U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–306 2008

HEARING TO ASSESS IMPACT OF 

RECENT CHANGES TO PROGRAMS 

ASSISTING LOW-INCOME FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Serial No. 110–17 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRETT LOPER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of February 27, 2007, announcing the hearing ..................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Sidonie Squier, Director of the Office of Family Assistance, Department of 

Health and Human Services ............................................................................... 6 

Robin Arnold-Williams, Ph.D., Secretary of the Washington State Department 

of Social and Health Services, Olympia, Washington ....................................... 34 

David A. Hansell, Esq., Acting Commissioner, New York State Department 

of Temporary Disability Assistance, Albany, New York ................................... 39 

Nancy K. Ford, Administrator, Division of Welfare and Supportive Services, 

Carson City, Nevada ............................................................................................ 46 

Mary Dean Harvey, Director, Georgia Department of Human Resources Division of Family and Children, Atlanta, Georgia ................................................. 53 

Bruce Wagstaff, Director, Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance, Sacramento, California .............................................................................. 57 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Payroll Association, statement .............................................................. 92 

Baghboudarian, Shoushan, Child Support Officer II, letter ................................ 93 

Block, RaeLynn, statement ..................................................................................... 94 

Boggs, George R., American Association of Community Colleges, letter ............ 95 

Borsa-Valadez, Vera, statement ............................................................................. 96 

Chen, Li-Wen, statement ........................................................................................ 97 

Department of Social Services, Asheville, NC, Buncombe County, statement ... 97 

Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania, letter ....................................... 98 

Gilreath, Brenda, statement ................................................................................... 98 

Goodwill/Easter Seals, St. Paul, Minnesota, statement ....................................... 100 

Hansen, Dave, letter ................................................................................................ 101 

Hill, Lawrence, Los Angeles, CA, statement ......................................................... 102 

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, statement ................... 102 

Keesling, Gregg, Indianapolis, IN, statement ....................................................... 104 

Kochakji, Ann, statement ........................................................................................ 104 

Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department, statement ................. 104 

Marathon County Department of Social Services, statement .............................. 105 

Minnesota Inter County Association, statement ................................................... 105 

National Association for State Community Services Programs, statement ........ 107 

National Child Support Enforcement Association, statement ............................. 111 

NCSL, statement ..................................................................................................... 112 

New Jersey Department of Human Services, Trenton, NJ, statement ............... 114 

Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency, Columbus, OH, statement ................ 117 

Racine County Child Support Department, Racine, WI, statement .................... 118 

Ross, Leah, Culver City, CA, statement ................................................................ 121 

Samuels, Faredeh, statement ................................................................................. 121 

Washington County, WI, statement ....................................................................... 122 

Wells, Rob, letter ..................................................................................................... 123 

Wisconsin Child Support Enforcement Association, statement ........................... 124 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING TO ASSESS IMPACT OF 

RECENT CHANGES TO PROGRAMS 

ASSISTING LOW-INCOME FAMILIES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2007 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT, Washington, DC. 

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

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

(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025 

February 27, 2007 

ISFS–2 

McDermott Announces Hearing on Recent Changes 

to Programs Assisting Low-Income Families 

Congressman Jim McDermott (D–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Income 

Security and Family Support of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review the impact of recent 

legislative changes to low-income programs within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in 

room B–318 Rayburn House Office Building. 

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include a representative 

from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as State officials responsible for administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) program, child care assistance and child support enforcement. However, any 

individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed 

record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (P.L. 109–171) includes a number of significant changes to programs serving low-income families, especially TANF and 

child support enforcement. Perhaps most significantly, the DRA effectively requires 

most States to increase the number of welfare recipients enrolled in federally-defined work activities or to further reduce the number of families receiving cash assistance. The DRA also applies Federal requirements to programs administered 

solely with State funds (if those dollars are counted towards a State’s spending requirement under the TANF program). Furthermore, the DRA required HHS to issue 

regulations further defining how and if activities may count toward the Federal 

work participation requirements. As issued by HHS, these new rules restrict States 

from counting certain activities, such as education and training, to the extent permissible under prior law. In addition, the regulation calls for States to implement 

new monitoring procedures to determine compliance with the TANF work requirements. 

