wishing to submit a written statement for the printed record of the hearing should 

send it electronically to hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, along with a 

fax copy to (202) 225–2610, by the close of business, Tuesday, April 16, 2002. If 

those filing written statements, other than invited witnesses, wish to have their 

statements distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may 

deliver 150 additional copies for this purpose to the district office of Representative 

Dave Camp, 135 Ashman Drive, Midland, Michigan 48640, by close of business on 

Monday, April 1, 2002.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a witness, any written statement 

or exhibit submitted for the printed record or any written comments in response to a request 

for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or exhibit not 

in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee 

files for review and use by the Committee.

1. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any accompanying exhibits for 

printing must be submitted electronically to hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, along 

with a fax copy to (202) 225–2610, in Word Perfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed 

a total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will rely 

on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record.

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

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

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

by the Committee.

3. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf 

the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, 

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

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

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

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

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

226–3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

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

body for coming. I’m really pleased that this hearing is taking place 

Mr. CAMP. Good morning. First of all, I want to thank everyf in Michigan, in Saginaw County, and at Saginaw Valley State University. I want to thank President Eric Gilbertson and Jean Hamilton for making it possible that we’re here. 

I think it’s important for the Congress to get the State perspective on welfare reform, and a local perspective, not just what we 

hear from witnesses that are able to travel to Washington. 

I also want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, Wally 

Herger, for allowing this tremendous opportunity to have the hearing in Michigan. Also, I want to acknowledge the invaluable assistance that Matt Weidinger, the Subcommittee Staff Director, Katie 

Kitchin, and Ryan Work of the Subcommittee who have all provided, as well as my own staff, Dedra Clancy, help to make this 

hearing happen. 

Today’s hearing will provide my Subcommittee Members and 

other colleagues from Michigan an important background for this 

year’s re-authorization as we consider welfare reform outcomes in 

Michigan. It will focus on the perspective of former recipients, caseworkers and employers who have been instrumental in the success 

of the State’s program in terms of reducing poverty, ending dependVerDate Dec 13 2002 04:00 Mar 01, 2003 Jkt 084500 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A500.XXX A500
4

ence and promoting work. With Governor Engler’s lead, Michigan 

was at the forefront of the National Welfare Reform effort when it 

began experimenting with welfare reform in the early nineties. It 

was the innovative State thinking that the Governor and other legislatures—and I know we have a number of them here in attendance—Senator Joel Gougeon is here, Representative Jim Howell, 

Representative Tony Stamas, and Representative Carl Williams. I 

also know that Chad Arnold from Senator Dunaskiss’s office is 

here. They have all been influential in Michigan’s innovative approach to welfare reform. 

Just through the year 2000, the decline in welfare caseloads have 

resulted in the reduction of State spending on welfare by almost 

$775 million. Spending on child day care, employment programs, 

health care and other social services has climbed by almost $3 billion. 

On the national level, welfare reform has been a success by almost any measure which you can devise; successful in terms of reducing caseloads and moving millions of families out of poverty 

through work. We know that nearly 3 million children have been 

lifted from poverty since 1996. Employment by single parents most 

likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000. 

Also, welfare caseloads have declined by 9 million, from 14 million 

recipients in 1994, to just 5 million today. 

Welfare reform has increased work, boosted incomes, improved 

child poverty, while also reducing dependency. I’m proud of the 

achievements of the 1996 law and even prouder of the millions of 

parents who are now working and making better lives for themselves and their children. 

We are honored to have some parents with us here today, and 

we’ll be hearing from them later. I look forward to learning about 

how they took advantage of the improved work support Michigan 

allows and how they were able to become independent. 

In the coming months, we have the opportunity to build on these 

successes and enhance this vital program. Congress should continue to help more people successfully transition to work, because 

work is the real and only permanent path out of poverty. 

I will say that joining us today will be the Governor of Michigan, 

John Engler, as well as former welfare recipients Carol Koon, 

Darnell Carter and Lisa Hudson. We are also joined by Lori 

Scorsone, a welfare caseworker, and Fred Keller, an employer who 

has hired welfare recipients. We look forward to hearing from all 

of our witnesses. 

[The opening statement of Mr. Camp follows:]

Opening Statement of the Hon. Dave Camp, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan 

Good morning. First, I would like to say how pleased I am that this hearing is 

taking place here in Michigan because it is important for Congress to get the state 

perspective on welfare reform as well as a local perspective. Second, I would like 

to thank Chairman Wally Herger for this tremendous opportunity as well as acknowledge the invaluable assistance that Matt Weidinger, Subcommittee Staff Director, Katie Kitchin, and Ryan Work of the Subcommittee have all provided to 

make this hearing happen. 

Today’s hearing will provide my Michigan colleagues and me an important background for this year’s reauthorization as we consider welfare reform outcomes in 

Michigan. It will focus on the perspective of former recipients and caseworkers and 

5

employers who have been instrumental in the success of the State’s program in 

terms of reducing poverty, ending dependence, and promoting work. 

With Governor Engler taking the lead, Michigan was at the forefront of the national welfare reform effort when it began experimenting with welfare reform in the 

early 1990s. Michigan’s innovative thinking resulted in a dramatic change in spending priorities. For example, through the 2000 fiscal year, the decline in welfare caseloads had resulted in reduction of state spending on poverty relief of almost $775 

million. However, spending on child day care, employment programs, health care 

and other social services had climbed by almost $3 billion. 

On the national level, welfare reform has been a tremendous success in reducing 

welfare caseloads and moving millions of families out of poverty through increased 

work. We know that nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty since 

1996, employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40% between 

1995 and 2000; and welfare caseloads have fallen by 9 million—from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. 

Welfare reform increased work, boosted incomes, improved child poverty while reducing dependency. I am proud of the achievements of the 1996 law, and even 

prouder of the millions of parents who are now working and making better lives for 

themselves and their children. We are honored to have several such parents with 

us today, and look forward to learning more about how they took advantage of the 

improved work supports Michigan and now so many other states provide. 

In the coming months, we have the opportunity to build on these successes and 

enhance this vital program. Congress should continue to help more people successfully transition to work, because work is the only real and permanent path out of 

poverty. 

Joining us today will be Governor John Engler as well as several former welfare 

recipients: Carol Koon, Darnell Carter, Crystal McClain, and Lisa Hudson. We also 

are joined by Lori Scorsone, a welfare caseworker, and Fred Keller, an employer 

who has hired welfare recipients. We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.

key architect of Michigan’s Welfare Reform, as well as, testifying 

Mr. CAMP. Governor Engler will be our first witness. He was a 

f on numerous occasions and helping craft the 1996 Welfare Law. 

It is a great honor to have an opportunity to hear from the Governor of Michigan, John Engler. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN ENGLER, GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Camp. 

I am delighted to be here today with you. I certainly want to thank 

you and express my appreciation to Chairman Herger and to the 

other Members of the Committee who asked me to testify today. 

I recall with great fondness 1995 and 1996 while there was an 

extraordinary amount of work being done, the leadership that you 

and then Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Clay Shaw and so 

many others provided. It was an important bit of work that was 

done. The results, as you just so eloquently stated, have truly 

changed America. For me to be able to come here today as not only 

the Governor of Michigan, but Chairman of the National Governors’ Association, to a field hearing that’s in the State of Michigan, it’s an opportunity for us to talk about a record that we’re 

very proud of. A record of welfare reform success, a record that 

shows, in our State, tens of thousands of families who successfully 

transitioned from dependency to independence, taking charge of 

their own lives, and taking charge of their family. So, it’s a wonderful opportunity. 

I would also note, and I understand he’s on business and out of 

the State, but Michigan is not only privileged to have you on this 

6

all important Subcommittee, but also Congressman Sander Levin 

from Oakland County. So, we do feel as though, in the policy debate in 2002, that our views will be heard and hopefully will be 

part of the consideration. This hearing here today shows that. 

I also want to express our appreciation from the Michigan officials, our Family Independence Agency (FIA) for my Washington 

office to Matt Weidinger and his staff at the Subcommittee level, 

as well as, the staff in the Minority. They have all been very, very 

open to us. So, I’m thrilled to be here. 

What I’ll do this morning is maybe take a few moments and go 

through some of the prepared remarks. 

Mr. CAMP. All of the testimony will be part of the permanent 

record that will go back and be part of the Subcommittee’s official 

record on this legislation. 

Mr. ENGLER. For some of our guests, we have—I just saw on 

the table outside, actually a chronology of welfare reform changes 

in Michigan, which is an interesting document. There are, I think, 

some limited copies of most of the testimony I’m going to present. 

Let me begin back in 1995 and 1996, because it was in 1996 after 

two vetoes that Federal welfare reform was signed into law. The 

date was August 22. There were skeptics and many of them who 

had their doubts. They said bad things would happen. We have 

even had, as I recall, employees resigning in protest from the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, and the argument was 

this: The States really weren’t concerned or as compassionate about 

their citizens as people were in Washington. The argument was it 

would be a race to the bottom. Some advocates for the old system 

even claimed that some 2 million children would be added to child 

poverty roles. The evidence is in. They were wrong. 

Welfare reform has worked and has exceeded the expectations of 

many of its staunchest supporters. States took very seriously the 

authority that was devolved by Congress, and I think earned a 

claim and trust through their actions and successes. 

The Federal legislation that you wrote succeeded because Congress debated, focused on and then sent overarching goals, such as 

families going to work and making assistance temporary. Then the 

strategies and the methods were largely left to the States. The key 

word: Flexibility. Michigan and other States have proven that 

given flexibility, States can design programs that fit their needs, 

better programs, deliver better services and bottom line, get better 

outcomes for families and taxpayers. 

Michigan’s reform, as you’ve cited, alone have resulted in over 

308,000 Michigan families leaving welfare with earned income. As 

we move forward now, this year, considering the subject again and 

re-authorization, I think everyone agrees. It’s important to maintain work in unsubsidized private sector employment as a key goal. 

Employment reduces welfare dependency, strengthens families, and 

exposes our next generation of children with the all-important work 

ethic. If we lose work as a central theme, we would risk losing 

much of the gains that we’ve made over the last decade. 

I’m delighted that President Bush’s proposal keeps work as a 

central focus, and I support his efforts to raise the bar. While some 

of the details are still emerging, we also believe there is additional 

opportunity within the President’s proposal, as well as proposals 

7

that are coming forward in the Congress. The opportunity is to 

fine-tune the details so that current successful State programs can 

continue, and we can achieve even greater gains. I look forward 

and the Nations Governors look forward to being part of a process 

where States, leaders in Congress like yourself, the Subcommittee, 

and the administration work together to write a final product that 

recognizes the goal of work. At the same time—balances the changing mix of our caseloads. Some of the current State programs, 

available resources which at the State level and recent budget, 

really for sort of two budgets as we’ve dealt with a national recession, have become somewhat strained and at the same time certainly to maximize the all important flexibility for States. 

Again, the President’s proposals are a tremendous starting point, 

given where this debate began back in 1995 when the proposals 

emerged from the new majority in the House and Congress of the 

United States. I mean, that’s really where this debate began in 

1995. Now, here we are a few short years later, and the President’s 

coming in with a proposal that would have seemed absolutely radical in 1995 when we first began this conversation. 

Welfare reform is about strengthening families. Work strengthens family. However, for some families, work alone cannot be the 

only strategy to strengthen the families. In Michigan we’ve done 

many things we think that are designed to support strong family 

structures. 

Early on, fairer eligibility standards for two-parent families, targeted paternity establishment, priority of reducing out-of-wedlock 

births, family reunification and preservation initiatives, and a 

range of other family formation activities. Again, as was with the 

focus on work, I think it’s critical that specific family formation 

strategies be largely left in the States. 

I’m pleased that the President has proposed for the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants, a level of funding of 

the block. While at the same time, he’s also addressed some other 

concerns that I think are real, and were in need of being addressed—a meaningful contingency fund for emergency situations. 

The ability of States to formally obligate unspent funds has been 

an open question during the 5 years of this welfare reform legislation. The ongoing commitment of a multi-year block grant is, again, 

something else that’s welcomed. 

Again, given the State’s current physical situations, of course 

we’ll also be looking for any opportunities that may arise to include 

other modest little economic increases or inflation factors to further 

supplement base TANF funding, should those materialize. 

At the same time, another key opportunity is one that would 

allow States to align and simplify other programs. Here, the President’s proposed ‘‘super-waiver’’ authority could be one of the most 

exciting, innovative and effective things to come out of Washington 

in years. 

Families who receive cash are often caught in the trap of multiple and conflicting bureaucratic systems and programs, i.e., food 

stamps, housing, education, training systems, and work force systems. Many of these systems don’t work well together because they 

have different origins, and they have different Federal rules. They 

8

arose from different Federal priorities, and they certainly have 

many different definitions. 

Our take on this is that these differences send some pretty conflicting messages to families. They create ominous hurdles for our 

staff who try to make them work together. They end up aggravating the public and me, even some of our dedicated workers get 

a little bit aggravated who are trying to help these families. The 

families themselves get kind of worked up about this. I get upset, 

too, because what we all want is a system that works better. I 

think it can and should work better. This isn’t really a question 

where if we make 1 or 5 or 10 changes in Congress each year, I 

think we can fix it. It really is broader than that. I think it’s giving 

the States the flexibility, the authority to make real-time changes 

to align programs in ways that give better services to families and 

make program administration more manageable. For our taxpayers 

who are listening today and who follow our activities, give them 

more bang for their dollar. 

I believe the bottom line is this: The more challenging the family 

problems are, the more flexibility the States need to address the 

problems. The old adage one-size-fits-all is especially wrong for 

these most challenging of families that remain trapped in the system. For those who say, ‘‘Well, this won’t work, it isn’t possible,’’ 

I ask simply are they the same people that said the Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement couldn’t be eliminated and that the TANF block grant would not work? 

I think that we’ve seen the partnership with Congress, Governors, legislators, and legislatures in those like those that are 

here today, have a closer relationship to the actual people with the 

kinds of problems that they have in those families where they need 

services. I would say the States, again, in this debate, will approach it this way: The States are willing to be held accountable, 

but the States really need and must have the responsibility and authority that goes with the accountability. To those who do not believe that greater flexibility for States is a deserving worthy goal, 

I ask this: What on Earth would it take to convince you, given the 

success of recent years? 

I think imposing flexibility for States is the equivalent of saying 

that better services to families, the more streamlined, efficient programs, somehow aren’t worthy and deserving goals. 

In 2002, opposing State flexibility means more mandates and 

rules from Washington. Mr. Chairman, we tried that for 40 years, 

and it didn’t work. I’m proud of our record of reform in Michigan. 

I’m proud of what Republican and Democrat Governors have done 

across America. It’s truly a remarkable transition that’s taken 

place. Interestingly, it has happened in large States, in small 

States, with Democrat Governors, with Republican Governors, with 

legislatures of both parties. It’s just been a change that truly was 

ready to happen. The Congress in 1996 paved the way, stuck with 

it and prevailed. The rest they say is history. 

I think the relationship that we built with Congress, the States 

and Nation’s Governors back in 1995 and 1996 is one that has continued to improve. The debates back then resulted in historic reforms. Again, this year I think there’s an opportunity. We ought to 

seize that opportunity to ensure that the historic reforms 1996 

9

really are the foundation and that we continue them and move to 

the next level of success. That’s why your hearing today is so important, that’s why you honor us by—I know it’s coming home, but 

by bringing this hearing here to your district and writing a record 

then that can go back to the other Members of your Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, for that we thank you. I’m happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:]

Statement of the Hon. John Engler, Governor, State of Michigan, and 

Chairman National Governors’ Association 

Congressman Camp, I want to thank you, Chairman Herger, and other members 

of the committee for asking me to testify today. I also appreciate that this field 

hearing is happening in the State of Michigan, a state that has a proud record of 

welfare reform success. 

Not only is the state well represented by Congressman Camp, but we are privileged to have Congressman Sander Levin as a member of this subcommittee as well. 

I’d also like to acknowledge the hard work of Matt Weidinger and his staff at the 

subcommittee, as well as the staff of the minority subcommittee. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to take a few minutes to testify before this committee and ask that the additional information I am submitting on Michigan’s welfare reform success be included in the record. 

In 1996, after two vetoes, federal welfare reform was signed into law on August 

22. Many skeptics had their doubts, saying bad things would happen, effectively arguing that states weren’t as concerned or compassionate about their residents as 

Washington. They were wrong! 

Welfare reform has worked and exceeded the expectations of many of its staunchest supporters. States took seriously the authority that was devolved and deserve 

trust through their actions and successes. The federal legislation succeeded because 

Washington focused on overarching goals, such as work and making assistance temporary, and left the strategies and methods to the states. The key word: flexibility. 

Michigan and other states have proven that given flexibility, states can design a 

better program, deliver better services, and get better outcomes for families and taxpayers. Michigan’s reforms alone have resulted in over 308,000 Michigan families 

leaving welfare with earned income. 

As we move forward, it is important to maintain work in unsubsidized private sector employment as the key goal. Employment reduces welfare dependency, strengthens families, and exposes our next generation of children to the all-important work 

ethic. If we lose work as the central theme, we risk losing much of the gains we 

have made over the last decade. 

President Bush’s proposal keeps work as a central focus, and I support his efforts 

to raise the bar. While some of the details are still emerging, we believe there is 

opportunity within the President’s proposal, as well as others, to fine-tune the details so that current successful state programs can continue. I look forward to being 

part of a process of states, Congress, and the Administration in arriving at a final 

product that recognizes a goal of work, while balancing the changing mix of our 

caseloads, current state programs, available resources, and maximizing flexibility to 

the states. The President’s proposal is a tremendous starting point, particularly 

given where we began back in 1995. 

Welfare reform is about strengthening families, and work strengthens families. 

However, work does not have to be nor should it be the only strategy to strengthen 

families. We have done many things in Michigan to support strong family structures, including fairer eligibility standards for two-parent families, targeted paternity establishment, reducing out-of-wedlock births, family reunification and preservation initiatives, and other family formation activities. However, as with the focus 

on work, it is critical that family formation strategies be left up to the states. 

I am also pleased that the President has proposed keeping the block grant level 

while also addressing other critical financial issues, such as a meaningful contingency fund, the ability of states to formally obligate unspent funds, and the ongoing 

commitment of a multi-year block grant. 

Nevertheless, given states’ current fiscal situations, we will still be looking for any 

opportunities to include other economic increases or inflation factors to further supplement our base TANF funding. 

10

Another key opportunity is in allowing states to align and simplify other programs. The President’s proposed ‘‘super-waiver’’ authority could be one of the most 

exciting, innovative, and effective things to come out of Washington in years. 

Families who receive cash are often caught in the trap of multiple and conflicting 

bureaucratic systems and programs—like food stamps, housing, education and training systems, and workforce systems. Many of these systems don’t work well together 

because of different federal rules, priorities, and definitions. Different programs 

send conflicting messages to families; they create ominous hurdles for staff who try 

to make them work together; and they aggravate the public—and me—because we 

want a system that works better. I believe it can and should work better. 

This is not about making one or five or ten changes in Congress each year. It is 

about giving states flexibility and authority to make real-time changes to align programs in a way that gets better services to families, makes program administration 

more manageable, and provides more bang for the taxpayers’ dollars. For those who 

say this will not work and is not possible, I ask them if they are the same people 

that said the AFDC entitlement could not be eliminated or said a TANF block grant 

would not work. 

Governors and legislatures are closer to the people needing the services. We are 

willing to be accountable, but we need the responsibility and authority that goes 

with the accountability. I challenge those who do not believe that greater flexibility 

for states is a deserving and worthy goal. That is the equivalent of saying that better services to families and more streamlined, efficient programs are not worthy and 

deserving goals. 

I am very proud of our record of reform in Michigan. I am also pleased with the 

relationship that Congress developed with Governors and states in 1995 and 1996 

during the welfare reform debate. Those debates resulted in historic reforms, and 

we have the opportunity to ensure that those historic reforms continue and rise to 

the next level of success. 

for taking the time out of what is a very busy schedule to be here. 

With that, I would be happy to take questions.

Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much, Governor, and thank you 

f As you know, we’ll be working in Congress, with the Governors 

and especially with you in your role as Chairman of the National 

Governors’ Association on extending the 1996 law for another 5 

years. I hear what you’re saying that flexibility is a real key to 

serving families better. 

The President has a proposal to expand the flexibility that’s been 

granted to the States by really developing what former Wisconsin 

Governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy 

Thompson calls a ‘‘super-waiver’’ proposal. How do you think that 

could best be used to helping low-income families better? What can 

we do to—or what can I do to help make sure that Michigan obtains the flexibility to serve low-income families better? 

Mr. ENGLER. I think that there are a multitude of ways in 

which that can make a big difference. If we look at the number of 

programs that somebody might be eligible for, in a situation maybe 

where it’s a single parent head of the family, with a couple of children, they may have needs that are in housing, or transportation, 

or certainly healthcare. We cover that largely through Medicaid, 

but there could be educational needs, an array of different programs, and maybe that mother also is pregnant with another child 

or has a very young baby. I used this example at the press conference earlier this morning, but just two obvious examples of programs that could easily fit together: the food stamps and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC). Both of those help with food and nutrition services. So, in our hypothetical family here, which isn’t all that hypothetical when we look at our caseload, there would be an eligibility 

11

there for additional formula and other needs that a mother of a 

young child might have. It’s interesting that the stores that are licensed to participate in these programs, since it’s done by two different agencies, actually are—it can be different. In some cases one 

store is able to provide food stamps, but not the WIC program. It 

just doesn’t make any sense. We’ve moved to an electronic benefit’s 

card for the food stamp program, much simpler for the family to 

use. We should be able to put those programs together and help 

provide that additional help. 

I did promise a mother that I talked to a week ago when we were 

surrounded—and I might comment for our audience. You see all 

these achievers of the month, these posters here, these represent 

men and women who are some of the success stories. They’re wonderful stories that you see. One of the moms, I don’t think she’s in 

one of these pictures, but she came up to me and she said, ‘‘It’s 

great to have the help when the kids are little. I’ve got some teenagers now, and trying to feed these teenagers is a whole different 

kind of challenge, and you ought to do something that—I could get 

by pretty good on my food stamp allotment when the kids were little, but these teenagers are eating me out of house and home.’’ She 

happened to be somebody who moved off welfare. She continued, ‘‘If 

I’d been on public assistance with food stamps, I’m not sure we 

would have had enough food to eat.’’ So, she was saying for those 

who are still in that system, we ought to look at that. 

I said to her, that’s a good point, you know, but with the flexibility that we seek, we could actually even address that kind of a 

question. It wasn’t something I had thought about, but that’s one 

example. There may be situations where somebody is entitled to assistance on housing, and yet their housing is secured. It’s the 

transportation need that’s impossible. Or it’s even additional—you 

mentioned some statistics on child care, and that happens to be an 

area that probably has increased more dramatically in the Michigan State budget than almost anything saved Medicaid expenses, 

and yet the child care assistance is a great challenge where you’re 

dealing with a family with a single parent. What happens, how do 

they—how do they work. 