The DRA also modifies Federal funding for various aspects of the child support 

enforcement system. Most notably, effective October 1 of this year, the law will prohibit States from receiving Federal matching payments when they spend incentive 

funds that are awarded to States based on the performance of their child support 

systems. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this change would reduce overall funding for enforcing child support orders and would therefore reduce the total 

amount of child support that would otherwise be collected by $8.4 billion over the 

next decade. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ‘‘Our first Subcommittee 

hearing looked broadly at poverty and economic opportunity in America. A reasonable second step is to assess the potential impact of recent changes to programs 

serving low and moderate-income families. We will hear from those running the programs to determine if these changes are helping or hurting State and local efforts 

to assist needy families and to promote true self-sufficiency.’’ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on recent legislative changes to certain programs serving 

needy families. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

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

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

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘110th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, 

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

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

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

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

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

with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business March 20, 2007. 

Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol 

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

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

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

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

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

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

hearing record. 

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

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

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

by the Committee. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Good morning. Good to see a bunch of 

people here to talk about an important subject. 

A few weeks ago, our Subcommittee broadly reviewed economic 

opportunity and poverty in America. Today’s hearing is the next 

logical step in assessing the impact of recent changes to programs 

assisting low-income families. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

As I listened to the testimony from those responsible for administering these programs, my bottom-line question today will be this: 

Are the recent changes helping, hurting, or irrelevant to the goal 

of lifting families out of poverty? I really think that is what this 

is all about. 

We will specifically review changes made by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) (P.L. 109–171). It was signed by President Bush 

about a year ago. The DRA generally requires States to increase 

the number of welfare recipients enrolled in federally-defined work 

activities, or to further reduce the number of families receiving 

cash assistance. 

Additionally, the new regulations required by law and issued by 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reduce the 

discretion of States to determine which activities may count toward 

the Federal requirements. 

Finally, DRA also included a net reduction in Federal funding for 

enforcing child support orders. 

I want to quickly highlight four charts that relate to the potential impact of DRA, as well as to my bottom line of helping families 

escape poverty. 

The first chart shows that only 29 percent of poor children receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) today, compared to 62 percent a year ago. Or a decade ago. This precipitous 

decline in the percentage of poor children receiving assistance from 

the program for needy families, I believe, ought to concern us. In 

my view, encouraging future caseload declines without regard to 

employment and poverty is a mistake. Caseload reduction during 

a time of rising poverty is really not a success story. 

The second chart illustrates the barriers standing between many 

TANF recipients and self-sufficiency. Over 40 percent, as you can 

see there, don’t have a high school education, 45 percent have some 

kind of impairment or disability, and then, finally, 30 percent have 

been the victims of domestic violence in the last year. Now, I do 

not see any benefit in reducing the State’s flexibility to help TANF 

recipients overcome these barriers to employment. 

The third chart is based on a projection from the Administration’s budget, and shows over 300,000 fewer children receiving 

child assistance by 2012. I mean, that is a line that is going down, 

and has gone down, for the last 10 years. 

This is basically a reflection of the fact that child care funding 

is not keeping pace with inflation. Even with the slight increase 

that we had in the last DRA—I think it was about a billion dollars—someone needs to explain to me some time today how declining child care assistance is consistent with increased work requirements. 

If we are asking parents—if we really care about kids, and that’s 

what this is really all about, I mean, that’s what AFDC was, aid 

for dependent children, and now TANF is supposed to be about 

children, then how can you cut the child care money and then 

still—and let the money not keep up—and still expect more people 

to go out to work? 

The fourth, and final, chart highlights cost effectiveness of child 

support enforcement, which collects $4.58 in child support for every 

$1 in enforcement. I participated in the State of Washington many 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

years ago—this is now 25 years ago—in the increase in money we 

put into child support enforcement. I really think that it is hard 

to justify the cuts that were made in the last budget. 

This is a wise investment on behalf of families. I, therefore, question any policy that reduces the Federal commitment to ensure 

that both parents—both parents—take responsibility for their kids. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ views on the impact that 

the DRA will have on other issues. I yield to the ranking Member, 

Mr. Weller. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing today. Too often, we in Congress pass legislation and never look back to see what works and what doesn’t. 