Another example of a program, and it’s in the U.S. Department 

of Education where they deal with the Head Start program, and 

there may be ways in which we can help that coordinate more effectively with a person going to work. We have actually had conflicts of times where the Head Start program said, ‘‘No, you must 

come here and be in this classroom this day of this week.’’ The 

mother is saying, ‘‘Well, I have to also be at my job, how do I do 

both?’’ You’ve got basically people in two different programs, each 

resolutely pursuing their goals of their program, and we need to be 

able to bring that—bring that together. 

Our workers get very creative in trying to figure all of this out, 

but it is a lot of effort and I’m just suggesting it could be made 

much more effective. So it is—that’s why that waiver is attractive 

to Governors. I do have, knowing that there’s an aspect of the Congress where the structure of subcommittees and committees, and 

that is quite traditional. Some of these are scattered through many 

various subcommittees, and therefore try to get all the subcommittees to deal with the ‘‘super-waiver’’ proposal may be very difficult. 

12

Maybe there’s an opportunity, if we can’t achieve this on a national basis, for our Congressman from Michigan to write a provision that would allow for a couple of States to pilot this, and certainly I would volunteer to have Michigan be one of those that 

would pilot this. We would come in with great—we could be quite 

specific in terms of the things we would like. Maybe then there 

would be an opportunity to validate what the President’s proposed 

in a couple of States, so that it could in a future Congress be adopted nationally. If we fall short, and I realize that we’re in a desire 

to move the Welfare Reform legislation fairly quickly in the Congress, and that desire to move quickly may be in contrast to the 

physical requirements, getting through all these subcommittees. 

So, we’re always looking, how do we work with you to try to accomplish the objective. So, it’s a very good question, and probably the 

most important feature of how we can really make things work in 

the future. 

Mr. CAMP. I think it was, the real reason for the success was 

the flexibility that was given in the past. 

I’m glad you pointed out these pictures here, because I understand last week, after 10 years of welfare reform, that you recognized your 100th achiever of the month, and that is a tremendous 

goal. Obviously, I know there’s many more who would also qualify 

for that. 

I wanted to ask a question that related to that, that is discussed 

in a lot of the meetings we have and hearings, and that is that we 

have dozens upon dozens of ways of receiving data and information 

and following people who have left welfare, and I might add that’s 

a stark contrast, and that there was very little done to track people 

who had left AFDC in the past. I wondered about your thoughts 

on additional requirements on States to follow every person who 

has received assistance, and if you have any thoughts on what 

some of the welfare clients feel about that? What challenges might 

face you if some of these were mandated? What this might do to 

the resources? We all know the amount of resources are limited. 

How does this data reporting or tracking fit into how welfare is implemented in Michigan? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, it—you know, we’re not quite to the point 

of that being that big of brother to everyone where we do track sort 

of everyone every year and know exactly what’s going on. On the 

other hand, many of these families we continue to work with, because there, even as you’re making this transition, there may be 

retained eligibility of, say, for a Medicaid program, and so—for a 

year or more, in some cases where we’re working with employers. 

There are ways in which we stay in touch. 

We also, because of the requirements of the 1996 legislation on 

a 5-year lifetime eligibility for benefits, had to do more in terms of 

tracking families than we had historically done. So we do know, I 

suspect, or are able to put together more information. We in Michigan probably haven’t gotten too worked up on some of the reporting. It seems like we’re reporting everything and one of the more 

frustrating things is how sometimes the same information is required by different agencies to be reported in different ways. 

I note that in the recent successful package of the No Child Left 

Behind Education legislation, we’re going to do something that I do 

13

think is very important. We’re going to start following children 

from year to year in schools, so we know how much progress is 

being made. I—that happens to be something I do strongly believe 

is important, because I—and wanting to—our goal in terms of 

the—and I’m pleased to see that emphasis on education and 

strengthening families, because while we’re helping in—these are 

achievers of the month, and these are people who have been able 

to change their lives. What you really also want to see is that the 

children in these families never go onto the system, but they’re 

able to get the kind of education that allows them to compete to 

be employed, and to go through school, not become pregnant, a 

whole host of changes. 

So, I guess we’ll—you tell us the information you need, and we’ll 

try to provide that for you. It isn’t—we’d rather—we want to make 

sure that whatever questions you’re asking, we’ve got some success 

stories to talk about, so I’d say, if you want more information, then 

you will give us more flexibility to run the program, we’ll give you 

all the information you want, and you give us all the flexibility we 

need, and we’ll have a bargain. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Then I just have one last question. A big part 

of the President’s proposal is the work requirement, and I know 

that you’ve recently signed a law that moves Michigan to a 40-hour 

work requirement already, and I wondered your thoughts on the 

President’s proposal there. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, we think that the way the proposal is structured with the requirement of 40 hours, but also allowing for some 

of that, up to 16 hours, to be met with additional training or skills 

development, that that could be—that that’s something that we can 

achieve. We appreciate very much the phase-in period because it 

will—there are very, very few States that could comply today with 

where that bar would be set. 

I said in my testimony, we support raising the bar, we support 

the focus on work. We will need—as we lose the credit, which we’ve 

had, and someone in our audience may not understand how this 

has all worked, but there’s been a—as families are successful and 

go to work, there’s actually a credit that was applied, and so for 

many States we were able to exceed work requirements in part because we were having success. That made some sense to take the 

credit away, that’s fine, but it—but then make sure that we have—

because as we get further and further out there, the cases get 

harder and harder. There’s—you know, where maybe somebody 

had two major issues, now there may be five issues in a family. 

I’ve got some cases, I don’t need to go into them, but, they’re 

pretty remarkable when you just—when you think about it. Here’s 

a—I mean, a two-parent—this happens to be a two-parent household, father is employed, six children, 3 months to 9 years. The 

mother is Arabic, language barriers, minimum education, multiple 

barriers, transportation issues, child care, some kids in school, others needing all-day day care, mother has limited skills, education, 

language barrier. 

We’ve got a husband and a wife, four children. Each parent spent 

45 days in a drug rehab program, and then they took turns being 

with the kids. The father has a nighttime job in a town that’s 40 

miles east of where they live, actually may well be constituents, I 

14

won’t name the counties, but, then the mother got a part-time job 

days at a—40 miles south, and that’s 20 hours per week. Neither 

one has a driver’s license because they were suspended for alcohol 

abuse. They got to rely on volunteer drivers. In this case, the 

Michigan Works Agency is helping them to pay for transportation 

for 30 days. Then after that they’re suppose to be on their own. 

Volunteer drivers are from a local dial-a-ride that charges 43 cents 

a mile. 

So, you’ve got, just a multitude of problems. Trying to get that 

family at 40 hours a week and stay there, is difficult. Up north we 

had families working at ski resorts, at restaurants or motels. When 

it didn’t snow earlier in the winter, people got laid off. 

So, those are some of the challenges. So, when we—when I look 

at what you just asked me in terms of how this all plays out, I 

think we can get there. You’re just going to have to—it’s going to 

have to be—it’ll have to be phased in or we’re going to have to look 

hard at what are these other activities, and some of the definitions 

there will matter very much. 

I would also argue that since you can meet the 40-hour test with 

as much as 16 hours of other education or training, maybe there’s 

a way that on a—if somebody can move beyond taking the 16 hours 

away from the 40. It’s 24 hours at work, maybe if they can move 

that in terms of being on payrolls up higher, there’s a credit that 

offsets. Maybe it’s if you work an extra hour you get credit for 2 

hours of that other activity. The average job, according to the U.S. 

Department of Labor statistics, is really 40 hours, if we look at—

now, a lot of the jobs are in the 32-, 33-, 34-hour range, and so, 

it gets—and if somebody is working—actually let’s say they’re 

working 34 hours, maybe we ought to be saying that the rest of 

that time ought to be there for their family. Maybe there’s a way 

to structure that. Make it 40 hours. At the same time, these are—

these are—some of these families are pretty fragile as well. I don’t 

want to have a set of policies which end up somehow being counterproductive to strengthening the family. The family formation is 

something else that is an initiative in this legislation. 

So that’s—again, we’re willing to work, and I think the way we 

can really master this among the States is for the Congress to set 

goals, and they can be very high goals, and then tell the States let’s 

go out and compete, because I’m going to learn something each 

time somebody tries it. 

You mentioned Secretary Thompson, and I don’t know if he’ll 

read our testimony or not, but when he was Governor of Wisconsin 

we used to have quite a competition on both sides of Lake Michigan 

about who was doing what. I think it worked well for the people 

in Wisconsin, worked well for the people of Michigan, and it put 

us in a position where we had, by the time the 1995, 1996 debate 

rolled around, a lot of real experience that could be relied upon to 

sort of predict how some of these changes might lay out. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony, 

and your time here today. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. ENGLER. You’re welcome. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, the Governor has agreed to join me up here 

while we hear from our second panel, and I would like to have 

15

Carol Koon, Darnell Carter, Lisa Hudson, Fred Keller, and Lori 

Scorsone, please. 

Why don’t I start, Ms. Koon, with you, and each of you take 

about 5 minutes. We’ll let everyone make their statements so that 

everyone has a chance, then I’ll come back, and we’ll have hopefully some time for some questions and dialog. So why don’t you 

begin. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL KOON, EVART, MICHIGAN 

Ms. KOON. Well, my name is Carol Koon, and I am a former 

Osceola County FIA person. I came to FIA in July 1999. My husband lost his job, and we were without any savings. I was working 

minimum wage in a local grocery store. We had four children, uncertain how long it was going to take before he received unemployment benefits, or how long it would be before he found another job. 

So, we went there and applied not sure what or how everything 

would work, if we’d even get any assistance or anything. We were 

met by some extremely friendly people who did not make us feel 

that we were bad in any way for coming there, the stigmatism to 

it. 

Anyways, we were referred to the Work First program to look for 

work through them. While I was there, I saw an ad for a secretary 

for one of the 911 centers in our area. It said, well, you wouldn’t 

believe what we have available. We have a program right now, 

where we’re training people to become certified dispatchers for one 

of the local 911 centers. What the problem was, is that Lake County was one of the last counties in Michigan to go to emergency 911. 

They needed to employ, I believe, up to 12 people at that time, and 

did not have the funding for all of the training that needed to be 

done. So, they set up with Work First to offer a program for people. 

If they passed the test, went through the training, they would be 

able to become certified and possibly gain employment with them. 

If not, they would still be totally trained to go to employment anywhere else in the State of Michigan or any State. 

So, that’s what I did. I signed up for the program, I continued 

working, I dropped down to 20 hours a week, and took the 40 hours 

of training each week. Upon completing the test, I was fully certified by the end of September. In December, I was hired full-time 

with them. I am still currently employed there. 

We stopped receiving our benefits in September. It was not long 

after we had gone there that we stopped because we received his 

unemployment, which put us over the income levels. Without that 

training, I am not certain that if my husband was to have lost his 

job again we wouldn’t be in the position to need assistance. Now 

that I have a career also, we are financially stable. 

The training was an extremely remarkable program. I can’t say 

enough for the people that were so extremely dedicated, that were 

there to make sure that I succeeded, whatever was needed. I remember right before I started the job, my alternator went on my 

vehicle. I thought, I can’t believe this. Sure enough, they said we’ll 

get this taken care of. 