Today’s hearing follows in the best traditions of the Subcommittee, in reviewing the effects of laws we help craft, whether 

that involves a 1996 welfare reforms, efforts by some to avoid paying unemployment taxes, or many other issues. I hope we can continue this kind of oversight, so we can hold programs accountable 

for achieving the goals taxpayers rightly expect. 

When we passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the Federal Government made a deal with the States. States were given a large 

amount of fixed Federal cash welfare funds each year, plus increased funds for child care, and broad targets to limit welfare dependence, and eventually engage 50 percent of welfare recipients in 

work and related activities. 

Unprecedented declines in welfare dependence followed, which is 

good, because most people who leave welfare do so for work. Earnings for low-income families rose, and poverty sank to near-record 

lows, but States’ own reports suggested that only about 30 percent 

of current welfare recipients were engaged in work and other productive activities, and nearly 60 percent of recipients were doing no 

hours of work or training for their checks. 

So, the House, building on recommendations by the Administration and others, passed legislation to update and extend the TANF 

program. The House passed such legislation three times in 2002, 

2003, and 2005, in fact. 

The Senate failed to follow suit, and ultimately, a scaled-down 

version of this legislation was included in what became known as 

the DRA, which passed both houses and was signed into law. What 

this legislation did is the topic of today’s hearing. 

In short, the DRA extended and rebooted the 1996 welfare reforms. States will receive the same Federal TANF block grant as 

before. As in 1996, child care funding was once again increased by 

$1 billion. State targets to limit welfare dependance and engage 50 

percent of current adults on welfare and work and other productive 

activities were renewed. Already, these revisions are having effects. 

First, although little reference was made to this fact in the testimony I have read, I assume all States have received their share of 

the $400 million in increased funding for child care the DRA provided for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. Anyone here who has not received theirs, I certainly want to know. 

I similarly assume States are putting this to good use to support 

more families in work, as intended. I look forward to hearing more 

about that. Overall, data in the President’s budget suggests this 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

will help one million more children receive child care services in 

the coming years. 

Second, welfare dependence is once again dropping significantly, 

with a decline last year surpassing any year since 2001. That will 

free even more resources for child care and other work supports, 

just like occurred after the 1996 welfare reforms. 

Third, as we will hear, child support changes are encouraging 

States to re-engineer their programs to better serve their customers. In her testimony, Georgia’s Director of Family and Children Services notes that they have taken up this challenge, and reduced the average processing time for new child support cases from 

71 days to 1. That is, in Georgia, they have same-day service. 

That’s a revolution in customer service, particularly in these programs. 

Several of our guests comment on a provision that denies pass- ports for people who owe more than $2,500 in child support. HHS 

reports that this has doubled child support collections associated 

with this effort. It has been a success. 

I recognize not everyone here today is supportive of all the provisions of the DRA, and that’s not surprising. I look forward to learning more about suggested improvements, but we all know that any 

change comes hard when you’re talking about government programs. Many of those in this room, including some on this dais, opposed the original 1996 welfare reforms, which have certainly 

shown dramatic, positive impact. 

So, perhaps it should not surprise us today that some hold a dim 

view about the continuization of these reforms, or their implementation in ways that hold Government more accountable for results, 

but that is really what we should be after. I believe the results for 

the family involved say more. 

I welcome our guests, and I look forward to their testimony. 

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

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Anybody else 

who has opening statements can be entered into the record. All the 

witnesses, your statements will be entered fully into the record. 

The other thing is, when you speak—all of you—please put your 

microphone on, because if you don’t you won’t be heard on television. We might hear you, but C–SPAN is covering this, and so 

you really need to touch that. That is just sort of a side note. 

Today we have Ms. Squier, the director of the office of family assistance from HHS. She is here to talk about this program. She is 

here because Wade Horn, who is ordinarily here, is dealing with a 

family illness, and unfortunately, is unable to be here. Our feelings 

are with Mr. Horn. I hope you will tell him that we wish a speedy 

recovery for his family member. 

So, Ms. Squier, you are on the record. 

STATEMENT OF SIDONIE SQUIER, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Ms. SQUIER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weller, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss 

the next phase of welfare reform. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leaderVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

ship, and to the Committee, for your continued efforts to reform the 

welfare system and improve the lives of low-income Americans. 