That’s why I’m here today. I want to say thank you for the assistance that I received, for the compassionate people that were 

there to help. I think they need to have more of these programs 

16

available for people, not only to receive a job, but maybe to receive 

a career. So, that they’re in a position to make some good choices. 

In my area, we’re a rural area, there’s not a lot of job opportunities. So, if maybe they could set something up for rural areas designed around what is available in the area, that would be a wonderful thing. 

That’s why I’m here today. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much. 

Ms. KOON. You’re welcome. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Carter? 

STATEMENT OF DARNELL CARTER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. First of all, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for inviting me out. 

I would like to first say that I appreciate the opportunity to come 

before this Committee today to give my personal testimony of the 

impact of welfare reform, what it’s had on my life, and to also be 

a voice for the people regarding the matter. 

Last Thursday I attended a ceremony, achiever of the month 

ceremony with Governor Engler and Director Howard, and we celebrated the 100th achiever of the month. It was a nice—it was very 

nice. A reporter came up to me and asked, said, ‘‘Mr. Carter, do 

you believe that Governor Engler’s reform is creating working 

poor?’’ What I said was, no. I don’t think it’s creating working poor. 

I believe that welfare reform has been successful thus far. In 

Michigan, I know the caseloads are down tremendously compared 

to 1996 when the reform law was implemented. As a single parent 

with sole custody of two children, a 12-year-old daughter, that’s 

Egypt, and an 8-year-old daughter, that’s Christian, working is a 

winner for us, hands down. Even though we still face some of the 

challenges that plagued us before, such as child support, child care 

and medical coverage, working makes it a whole lot easier. I’ll let 

you know that right now. I’m not going to worry about the situations that I face now because I have a strong belief in God. I know 

that he’ll pull me through whatever I face, but I know that not everyone will see things the way that I see them. 

Now, I offer you a different perspective, and that is as a case 

manager for our Michigan Works Agency, dealing with the customers, helping them make the transition from welfare to work. 

I have been employed, almost 5 years. May 29 will be my fifth 

year, next month, with the Michigan Works Agency, and over the 

years I have met thousands of people and helped them make the 

same transition. It seems that everybody has a general question, 

where are the programs for low-income fathers? Where are the programs at? I’m not sure if there are even 50 of them here in Michigan statewide, and the few programs that I know are up and running, they serve as a liaison for some services to assist men, versus 

a training component, to assist low-income fathers and rebuilding 

their lives and reconnecting them to their families. This has to 

change. Just like mothers, fathers are unique in their own way, 

with very different needs, such as more skilled jobs training, educational opportunities and many of them need help with legal matters. 

17

In conclusion, I believe that if we develop, implement and provide more funding for programs for low-income fathers, then we 

will further meet our goal of strengthening Michigan families, and 

be an example for the rest of the country. Upon doing this, I believe that welfare reform would truly reach its goal of strengthening families and reducing government dependency. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

Statement of Darnell Carter, Detroit, Michigan 

Good Morning Everyone, 

I appreciate the opportunity to stand before this committee today to give my personal testimony concerning welfare reform and its impact on my life, and also to 

be a voice for the people regarding the matter. 

A reporter at an achiever ceremony I attended with Gov. Engler asked me a question, ‘‘Do you think that Gov. Engler’s welfare reform initiative was creating the 

working poor?’’ I replied by saying, ‘‘No’’. 

I believe that welfare reform has been successful thus far. In Michigan welfare 

caseloads are down tremendously compared to 1996 when the welfare reform law 

was implemented. As a single parent with sole custody of two children, my 12-yearold daughter Egypt and 8-year-old daughter Christian, working is a winner hands 

down even though I still deal with some of the challenges that faced me while I was 

on assistance such as child support and daycare. I’m not going to worry because I 

have a strong belief in God and the ability to see my goals and make them come 

true despite what challenges are before me. But not everyone can see their lives 

that way. Now I will offer to you a different perspective as a case manager assisting 

recipients in making the transition from welfare to work. I’ve been employed for almost 5 years and have met thousands of people at the very work first program that 

I attended. And my question along with countless others is, ‘‘Where are the programs to assist low-income fathers?’’ I don’t believe that there are even 25 statewide. And of the few programs I know that are operating they function more as a 

liaison for some services versus being a training component to assist low income fathers in rebuilding their lives and reconnecting them to their families. This has to 

change! And just like Mothers, Fathers are unique in their own way with very different needs such as more skilled jobs training, educational opportunities and to 

many help with legal matters. 

In conclusion, I believe that if we design, implement and provide more funding 

for programs to assist low income fathers that we will further meet our goal of 

strengthening Michigan families and be an example for the rest of the country. In 

addition I believe that once we do this we will begin to see even more progress with 

welfare reform and truly reach our goal of strengthening families and significantly 

reducing government dependency. 

Thank You.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Ms. Hudson? 

f STATEMENT OF LISA HUDSON, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 

Ms. HUDSON. My name is Lisa Hudson, I’m an employee at 

Cascade Engineering. I have been there for 21⁄2 years now. Before 

I started at Cascade Engineering, I had all sorts of jobs, 3 months 

here, 7 months there. As you’ve heard before, there’s always been 

certain situations, transportation, child care, something always 

happening to where I had to quit or something like that. 

Well, in August 1999 I applied for assistance with the FIA, and 

I had to report to the Work First program. This is where I came 

in through the welfare to work program. I met Ron Jimmerson 

from Cascade Engineering at the Work First office, and I got hired 

in at second shift. I wasn’t sure how long I was going to stay. I was 

a first shifter and I needed first shift, but it ended working out 

18

fine. They offered me transportation, child care, and the FIA was 

on site. 

I was nervous, of course, because I had never worked in a factory. I figured I would save some money, get a car, go somewhere 

else or do something. Cascade Engineering’s logo, if I can call it 

that, is a Company of Families. I felt right away that I was a part 

of this family. The people are not just human resource or supervisors—they are actually friends and family to me. Cascade Engineering offers pay for contribution. This consists of completing different levels, learning more skills and making more money, which 

I have accomplished. 

I started out at $8.50 per hour. I am now at level B, making 

$11.35 per hour. Effective April 5, I will be at level C making 

$13.35 per hour. I have met with Joyce Bosscher, my FIA worker 

out at Cascade Engineering. She’s working on advancing my career 

at Cascade through Human Resource Department. 

The FIA caseworkers, Joyce Bosscher and Gary Loew, are on 

site. Before, I had caseworkers that were down at the office on 

Franklin, and I didn’t feel like they really cared about me at all. 

I understand they have their job to do, they have a lot of cases, but 

it just wasn’t personal. So, I really do like how the FIA is on site 

at Cascade Engineering. We can get personal, and we know each 

other by face. We call each other when we have a problem or things 

of such. 

During my employment at Cascade Engineering, I have faced 

many serious family issues, as I have before, but now I’m not 

alone. So, the issues kind of changed because before my kids were 

younger, and it was mainly child care. Now, I have teenagers, and 

it’s a totally new ball game. 

I am a single parent, and Joyce has been there all steps of the 

way. She’s offered—well, referred me to counselors. So, I have inhouse counseling now for me and my children. It’s getting a lot better. 

Oh, I want to also say, she has assisted me with car repairs, 

money management classes, Section 8, Habitat for Humanity. I 

could go on and on all day, but I won’t. 

Also, I would like to say, my supervisors and other Cascade Engineering representatives have been a blessing in my life. Cascade 

Engineering is truly a Company of Families, and FIA has provided 

the resources and continued caring for my children and myself. 

I truly feel that through all these accomplishments—I have become a good role model for my children, which will help them in 

the future as they become adults. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hudson follows:]

Statement of Lisa Hudson, Grand Rapids, Michigan 

Before starting at Cascade Engineering I had all sorts of jobs that I worked at 

for maybe 3 months here and there. I had to quit these jobs due to family problems 

such as transportation, child care, etc. In 8/99 I applied for assistance with FIA and 

had to report to the work first program. This is where I came in through the Welfare to Work Program by meeting Ron Jimmerson from Cascade Engineering at the 

Work First Office. Cascade Engineering hired me at a 2nd shift job although I did 

need 1st. Second shift ended up working out for me and it was because of the many 

programs at Cascade Engineering and Family Independence Agency’s support. One 

of the examples was the transportation provided to me to get to work. 

19

I wasn’t sure how I felt at first. I was nervous and I have never really worked 

at a factory job. I figured I would save enough money to purchase a car and try 

other employment later. Cascade Engineering’s logo is a Company of Families. I felt 

right away that I was a part of this family. The people are not just human resource 

of supervisors, they are my friends and family. Cascade Engineering offers ′′Pay for 

Contribution′′ which completing different levels, learning more skills and making 

more money which I have accomplished. I started out at $8.50 per hour. I am now 

at Level B making $11.35 per hour. Effective 4/5/02 I will be at Level C making 

$13.35 per hour and have met with Joyce Bosscher my FIA caseworker who has arranged a meeting with my Human Resource representative at Cascade Engineering 

to work on advancing my career at Cascade Engineering working in the Human Resource Department. 

The Family Independence Agency caseworkers, Joyce Bosscher and Gary Loew 

are onsite at Cascade Engineering. Before I had my caseworker onsite at Cascade 

Engineering I did not have a caseworker that I really thought cared about me and 

the issues I was dealing with. During my employment at Cascade Engineering I 

have faced many serious family issues that I previously had to deal with on my own 

while trying to maintain a job which I could not do. With the help of the Family 

Independence Agency on site I have made these accomplishments happen. I have 

four children. Childcare is not the problem because I do have daycare assistance. 

It is the two teenagers that I am having difficulties with being a single parent. I 

don’t know where I would be or what I would be doing if it weren’t for Joyce directing me in the right direction for counseling for my teenagers and myself which has 

helped me continue at my job. I have counseling set up once a week that was set 

up through FIA. I also have had assistance from Joyce with car repairs, money 

management classes, Section 8 and am presently participating in the Habitat for 

Humanity Homeownership Program so I may provide a better home and stability 

for my family. My supervisors and other Cascade Engineering representatives have 

been blessings in my life. Cascade Engineering is truly a Company of Families and 

FIA has provided the resources and the continued caring for my children and myself. 

I truly feel that through all these accomplishments I have become a good role 

model for my children which will help them in their future as they become adults.

STATEMENT OF FRED P. KELLER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXMr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Keller? 

f ECUTIVE OFFICER, CASCADE ENGINEERING, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 

Mr. KELLER. Well, thank you for this opportunity, Representative Camp and Governor Engler. 

Just by way of background, Cascade Engineering is a manufacturer, about $200 million in sales, about 1,100 employees, and 

we’ve got nine plants here in the States and one in Hungary. We’ve 

had a long-term interest in being business partners to improve the 

quality of life in our community. Beyond just the impact of doing 

business in the traditional way of giving back, rather it’s been a 

matter of how we engage the community, how do we get involved 

in helping to solve some of the most important problems that are 

in the communities, and arrive at better solutions; applying, in a 

sense, the—kind of business skills that you learned in the manufacturing world to some of our most difficult problems in the community. 

I do believe that we have got sufficient resources in the existing 

agencies and the existing streams of revenue. If we can only learn 

how to leverage them better, we could in fact make a massive improvement specifically in our continuing cycle of poverty that does 

exist in America today. 

I believe the Nation has an opportunity to make significant new 

progress in reducing poverty. I believe that Cascade Engineering 

20

has demonstrated that moving people from poverty to not only a 

job, but to a career. That really is our intent, we call it welfare to 

career, not just welfare to a job, then it’s possible. We have learned 

this is not rocket science. 

There is, in fact, application of known principles that can take 

us from where we are to massive improvement. We have, most of 

all, learned that all these results are not the work of any one sector. It’s not the government sector, it’s not the business sector, it’s 

not the folks that are in poverty, it’s all of us that have to work 

together in a systemic problem-solving way for us to be able to significantly reduce the welfare roles and move people out of poverty. 

Fully, 22 percent of the people that we added to our rolls last 

year, in terms of entry level jobs, were people that were formerly 

receiving welfare benefits. This continues our rate of about 100 

people or more that are in that category, that have formerly been 

on welfare, that are now working at Cascade Engineering. We 

moved our monthly retention rates from a pretty poor 60 percent 

or so, but now have been over 90, actually in the mid-nineties, for 

the last several months. 

As a result of this program and calculations by the FIA would show that we’ve saved the State of Michigan about $850,000 from 

our program alone. These savings, I can assure you, will continue 

year after year, because we are committed to this program. 

Our program did gain some attention from the Conference Board. 

We have been written up in their Corporate Community Development report, which we have copies of, if anybody would be interested in them? Further case study is being written up by Cornell 

University. So, we are looking at ways in which we can improve 

what we are doing through these case studies as well. 

Mainly we found that there are three main ingredients as to why 

it works for Cascade Engineering. The first one is the nature of the 

culture, an accepting culture, one that is open, one that values diversity, values people as individuals. 

Second, there’s a lot of education. We had to educate ourselves, 

as much as educating those folks that are coming to us from welfare. Education around the area, and I will speak to that a little 

bit later, but specifically understanding what it means to be in poverty was very important for us to learn as employers. 

Most importantly, a system of support for the people moving out 

of poverty as they learn new skills and are faced with really a 

daunting task of living in two worlds. Retaining and even building 

the dignity of the individual making this move is really essential. 

Again, this is not rocket science. It’s putting known principles into 

action. The government sector is critical to its success, and yet it 

cannot do it alone. It is essential that business engage the community and work with the local agencies. Primarily among them is the 

welfare industry known in this State as the FIA, and there are 

many critical elements. Having full-time social workers, as you 

heard from Lisa, in our plants, helping on a daily basis to keep our 

people working has been essential. By being integrated in our factories, they’re making the calls to agencies to keep them on the job 

and working with them to find solutions to typical barriers, to continue in employment, such as child care, transportation, health 

care, emotional support. 

21

Placing the agency in the midst of our work force and making it 

clear that the objective is to have fully productive employees is 

really wonderfully simple, yet exquisitely effective. Little problems, 

when caught easily helped to avoid a disaster for the welfare to career employee later. 

I would also say encouraging local experimentation and publishing best practices, can only accelerate the rate of positive 

change. We have found that having these local FIA workers do employment readiness assessments for us has been very helpful. 

Those who are most likely to succeed are selected for employment 

now and the balance, have assignments to work on so that they 

will be ready to be employed in the near future. 

A critical part of what we learned is that we needed to teach 

both our current employees, especially our frontline leaders, and 

the people who have been on welfare, the hidden rules of the classes as outlined in Ruby Payne’s book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty. This is our text that we used as understanding. 

This process helps both sides understand the behaviors and actions 

of the other. 

So, the result has been gratifying, as you can hear the stories. 

I can tell you, that—but there’s much more to it than that, more 

than just the idea that some people are helped. It really is good 

business. The organization feels good about itself. It has the ability 

to know that it’s a part of doing something good in the community. 

There’s more energy. I don’t know how to measure that necessarily, 

but you can feel it, it’s palpable. 

So, the State of Michigan benefits by saving some money, the 

community benefits, the welfare recipients benefit, the business 

benefits. There’s no losers here. It’s an all-win game. There is a 

traditional thinking that says it’s a zero-sum game. That if you’re 

building a social capital, that you’re taking away from profits, but 

in fact it’s not the case. I think we’re demonstrating that that’s not 

the case. 

So, I guess if the question is how can the government sector help, 

by supporting this kind of experimentation? I think that you heard 

today about flexibility, and some earlier testimony of the Governor. 

I couldn’t agree more. Flexibility is a key. We were able to have 

FIA workers on site because of that flexibility, because the State 

was able to allow us to do that. 

Encouraging those local experimentations and then publishing 

best practices has got to be able to help. I would say by further 

supporting programs that keep people out of poverty as much as 

those that are supporting them. So, we recognize that people that 

are coming out of poverty, it takes a while. There are situations 

where they fall back and they have difficulties. They need to be 

supportive in that very critical time when it’s one more thing, as 

the Governor was pointing out, one more thing that comes up that 

could send them right back. We’ve got to be able to hold that line, 

and with that, the kind of flexibility that you’re talking about. 

Thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]

22

Statement of Fred P. Keller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

Cascade Engineering, Grand Rapids, Michigan 

Cascade Engineering is a manufacturer of products for the automotive, office furniture and waste container markets. We have about 1100 people employed including 

those in our nine U.S. plants and one in Hungary. Sales are about $200 million. 

I founded the company in 1973. We have been working with our community for a 

long time to solve some of its toughest problems. I believe that we have an opportunity as business partners to improve the quality of life in our community beyond 

the impact of doing business in the traditional way of ‘‘giving back’’ when we have 

some available money. In addition I believe we need to engage our communities to 

apply systems thinking to the problems to arrive at better solutions. I believe that 

we have plenty of resources in existing agencies, and revenue streams and if we 

could only learn how to leverage them better, we would be in a position to make 

massive improvements, specifically in our continuing cycle of poverty that exists in 

America today.

Summary:

I believe the nation has an opportunity to make significant new progress to reduce 

poverty! 

I believe Cascade Engineering has demonstrated that moving people from poverty 

to not only a job, but a meaningful career, is possible. 

We have learned that it is not rocket science, but the application of known principles that make a meaningful reduction in poverty possible. 

We have most of all learned that these results are not the work of the government 

sector alone, not the work of businesses alone, and not the work of social service 

agencies or people in poverty or any one segment alone. Rather we have demonstrated that by the concerted work of all working together in a systemic problemsolving manner, we can effect a significant reduction in not only the welfare roles, 

but of the number of people actually in poverty.

What will it take?

Fully 22 percent of the 168 people that we added to our entry-level payroll in our 

Grand Rapid’s facilities in 2001 came from generational poverty. This raised our 

total to over 100 people now working in our factories who were formerly receiving 

welfare benefits. Our monthly retention rates have gone from 60 percent two years 

ago to over 90 percent in recent months. 

As a result of this program, calculations by the FIA show that we have saved the 

State of Michigan $850,000 last year alone in reduced payments for assistance. 

These savings will continue year after year, because we are committed to this program. 

Our program gained the attention of The Conference Board and is the subject of 

a research report titled ‘‘Corporate Community Development’’. Reference report R–

1310–02–RR 

(http://www.conference-board.org/products/researchreports/dpubs.cfm?pubid=R1310-02-RR) 

A further case study is being written by Cornell University’s Johnson School of 

Business to document our efforts and to further study the underlying principles for 

its effectiveness.

How does it work?

We have found that there are three main ingredients in a successful program of 

moving people from welfare to a career: 

1. An accepting culture in the organization. Businesses must simply work very 

hard at building a culture of trust among all employees and learn to value each 

human being that is employed simply for who they are, as well as the work they 

do. We have been working for years on this issue and try very hard to make this 

a reality. 

2. Education of not only the incoming employees, but also of our existing employees, about what it means to be in poverty. They learn together why people who have 

been in generational poverty think and act differently than those who have been in 

the middle class. 

3. Most importantly a system of support for the people moving out of poverty 

as they learn new skills and are faced with the daunting task of living in two 

worlds. Retaining and even building the dignity of the individual making this move 

is essential. 

This is not rocket science. It is putting known principles into action. The government sector is critical to its success, and yet it cannot do it alone. It is essential 

that business engage the community and work with the local agencies—primary 

23

among them is the welfare agency known in this state as the Family Independence 

Agency. 

There are many critical elements, but having full-time social workers in our 

plants helping on a daily basis to KEEP our people working is essential. By being 

integrated in our factories they are making the calls to agencies to keep them on 

the job and working with them to find solutions to typical barriers to continued employment such as child care, transportation, health care and emotional support. 

Placing the agency in the midst of our workforce and making it clear that the objective is to have fully productive employees is wonderfully simple, yet exquisitely effective. Little problems, when caught early, help to avoid a disaster for the welfareto-career employee. 

Encouraging local experimentation and publishing best practices can only accelerate the rate of positive change. We have found for instance that by having our 

FIA social workers do an employment readiness assessment, those who are most 

likely to succeed are selected for employment now and the balance have assignments to work on so that they will be ready to be employed in the near future. A 

critical part of what we learned is that we needed to teach both our current employees, especially our front-line leaders, and the people who have been on welfare, the 

‘‘hidden rules’’ of the classes as outlined in Ruby Payne’s book A Framework for Understanding Poverty (http://ahaprocess.com/AboutRubyPayne.html). This educational 

process helps each group understand the actions and behaviors of the other.

The result?

Well, to hear the stories of people whose lives have been positively affected by this 

program should be enough, but I can tell you that there is much more to it as well. 

The organization actually is more energized; people are more focused because they 

know that the organization values everyone there. We actually get more done and 

make more progress because people like to work for an organization that they know 

cares not only about them, but the quality of life in the community. 

The State of Michigan benefits, the community benefits, the former welfare recipients benefit, our employees benefit, the company benefits! There are no losers in 

this equation. The traditional thinking that this must be a zero-sum game is plain 

wrong! When you build social capital in the workplace and the community you are 

not taking away from the profitability of the corporation. On the contrary you are 

building it up.

How can the government sector help? By supporting this kind of experimentation:

• Create additional incentives for corporations to participate in the problem 

solving process and to not only employ people on welfare but learn about how 

to retain them.

• Encourage local experimentation of solutions, and publish the best practices.

By further supporting programs that keep people out of poverty as much as programs that simply reduce the cost of maintaining people in poverty.

• We have found that once committed to employment in an accepting environment, people generally want to sustain this positive track.

• Investing in preventive programs similar to what we have done will reduce 

STATEMENT OF LORI SCORSONE, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Scorsone? 

future costs of maintaining the current system.

f MANAGER, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, SAGINAW, 

MICHIGAN 

Ms. SCORSONE. Yes. Good afternoon, Governor Engler, Chairman Camp. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding our welfare reform success in Saginaw County. 

I’m Lori Scorsone, a Family Independence Manager with Saginaw County FIA. I am honored to be present today to offer testimony on behalf of our agency, and to recommend the re-authorization of the Federal Welfare Reform Law. 

In 1990, I was hired as an Assistant Payment Worker for what 

was then known as the Department of Social Services. At that 

time, an Assistance Payment Worker’s primary goal was to deterVerDate Dec 13 2002 04:00 Mar 01, 2003 Jkt 084500 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A500.XXX A500
24

mine if an applicant was eligible based solely on their eligibility. 

We were processing applications focusing more on gathering income verifications, processing paperwork and meeting deadlines 

rather than focusing on the applicant’s family’s needs. We had little opportunity and fewer resources to focus on the individual, the 

reason there was a need for assistance, or barriers that prevented 

an individual from becoming employed. Further, there was not an 

understanding that assistance was expected to be only temporary, 

or that the applicant or the Department had a mutual responsibility to see that it was actually temporary. 