The enactment of welfare reform in 1996 has had a profound, 

positive impact on our Nation’s most vulnerable families. Many observers now consider the creation of TANF as one of the greatest 

social policy achievements in American history. 

Despite TANF’s successes—and, indeed, because of them—it was 

time to renew welfare reform. The key to TANF’s success was 

work. In 2002, the minimum work participation rates have been 50 

percent for all families, and 90 percent for 2-parent families, but 

because the statutory rates were reduced by the percentage of caseload decline since 1995, in practice, States needed very little work 

participation to meet the adjusted work standards. 

In 2004, 17 States faced an overall participation rate of 0 percent, and nationally, the participation rate was only 6 percent. As 

a result, nearly 60 percent of TANF families did not have an adult 

with even 1 hour of reported work. It was time to revise this trend, 

so that all TANF recipients would have the opportunity to become 

self-sufficient. 

The DRA of 2005 reauthorized the TANF program through 2010, 

with a renewed focus on work, program integrity, and strengthening families through marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. 

First, the law changed the base year of the calculation of the 

caseload reduction credit from 1995 to 2005. Recalibrating the caseload reduction credit has the effect of increasing the work participation requirements. For most States, we estimate that in 2007, 

the overall work participation requirement will be between 40 and 

50 percent after the caseload reduction credit is factored in. 

Second, the law added to the work participation rates families in 

separate State programs. These separate State programs artificially diminish the true size of State caseload, and often increased 

its participation rate through a simple shift in funding streams. 

Third, the law replaced the high performance and illegitimacy reduction bonus with $150 million a year fund for competitive grants 

to promote healthy marriages and support responsible fatherhood. 

Fourth, the DRA increased Federal child care spending by $200 

million per year. With the State matching funds required to draw 

down these additional dollars, new child care funding totals $1.8 

billion, over 5 years. 

Congress also required HHS to do a number of things through 

regulation: to define each of the 12 work activities, to ensure that 

participation rates were comparable across States; to clarify who is 

a work-eligible individual; to ensure that State and internal control 

procedures result in accurate and consistent work participation information; and to establish a new penalty for failing to maintain 

adequate procedures to verify reported work participation data. 

On June 29, 2006, HHS issued an interim final rule, implementing key provisions of the DRA. This rule has five key components. 

First, they create uniform common sense definitions that count 

only those activities that actually help move people into jobs. These 

new definitions are necessary, because the 1996 TANF legislation 

allowed each State to define work, which may have allowed for calVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

culations of work participation rates to vary. Defining work activities is necessary for consistent measurement, and ensures an equitable and level playingfield for States. 

Second, the interim final regulation requires uniform methods for 

reporting hours of work. They continued to require States to count 

only actual hours of participation. However, we build in more flexibility by allowing States to receive credit for the first time for excused absences and holidays. 

Third, the new regulations require supervision for all activities. 

Daily supervision means that a responsible party has daily responsibility for oversight of the individual’s participation, not necessarily daily contact with the participant. The goal of such supervision is to ensure that individuals are participating and making 

progress in their assigned activities. 

Fourth, the new regulations add some child-only cases to the 

work participation requirements, primarily those in which the 

needs of the parents have been removed from the grant, due to a 

sanction or time limit. The vast majority of child-only cases, however, remain exempt from work participation rates. 

Finally, the new regulations require States to establish and 

maintain work participation verification procedures and internal 

controls to ensure compliance with the procedures. States must 

have in place by September 30th of this year a work verification 

plan to validate work data. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree with me that it’s our 

shared desire to improve the lives of the families who have—or 

would otherwise become—dependent on welfare. The Secretary, the 

Assistant Secretary, and I stand ready to work with you, our State 

and community partners, to make economic independence within 

the reach of America’s neediest families. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Squier follows:] 

Statement of Sidonie Squier, Director of the Office of Family Assistance, 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weller, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to 

appear before you today to discuss the next phase of welfare reform. I would like 

to take this opportunity to express my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and to the Committee for your continued efforts to reform the welfare system 

and improve the lives of low-income Americans. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 has had a profound, positive impact on our nation’s vulnerable 

families. In particular, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program— 