Since the Welfare Reform Law has been enacted in 1996, we 

changed our name to the FIA. The title, Assistance Payment Worker, was changed to Family Independence Specialist. The new titles 

imply the new goals and objectives of the agency and the staff due 

to the Welfare Reform Law. 

Since 1996, the Agency has been able to focus on the individual’s 

need for assistance and what can be done to abolish obstacles to 

their becoming self-sufficient. 

Our staff serve our customers today as individuals and as families. Today, we are able to work together with the customer to not 

only identify barriers that prevent them from becoming employed, 

but to help them remove these barriers, move them into the workplace, and help them maintain the employment. 

Today, the FIA works together with customers and other community partners to resolve issues such as: lack of day care, transportation, education, substance abuse and domestic violence. 

We’re all familiar with reports and surveys and statistics that 

have been published giving us an idea of how the welfare roles 

have declined since 1996. Reports have illustrated that there are 

fewer families on assistance and more single mothers are working. 

Through my duties as a Family Independence Manager, I have 

been able to witness firsthand the achievements of welfare reform. 

I have seen and heard former assistance recipients talk about the 

joy at being able to be role models for their children as they move 

from welfare to employment. This extremely gratifying experience 

has proved to me that the new way of doing business has been successful in ways that the statistics and the reports cannot communicate. To continue delivering services as we have since welfare reform was adopted, will allow our agency to make even more positive changes and longer lasting changes. It will allow us to develop 

other ways to provide the help and support needed by the people 

we serve. It will allow us to educate and instill a work ethic for 

our customers, thereby reducing the welfare roles even more. 

Welfare reform helped launch Project Zero, a program that focuses on customers who have no earned income. The FIA specialists are now doing assessments of every new customer coming to 

our agency for help. Assessments allow the specialist to ascertain 

what barriers a customer may have that prevents them from becoming employed. We look at their family circumstances, their educational background, availability of transportation and child day 

care. We try to determine any evidence of drug or alcohol discrepancy or if there are signs of domestic violence. 

Prior to welfare reform, assessments were not done. Workers 

were processing paperwork, getting the cases opened and forgetting 

25

about them. It was a system that seemed to help continue a person’s and their family’s dependence on welfare. Prior to welfare reform, we were not dealing with the cause of the problem. 

Today, we determine the cause and work together with the customer to resolve the problem. Our customers know this and are 

willing partners in this process. Two primary barriers for customers in Saginaw County were transportation and child day care. 

Saginaw County now employs the services of the Michigan Department of Transportation to supply transportation for customers in 

need. Customers who need transportation receive help to get to and 

from work. Their children receive help getting to and from their 

day care provider. Saginaw Valley Regional 4C, a day care referral 

service, is currently housed within our agency, making it more easily and readily accessible to the customers. 

These services are something we were not able to provide prior 

to welfare reform. Because of welfare reform, many of our customers are realizing for the first time that they’re capable of doing 

more than they ever dreamed they were capable of doing. Additionally, the specialists are able to give the customers some guidance 

and direction, something we have not given them in the past. The 

statistics and the graphs can never demonstrate to the general 

public the difference in a person’s attitude when they bring home 

their first paycheck, how it completely changes their attitudes and 

opinions of themselves, and how it empowers them and gives them 

the encouragement and the desire to continue to do well, to be selfsufficient and no longer depend on the agency for their livelihood. 

Welfare reform, in no small way, is responsible for the successes 

I’ve witnessed in the last several years. We’ve made tremendous 

strides in determining some of the barriers our customers have 

that have prevented them from becoming self-sufficient. There’s 

still much more that must be done to help families realize their full 

potential. 

For years we have fostered our customers’ dependency. To reverse this will not happen overnight. Welfare reform must continue 

so we are allowed to work with our customers, partner with outside 

resources, learn the true cause of need, and determine together 

how to resolve it. Re-authorization of the Federal Welfare Reform 

Act, along with proper staffing, will allow us that opportunity. I respectfully request that you strongly consider doing so. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scorsone follows:]

Statement of Lori Scorsone, Family Independence Manager, Family 

Independence Agency, Saginaw, Michigan 

Good morning Chairman Camp, and honorable members of the Subcommittee. I 

am honored to be present today to offer testimony on behalf of the Saginaw County 

Family Independence Agency and to recommend the reauthorization of the federal 

welfare reform act known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

In 1990, I was hired as an Assistance Payment Worker for what was then known 

as the Department of Social Services. At that time an Assistance Payment Worker’s 

primary goal was to determine if an applicant would be approved or denied for assistance based solely on eligibility. We were processing applications focusing more 

on gathering verifications, processing paperwork, and meeting deadlines, than focusing on the applicant and their need. We had little opportunity and fewer resources 

to focus on the individual, the reason there was a need for assistance, or barriers 

that prevented an individual from becoming employed. 

Further, there was not an understanding that assistance was expected to be temporary, or that the applicant or the department had a mutual responsibility to see 

26

that it was actually temporary. In 1996, we changed our name to the Family Independence Agency. The title Assistance Payment Worker was changed to Family 

Independence Specialist. The new titles implied the new goals and objectives of the 

agency and staff due to Welfare Reform. Since 1996, the agency has been able to 

focus on the individual’s need for assistance and what can be done to abolish obstacles in their way of becoming self-sufficient. Implementation of TANF has allowed 

staff to serve our customers as individuals and families. Today we are able to work 

together with the customer to not only identify barriers that prevent them from becoming employed, but to help remove these barriers, and help them maintain employment. TANF has allowed the Family Independence Agency to work together 

with the customer and other resources within the community to resolve issues such 

as lack of day care, transportation, education, substance abuse, and domestic violence. 

We are all familiar with reports, surveys, and statistics that have been published 

giving us an idea of how welfare rolls have declined since 1996. Reports have illustrated that there are fewer families on assistance and more single mothers are 

working. Through my duties as a Family Independence Specialist and Manager, I 

have been able to witness first hand the achievements of Welfare Reform. I have 

seen and heard former recipients talk about their joy at being able to be role models 

for their children as they have moved from assistance to employment. 

This extremely gratifying experience has provided personal evidence that the new 

way of doing business has been successful in ways that statistics and reports cannot 

communicate. I can only hope that the specialists are allowed to continue to provide 

the services they’ve been able to provide since 1996. Doing so will allow the agency 

to make even more positive changes, and longer lasting changes. It will allow us 

to develop other ways to provide the help and support that is needed by the people 

we serve. It will allow us to educate and instill a work ethic for our customers thereby reducing the welfare roll even more. Welfare Reform helped launch Project Zero, 

a program that focuses on customers who have no earned income. Specialists now 

do an assessment of a customer in need of the agency’s help. Assessments allow the 

specialist to ascertain what barriers a customer may have that prevents them from 

becoming employed. We look at their family circumstances, educational background, 

availability of transportation, and child day care. We try to determine any evidence 

of drug or alcohol dependency, and if there are any signs of domestic violence. Prior 

to Welfare Reform, assessments were not done. Workers were just processing paperwork; it was a system that seemed to help continue a person’s and their family’s 

dependency on welfare. Prior to Welfare Reform we were not dealing with the cause 

of the problem. Today, we determine the cause and together work with the customer 

to resolve the problem. Two primary barriers for customers in Saginaw County are 

transportation and Child Day Care. Welfare Reform has given Saginaw County the 

opportunity to employ the services of the Michigan Department of Transportation 

to supply transportation for customers in need. Customers are taken to and from 

work. Their children are taken to and from their day care provider. Saginaw Valley 

Regional 4C, a day care referral agency, is currently housed within our agency making it more easily and readily accessible to our customers. These services are something we were not able to provide prior to Welfare Reform. Because of Welfare Reform, many of our customers are realizing for the first time that they are capable 

of doing more than they ever dreamed they were capable of doing. Because of Welfare Reform, the specialists are able to give the customers some guidance and direction. Something we have not given them in the past. The statistics and the graphs 

can never demonstrate to the general population the difference in a person’s attitude when they bring home their first paycheck, how it completely changes their 

attitudes and opinions of themselves, how it empowers them and gives them the encouragement and desire to continue to do well. To be self-sufficient and no longer 

depend on the agency for their livelihood. 

Welfare Reform, in no small way is responsible for the successes I have witnessed 

in the last several years. We have made tremendous strides in determining some 

of the barriers our customers have that have prevented them from becoming selfsufficient, but there is still much more that must be done to help families free themselves of the barriers and realize their potential. For years we have fostered our customer’s dependency. To reverse this will not happen overnight. Reformation of welfare must continue so we are allowed to utilize our customers, partner with outside 

resources, learn the true cause of need, and determine how to resolve it. Reauthorization of the Federal Welfare Reform Act along with proper staffing will allow us 

that opportunity. I respectfully request that you strongly consider doing so. 

Thank you.

f

27

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Governor, do you have any 

questions? I have a couple. 

Mr. ENGLER. Why don’t you go ahead. I’ve got a couple, but 

I’ll——

Mr. CAMP. I just wanted to ask the three of you what was the 

biggest help or benefit that you received, I mean obviously it may 

be different, from the FIA? What thing occurred that helped the 

most? 

Ms. KOON. Well, I would have to say, for me, it would have been 

the training. That was definitely the key for me, was to give me 

the opportunity to further myself. 

Mr. CAMP. All right. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I would say the overall assistance of my 

caseworker at that time. I mean, she deferred me from Work First 

temporarily so that I could finish up my schooling, which I received 

an Associate of Arts degree back in 1997. Upon completing that I 

went to her, and she referred me to Work First to assist me in becoming employed—giving me some different outlets. So, I would 

just say the overall assistance that I received, period. 

Mr. CAMP. Having a plan? 

Mr. CARTER. Excuse me? 

Mr. CAMP. Having a plan? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Ms. Hudson? 

Ms. HUDSON. I guess mine would be that they’re on site at my 

job, in that they’re there constantly for whenever or whatever. 

Mr. CAMP. Then I wanted to ask for each of you, what was the 

biggest challenge that you saw as you were attempting to become 

employed and get a job, what were your biggest challenges? I want 

to go back in reverse order. Ms. Hudson, do you—or maybe there 

wasn’t just one. 

Ms. HUDSON. Could you explain what you mean? 

Mr. CAMP. The biggest challenge that you might have faced as 

you were dealing with the Agency in trying to get to work and get 

started—what did you see as the biggest hurdle or barrier that you 

had? 

Ms. HUDSON. The biggest barrier for me was transportation, 

meaning I had to get to work. At that time I didn’t have a car, so 

I was on the bus. Before I got to work, I had to get on the bus to 

take them to the day care provider, which sometimes wasn’t on the 

same route. So, I had to be up 3 to 4 hours before it was time to 

be to work, to get the kids ready and then get off on the bus. That 

was the hardest part. 

Mr. CAMP. Did you get help with that transportation problem 

through FIA? 

Ms. HUDSON. Yes. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Mr. Carter, what was your biggest barrier or 

hurdle or challenge, I might say? 

Mr. CARTER. Let’s see, I know of a barrier, child care. I was 

able to get assistance through the FIA and—the referrals, because 

I didn’t know personally of any sources. As I mentioned about the 

fatherhood programs, I had been searching for some that could assist me, but I wasn’t able to find anyone. So, I just believe my bigVerDate Dec 13 2002 04:00 Mar 01, 2003 Jkt 084500 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A500.XXX A500
28

gest challenge was child care, among some other things. It worked 

out, setting the plan up, so things worked fine. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. 

Ms. KOON. Thankfully enough, I really didn’t have a hurdle to 

overcome. At the time my husband wasn’t working while I went 

through the training, so we didn’t have the child care issues. I 

think that maybe I would have had hurdles if I hadn’t had such 

support, the encouragement. I’m not just saying that if they hadn’t 

been there to be so much of a support system, I could have failed. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, I want to really thank all of you for coming 

here and traveling on this fine spring day, this type of weather. It’s 

not easy to come and talk about yourself, especially in a format like 

this. This isn’t the easiest format to get a conversation going, but 

this is very good. It is going to be very helpful to the Committee, 

and I appreciate this very much. There may be some other questions later, but I had a question for Mr. Keller. 

I wondered, how is it that a FIA person is located on site at your 

business, how did that come about? 

Mr. KELLER. I couldn’t tell you the exact day that that decision 

was made, but I can tell you it was made in cooperation with the 

folks that are part of Cascade and the FIA. Actually, Ron 

Jimmerson, who heads our community group within Cascade and 

is our H.R. Director for Community Activities, would be able to tell 

you that better. He’s sitting in the audience. The point is that it 

is a collaboration that resulted in this as an answer. It was a very 

important decision. 

Mr. CAMP. Have other employers in the area kind of followed 

your example? Have you seen that or are any of them asking you 

about maybe becoming involved to the same extent Cascade is? 

Mr. KELLER. Yeah, we have. I can’t say there’s a line at the 

door, but there are certainly others that are looking at it. We have 

one in particular, Butterball Farms, who has been working very 

closely with us and is now working with a collaboration of 10 other 

employers in their area to see if we can have another format of 

this. Which is maybe why we don’t have the FIA worker directly 

on site because these are smaller organizations, and maybe they 

can be visiting several or can have regular business hours, if you 

will, at several different places. So, we’re experimenting with some 

new formats. 

Mr. CAMP. Then lastly, I wanted to ask you, do you have in 

mind any incentives that might be available to employers to help 

them become involved in transitioning people from welfare to 

work? 

Mr. KELLER. Government is real good at figuring out those, but 

the concept of—the best thing I could think of would be a tax incentive that would basically take a look, and in very clear terms, 

at how many people you got employed today that are involved in 

formally being on the FIA rolls, and that you’re keeping them. 

There’s a whole lot of work that has to be done to get there. 

The educational piece, the cultural piece, is really—they have to 

want to do that. Providing some incentive, I think, could be stimulating for this. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Scorsone, thank you for your 

testimony, too. As we consider this 5-year extension of welfare, 

29

what’s the single most important message I can take back in terms 

of how the current law has benefited working—low-income families 

in Michigan? 

Ms. SCORSONE. I think the most important message that you 

can take back is that it is working. We need to be able to continue 

doing what we’ve been doing. As I mentioned in my testimony, it 

took years to get where we are, and it’s not going to happen overnight. Allowing the State to use the money as they see fit in different areas of the State, everybody’s different, if we’re allowed to 

do that, I think that we’ll see more success. I think we’re better 

able to serve the people who are in need, by having that flexibility. 

So, if we’re able to continue it, that along with the proper 

amount of staff to do these things that need to be done, I think we 

can get there. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Governor Engler? 

Mr. ENGLER. Just a couple of questions, perhaps, and I think 

the Chairman has asked some excellent questions. I’m curious from 

Ms. Koon, Mr. Carter, and Ms. Hudson. Of people that you may 

know who are still on public assistance, what advice would you 

give us to help some of your friends that you know who are sort 

of still stuck? What is there differently that might be done to help 

somebody you know who hasn’t made the break the way you have 

been able to do it? 

I don’t care, if you want, we can start down with Ms. Koon. 

Ms. KOON. Sure. I believe that—I know in my situation, that 

there are a lot of these different programs to help strengthen your 

work skills, help you with resumes. 

I think there needs to be more advertising for that. Until we 

were in the position that we needed assistance, we didn’t know 

that that was out there. I believe that there are still plenty of people even now that are on assistance who don’t realize what all is 

really available. 

Mr. ENGLER. Was this through a Work First agency? 

Ms. KOON. That was through a Work First, yes. So, that’s something that they need to do, is get the word out more. 

Mr. ENGLER. Interesting. Okay. 

Mr. CARTER. Just to piggyback off of what Ms. Koon said, I believe the current programs are functioning well. We could tweak 

them some to include more training as far as basic social skills and 

communication. People need to know how to communicate with 

their employers as well as the parent, the mother to the father, the 

father to the mother. We’re dealing with men, more programs to 

help develop them totally so that we can glue the pieces back and 

reconnect the family. 

Mr. ENGLER. Sure. 

Ms. HUDSON. I think one of the main reasons some people 

haven’t transitioned over is because of fear of being dependent—

being independent. You know, you got the Medicaid, you got the 

food stamps, they pay the rent, and the thought of doing that on 

your own is scary to some people out there having it. 

Mr. ENGLER. Okay. We’ve—in some communities, we have actually worked with outside organizations, faith based organizations 

in some cases or community based organizations. I know in west 

Michigan, in Ottawa County, there was a coalition of religious orVerDate Dec 13 2002 04:00 Mar 01, 2003 Jkt 084500 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A500.XXX A500
30

ganizations and some of the areas of Detroit it was the Salvation 

Army. We tried to get, in effect, somebody to try to deal with just 

that question because it was pretty clear that that was something 

where you’re talking about generational poverty. This is a very big 

step. I mean, we had—we literally had some families where there 

wasn’t anybody in the family that hadn’t been on public assistance 

pretty much most of their lives. Trying to break the cycle, we’re 

trying to help the adult who we’re dealing with right now, plus 

change things for the kids, and it’s a big change. 

Ms. Scorsone, you sort of—you see this from the Agency standpoint. I think the evidence would be that we’ve got—as we move 

further out, we get many more difficulties that we arrive with each 

case. I mean, it’s easier if somebody’s brand new to poverty or 

brand new to that situation, trying to get them back into the work 

force. Ms. Koon’s situation might be a good example of that. Where 

it’s generational, at least talking to workers, that’s just really much 

more complex to deal with, and I’m curious if—sort of the same 

question in terms of some of the people that haven’t made the 

break, what do you see? 

Ms. SCORSONE. I would have to agree with Mr. Carter. I would 

like to see more training programs for them, develop social skills, 

work skills. It can be something as basic as them needing to understand that they need to call into work when they’re not going to 

show up because they’re sick. They don’t know to do that, a lot of 

them, or how to react on the job in a hostile confrontation with a 

coworker or with an employee or employer. I have seen this over 

and over again, you just need to shove in the right direction, and 

if you don’t know, you don’t know. Once you’re able to tell them 

about it, then they understand. They’re able to use it and stay in 

a job, look for better jobs. 

Mr. ENGLER. That is actually in the proposal that Congress has 

from the Administration, the 16 hours are exactly what’s allowed 

for those kinds of activities, and so that’s one of the things we’re 

saying. They will vary slightly from even regions within a State, 

and so they—we think some of this actually could be done by the 

employer, but the difficulty is if the employer’s doing it, then that’s 

time off of task. So there is a cost to that, but collaborative approaches that we—all of you had connections. 

We think the Work First system seems to have some strengths, 

and that’s another area where we’re actually saying make that a 

lot more flexible because so much of the job training stuff is very 

narrowly targeted. When, in fact, what you’re all describing is the 

need to sort of cut across because any job would require what about 

three of you have just mentioned as needed and certainly as Mr. 

Keller has testified to. 

Mr. CAMP. Part of what we’re trying to do is have the 16 hours 

be a State definition of the 40 hours. Whereas now under the 30 

hours, the 10 hours is a Federal definition of education training. 

If it’s a State definition, it would seem to me there would be more 

flexibility to offer what I also refer to as sort of social skills, communication part of it, that would help not only in the workplace, 

but also at home is what I’m hearing. Hopefully, that would be 

where that would fit in. 

31

Mr. KELLER. I would just chime in a little bit that perhaps the 

employers should not be left out of that equation unnecessarily. It 

really—we found that by having education available on the job or 

in—on the work site, it does save this transportation problem 

issue. It does save a lot of other issues that the recipients can have 

trouble with. So, we found that doing education right there and 

making it a part of our standard curriculum—for instance, we 

teach Seven Habits of Highly Effective People to all our employees, 

not whether they’re—wherever they come from, and that gives us 

a language to talk about in terms of how you treat people, conflict 

resolution, beginning with the end in sight. All of those things are 

very important for life skills. We found those to be very helpful. 

Mr. CAMP. Yeah, that’s a very good book. I’ve given it to everyone in my office as well. It’s a good start. 

Mr. KELLER. It works. 

Mr. ENGLER. I’m curious, in your testimony also there was a 

mention about the—sort of the education of your frontline leaders 

on the hidden rules for the classes, and you mentioned that a Ruby 

Payne book. I’m curious, what are the most important things that 

you got to teach the—those frontline supervisors and coworkers 

about work environment? 

Mr. KELLER. Well, you know, we have tried doing this for years, 

and kind of our first approach was—the thinking is just give somebody a job and that’s what you need to do. You kind of tell them 

what the rules are, and if they don’t live up to the rules, they’re 

out of there. That’s kind of classic business style. 

We learned that doesn’t work, and that tends to be what our 

frontline leaders are used to. Let’s read them the rules and if they 

don’t live by them, well, we got three ways to write you up and so 

on, so forth. Eventually you’re out. 

So, the biggest thing was teaching the fact that people who have 

been on generation welfare really value a friend, really value having a relationship in the organization. We had to genuinely do that. 

It’s not something you just kind feel like, but it’s you know that 

somebody is your friend. That—working that as a supervisor is different from traditional business, in a sense. 

Mr. ENGLER. What do you—any of you have to say about the—

there’s one system that we spend about $14.5 billion on annually 

Federal, State, and local monies, it’s the K–12 education system, 

and I’m curious. What changes would you make there—I don’t 

know how broad this question is, I apologize for that, but I’m specifically kind of interested in education systems where we’ve got a 

lot of activity going on there and a lot of money being spent, but 

to sort of try to deal with maybe children who have had backgrounds in poverty or how do we—there we do have the kids for 

a long period of time for a lot of years, what is there something 

that ought to be done there? Maybe that gets at what Mr. Keller 

just talked about, at the work site there’s—some of that is probably 

equally applicable for how do we break through and get an education, because we’ve got a lot of young people who transition 

through the schools. Even if they finish, they don’t have any skills 

that you find applicable or necessary to run a computer—that’s 

probably managing some line. 

32

So, I don’t know everybody’s—how far anybody has progressed in 

school or how—if at some point, Ms. Hudson, you were pregnant 

and left school or how that worked, but what is there that you 

might say to school leaders from your various perspectives? 

Ms. SCORSONE. A common denominator with the customers 

that I have served is that they really are unaware of their capabilities, for whatever reason. I think in school, if the teachers were 

able to let them know, they can do what they want to do. I have 

to assume it didn’t come from parents of the people I’m helping. So, 

if it can come from a different direction, then that would be great. 

They really don’t think that they’re capable of having better, and 

they all are. 

Mr. KELLER. I’d love to respond to that. I would love the opportunity. It’s a very important step that we now are looking at, as 

we’re talking today, about pulling people out of welfare. Really, the 

next logical step that we have looked at is how do we keep people 

from going into that trough in the first place. We have a little experimental program, we like experimenting in our place, and we’re 

doing it. It’s called school to career progressions, and we’re trying 

to work. Actually, we’ve developed a curriculum much like we have 

in our own organization, we’re teaching the Seven Habits, Conflict 

Resolution, we’re teaching what it’s like to be at work, we’re also 

exposing these kids, students, to all different kinds of careers, not 

just manufacturing, but the health care field, and so forth. We’re 

finding that pretty good, interesting response. 