TANF—is a remarkable example of a successful Federal-State partnership. With 

heightened expectations of personal responsibility and greater opportunities for improving their economic circumstances, millions of families have moved from dependence on welfare to the independence of work. We have provided the necessary work 

supports, child care, and transportation to ensure that parents can get to work and 

stay there without worrying about the safety and well-being of their children. Many 

observers now consider the creation of TANF just over 10 years ago as one of the 

greatest social policy achievements in American history. Of particular significance 

since 1996: 

• Welfare rolls have declined by 60 percent between August 1996 and September 

2006, from 4.41 million to 1.76 million families. The number of families on welfare is now lower than at any time since 1969. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

• Unprecedented numbers of former recipients have gone to work. Employment 

among single mothers has increased. The percentage of never-married working 

mothers increased from 49.3 percent in 1996 to 62.0 percent in 2005. • Child support collections have nearly doubled. • Overall child poverty rates declined from 20.5 percent in 1996 to 17.6 percent 

in 2005, with 1.6 million fewer children in poverty. The poverty rate among African American children declined from 39.9 percent to 33.5 percent. The poverty 

rate among Hispanic children declined from 40.3 percent to 28.3 percent. Although the poverty rate has increased some since 2000 as a result of the 2001 

recession, the addition of nearly 7.5 million new jobs since August 2003 portends favorably for renewed improvement in poverty rates. • Out-of-wedlock childbearing among African-American teens has declined nearly 

20 percent from 1996 to 2005. • The unwed birth rate for all teens age 15–19 has declined since its peak in 

1994. 

Despite TANF’s successes, and indeed, because of them, it was time to renew welfare reform. The key to the success of welfare reform was work. In theory, since FY 

2002 the minimum work participation rates had been 50 percent for all families and 

90 percent for two-parent families. But because the statutory rates were reduced by 

the percentage of caseload decline since FY 1995, in practice States needed very little work participation from their caseload to meet these adjusted work standards. 

As a result, in FY 2004, 17 States and two Territories faced an effective overall participation rate of 0 percent, and nationally the effective participation rate was only 

6 percent. Only 32 percent of TANF families with an adult participated for enough 

hours to count and almost three-fifths of TANF adults had no reported hours in 

work activities, nevertheless using up their time-limited benefits. It was time to reverse this trend so that all TANF recipients would have the opportunity to become 

self-sufficient. 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) reauthorized the TANF program through 

fiscal year 2010 with a renewed focus on work, program integrity, and strengthening families through marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. Signed into 

law by President Bush on February 8, 2006, the DRA maintained State flexibility, 

retaining many provisions of the original TANF law, but included important 

changes to improve the effectiveness of the program. 

What Stayed the Same? 

The Deficit Reduction Act kept nearly all of the TANF provisions enacted in the 

original welfare reform law. Of particular note, the law retained the requirement 

that a State must achieve a 50-percent overall work participation rate by engaging 

adults in the 12 allowable work activities for specified hours each week and that 

it must also achieve a 90-percent two-parent rate by similarly engaging families in 

work activities for certain, specified hours. The work activities and the hours needed 

to count a family toward the work participation rates also did not change. The DRA 

maintained the penalty associated with failing to meet these work requirements. 

The DRA also maintained other key provisions of prior law. It: 

• Fully funded the TANF block grant through FY 2010 at $16.6 billion per year. 

• Continued to require States to make maintenance of effort (MOE) contributions 

to support families and children. 

• Preserved the $2 billion Contingency Fund to help States in the event of an economic downturn or recession. 

• Extended the Supplemental Grants for the 17 States with historically low 

grants per poor person and/or high population growth in the amount of $319 

million through FY 2008. 

• Retained the five-year cumulative lifetime limit on Federal TANF cash assistance to ensure that welfare is temporary and does not become a way of life. 

What Changed? 

Despite the fact that it retained the existing structure and many fundamental aspects of the original TANF law, the DRA did make important statutory changes to 

promote work and accountability by requiring States to engage more TANF families 

in productive work activities leading to self-sufficiency. The new law also required 

HHS to promulgate rules in several of these areas. 

First, the law changed the base year of the calculation of the caseload reduction 

credit from FY 1995 to FY 2005. The caseload reduction credit had inadvertently 

undermined TANF work requirements. While the statutory work participation rates 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

did not change, recalibrating the caseload reduction credit has the effect of increasing the work participation requirements. Without the benefit of the built-up credit, 

States must engage 50 percent of all cases with adults and 90 percent of two-parent 

families in work activities. For most States, we estimate that in FY 2007, the overall work participation requirement will be between 40 and 50 percent, depending 

upon the amount of caseload reduction they had over the course of FY 2006 compared to the new baseline of FY 2005. 