The first year we took 23 at-risk kids that everybody thought 

was going to basically not go on; 18 of them are now either working 

or in school. We’re in our second year, we’re expanding it, we’re 

having some fun trying some new things, but I think that—I like 

to call it a pull system of education where students understand 

where they are going, what they want to accomplish, and they pull 

themselves through the educational process as opposed to us pushing them through with a standard curriculum that we think they 

ought to be interested in. 

Mr. ENGLER. Do you have a comment on that, Ms. Hudson? 

Ms. HUDSON. Yeah. I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking, 

but, I got pregnant at the age of 14. I never dropped out of school. 

I had four children—I’m stair-stepping. I never dropped out of 

school, but I still feel—I’m not sure exactly what it is you can do 

in the school. I will always feel it starts at home. I feel like now 

that I am more productive, and my kids see that I’m more productive. They feel that’s the way it’s supposed to be. You’re not supposed to be on assistance. It’s not a way of life, it’s a stepping 

stone. 

I’m in college now, so my teenagers feel they are supposed to go 

to college now. You know what I mean? I feel like it’s actually at 

home. I am not really sure what you could do as far as at school, 

though. 

Mr. ENGLER. What would you do to try to help—is there anything we could do—Michigan is actually—again this is something 

that Chairman Camp is very much involved with. I’ll break for 

him, because he need not say it, but there was a bonus actually put 

into the Federal legislation in 1996 for States that would work to 

try to reduce the number of teen pregnancies. Clearly, had you not 

33

been pregnant at 14, and again maybe at 16, things would be different. Try to communicate that to the young women and the 

young men. 

Mr. Carter’s situation, I happen to know a little bit about it from 

just last week. He’s rather remarkable because he didn’t know he 

was a father until later, and then he found out and stepped forward. His child had been placed in foster care, and he didn’t know 

he had a child. He worked hard then to have his child come and 

be a father to his child. Now he’s a remarkable success, but clearly—and we’ve had some success in Michigan, but it’s not where we 

would like to be. Trying to get a message across and to have a set 

of policies, it would be one thing that we’ve looked at, and either—

is the number of pregnancies of teens, very young teens, and the 

case at 14, actually it’s against the law, for whatever that means, 

but I mean for the young man, it’s criminal sexual conduct, that’s 

what it’s called under the law. At 14, the age is too young, we have 

said, well, probably aren’t going to put this person in the law, 

somebody should go to prison, but are there ways to send signals 

or messages or how do you help? How do you change that? 

Ms. HUDSON. I am not really sure. I’m happy that my kids’ father wasn’t put in prison. He went off to the University of Connecticut, he played basketball, and now he’s a teacher for the 

Grand Rapids Public Schools and they need that. I really talked to 

my daughter, my oldest daughter about everything I went through. 

I have taken her to the doctor, and I put her on birth control even 

though she’s not—because you can’t take any chances these days. 

As far as the males, I’m not sure if I’m on the same subject, but 

I think we need to grab them, get a hold of them and—at a younger age than we are, because like now we have a system where it’s 

mainly you don’t do anything. Okay, like I have a teenage son, and 

he’s not doing anything really bad, as far as the law, but he’s starting to get, worse. Sooner or later it will eventually be something, 

and there’s no program, for kids before it gets bad. You know what 

I mean? I don’t know, I wanted to say that, but, I think if we have 

programs where you can grab these kids before something has happened, you wouldn’t have so many kids that you have to worry 

about, now and——

Mr. ENGLER. Yeah. Okay. 

Mr. CARTER. I would say more in-school job skills and life skills 

training programs for our children and after-school preventative 

programs, also. I would target grades 6 through 12, because as we 

know, the hours of after school until about 8 p.m. is when, they’re 

probably at risk the most. For those after-school programs to include a component that the parents can come in with the children 

and get some kind of educational training or whatever is going on 

in the programs. 

Mr. ENGLER. Interestingly enough, one of the things we’ve 

talked about in trying to comply with the Federal law is these 

kinds of—this may well be that 16 hours, some of that could fit 

right there, and you could actually—again, given the flexibility, 

that’s why I wrote the record on that topic. It is possible to almost 

have parents sort of being trained to be volunteer supervisors, and 

taking these kinds of programs that you kind of—could actually 

sort of fit together, if we got very creative to do this stuff. 

34

Again, it’s, something—there are costs involved. So, you not only 

need the flexibility to be able to design the program, but in some 

cases access different funding streams which may be in somebody’s 

design they were set up for this purpose, and only this purpose. In 

reality we need to be able to move it over here. So, there’s—that 

‘‘super-waiver’’, we get back to that because that’s an extraordinary 

thing. We didn’t explain it very carefully, or I didn’t in my testimony, but it’s any program operated by the Departments of Health 

and Human Services, Labor, Education——

Mr. CAMP. Agriculture. 

Mr. ENGLER. Agriculture and HUD, the U.S. Housing and 

Urban Development Department, I believe is the fifth one. So I 

mean, you could get very, very creative with those kinds of programs. We can do some of the things that all of you are being advocates for, and just it would—and if you let 50 States try this, within the further experimentation that Saginaw might do it different 

than Grand Rapids—or Saginaw County might do it different than 

Kent County, you’ll get so many lessons happening. Fred, I mean, 

the thing we stress, we even changed in the Governor’s Association, 

our research arm, we call it the Center for Best Practices, with the 

idea being that it is silly to try to reinvent the wheel. Let’s just—

if we—everybody did the best thing that somebody else is doing, we 

would all be a whole lot better immediately. So——

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Carter, you see these programs as primarily 

strengthening families——

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Mr. CAMP. Program? Obviously would have to be valuable, because you don’t want to have a program over-load type thing develop where people are going to too many things. 

Mr. CARTER. Right. 

Mr. CAMP. I guess that—I actually think something like that 

would be a very good idea for part of the 16 hours, flexibility that 

I think hopefully we’ll be able to have the State be able to define 

that. 

I wondered, do you think people would be receptive to that, parents would be receptive to——

Mr. CARTER. Yes. Hands down, yes, I know they will. Like I 

said, I have serviced thousands of customers through Work First 

over the years, and everybody seems to sing the same song. This 

is what the people are saying. I know in Detroit, that’s what the 

people are saying. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. KOON. I would have to agree with him wholeheartedly. I believe they need to keep the career development programs that they 

have in the schools going, and I believe that there needs to be 

after-school programs. I do believe that parents would be involved. 

I would love to see more things available for my children. I work 

sometimes 12 hours. I am not home in those evenings, if my husband works late we’re not home either. I think that there needs to 

be more available opportunities for them to enjoy some fun and incorporate some learning in there. I think that would be the wonderful solution. 

Mr. ENGLER. Did you have to take a drug test at your place of 

employment? 

35

Ms. KOON. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLER. Mr. Carter? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Mr. ENGLER. Fred, is that a requirement at the office? 

Mr. KELLER. Yes, it’s a requirement. 

Mr. ENGLER. Would you have—would it be helpful if somebody 

could be referred to you? I don’t know if there’s any percentage—

what happens? What percentage might not pass a drug test who 

are referred by the office? Do you have any knowledge or is there—

there would be someone, I presume. 

Mr. KELLER. Yeah, I don’t have the numbers on that, but the—

the concept is pre-employment screening and then really is to identify the barriers that each individual has and kind of go on a program of getting them helped in those areas. 

Mr. ENGLER. One of the things that we’ve—I’m just curious, the 

reaction, if we said one of the parts of an application for assistance 

was also a drug test so that we can identify that as a barrier earlier, is that—one of the things that we’re finding at Work First 

agencies is we can work with someone. We might put them through 

the skills development we just talked about, they go off to the first 

interview, everything is fine, oh, no, you go over here and take the 

drug test, not so good. We’d like to identify that earlier. We actually tried to do that, we got sued and a Federal judge blocked us, 

but it strikes me that makes some—there’s logic to this. One of the 

things Congress could do is at least authorize States to require 

drug tests on the front end because we’re finding it too late. If 

we’ve made an investment in the training, again, the logic would 

be invest in those who are ready to go to work first. If somebody’s 

got the drug problem, then let’s help deal with that, as best we can. 

So, we can then go on and make the next investment. I don’t know, 

Ms. Scorsone, are you—I don’t know if you want to comment on 

that or not, but——

Ms. SCORSONE. On whether I think they should have drug testing at application? 

Mr. ENGLER. Yeah, could we—what if we required that, or—

whether we refer to Work First, maybe just at the time they wrote 

the application, maybe that’s the first step over at Work First. 

Somewhere it’s got to happen, it’s going to happen at the employer. 

Ms. SCORSONE. I honestly have mixed emotions about whether 

they should do it at time of application with our agency. I wouldn’t 

be opposed if each employer had mandatory drug testing. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, most do. 

Ms. SCORSONE. At that point, if they’re turned down, or turned 

away, maybe something could be implemented where they’re 

turned over to another agency that can help them. I’m——

Mr. ENGLER. My difficulty with that is that we may have invested—maybe we’ve invested 6 weeks of preparation to get the 

person ready to go to work——

Ms. SCORSONE. Getting it too late——

Mr. ENGLER. Then they fail the job—then they fail the drug 

test and that 6 weeks. Had that been given to somebody else who 

could pass the drug test, they could go to work. So, that’s our——

Ms. SCORSONE. I understand your point of it. I’m just torn as 

to whether it’s the right arena for it. 

36

Mr. KELLER. I would just say that I think establishing the barriers at some point in time, and some of them are maybe drug or 

alcohol abuse, or there may be other barriers which they have, and 

identifying those barriers early on so that we can have established 

individual programs for them seems to be the smart thing to do. 

Ms. SCORSONE. Another thing, excuse me, with our agency, is 

being able to do an assessment for them. You may not be doing an 

actual drug test, but you can determine early on if drug dependency is a problem. It is addressed at that point. They get to know 

the families pretty intimately during the assessments and their 

work with them before they go into the work force. I don’t think 

that it’s not being caught. There are some probably that are——

Mr. ENGLER. Sure. From an abuse and neglect situation, 

though, if there’s a substance abuse problem in the home, then that 

cost of dealing with the addiction is coming out of a budget that’s 

pretty meager to begin with already. So, I would argue there’s another logic there for—just with kids’ perspective, even aside before 

the work. 

Ms. SCORSONE. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. I believe that instead of having drug testing done 

on the State level, that maybe we can incorporate it on the Work 

First level, the Michigan Works Agency level to when they’re referred to orientation. That’s part of their orientation. We can catch 

that early on, because I do see sometimes that you spend time preparing our customers to go to work. They have all the skills and 

the sharp image, but then they can’t pass the drug test. 

Mr. ENGLER. We know alcohol is every bit worse a problem 

than the other drugs and so forth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CAMP. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you all for coming, 

again. I really appreciate it. I think this is invaluable, and I really 

appreciate the testimony you made. 

I wanted to note that any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed record of the hearing, 

needs to send that electronically because of a change in the House 

mail policy, to hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, and 

then fax a copy to 202–225–2610 by Tuesday, April 16. So, that’s 

roughly 2 weeks. 

Also, anyone may send a written statement to me at my district 

office, which is at 135 Ashman in Midland, 48640. If I receive that 

within the next week, I will be able to incorporate that in the 

record. Again, thank you all for being here. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