Second, the law included in the work participation rates families in separate State 

programs, which were previously excluded from the rates. Under prior law and 

rules, some States moved families to programs essentially identical to their TANF 

programs but funded with State money used toward the MOE requirement. In such 

cases, these separate State programs artificially diminished the true size of a State’s 

caseload, thus increasing a State’s participation rate through a simple shift in funding streams. Now, those families are part of the participation rate, giving a more 

realistic picture of the State’s work achievement with its whole caseload. 

Third, the law eliminated provisions for the High Performance Bonus and the Ille- gitimacy Reduction Bonus and replaced them with a $150 million-a-year research, 

demonstration, and technical assistance fund. This fund is for competitive grants to 

strengthen family formation, promote healthy marriages, support responsible fatherhood, and improve coordination between Tribal TANF and child welfare services. We 

know that programs and solutions work best when they are designed to address 

local needs. These funds will enable neighborhoods, community, and religious 

groups to try innovative approaches to encourage healthy marriages and promote 

involved, committed, and responsible fatherhood. 

Fourth, the DRA expanded a State’s ability to meet its maintenance-of-effort 

(MOE) requirement. States may now count expenditures that provide pro-family 

benefits and services to anyone, without regard to financial need or family composition, if the expenditure is to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock 

births (TANF purpose 3), or encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent 

married families (TANF purpose 4). Fifth, it increased Federal child care funding by $200 million per year, $1 billion 

over five years. With the inclusion of State matching funds required to draw down 

these additional dollars, new funding for child care totals $1.8 billion over five 

years. This expanded support for child care, despite dramatically smaller TANF 

caseloads across the country, means that the DRA’s renewed focus on work can be 

put in practice in the labor market, ensuring that TANF recipients can find and 

keep employment without having to worry about child care needs. 

Congress also required HHS to do a number of things through regulation: 

• To define each of the 12 countable work activities. This came about primarily 

because a U.S. Government Accountability Office study reported that there was 

great variation in State definitions of work activities. As a result, State participation rates were not comparable. Of the activities, the underlying statute also 

specified which nine or ‘‘core activities’’ count towards meeting the first 20 

hours of a 30-hour requirement. Any additional hours needed to meet the requirement can come from any of three ‘‘non core activities’’ or from ‘‘core activities.’’ Under the statute, non-core activities may not count in core hours. • To clarify who is a work-eligible individual. In addition to families with an 

adult receiving TANF assistance, who were already a part of the work participation rates, the DRA required us to include such families receiving assistance 

under a separate State program and to specify the circumstances under which 

a parent who resides with a child receiving assistance should be included in the 

work participation rates. This effectively adds selected child-only cases to the 

rates. To ensure that State internal control procedures result in accurate and 

consistent work participation information. States must establish and maintain 

work participation verification procedures that are based on regulations promulgated by the Secretary. To establish a new penalty in the event that a State 

fails to establish and maintain adequate procedures to verify reported work participation data. 

The Interim Final Rule 

On June 29, 2006, HHS issued an interim final rule implementing key provisions 

of the DRA. During the comment period we received many comments on those regulations including 470 individual letters; some were lengthy submittals addressing a 

host of different specific topics. Comments also included transcripts from five listening tour stops that we conducted around the country last summer. These sessions 

offered an opportunity for representatives from State agencies, legislators, and other 

stakeholders to provide formal comments and to engage in a dialogue with ACF 

staff about the law and interim rules. We are now considering all the comments we 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

received during our formal comment period and are not at liberty to discuss the specific aspects of how the final regulations may or may not change in response to 

those comments. However, I would like to say a few words about the interim final 

rules and would be happy to answer questions specifically about them. 

The interim final regulations have five key components. Within each area, the 

rules provide States expanded flexibility to help meet their work participation rates 

and other requirements of the law. 

First, they create uniform, common-sense definitions of work that count only those 

activities that actually help move people into real jobs. These new definitions are 

necessary because the 1996 TANF legislation allowed each State to define ‘‘work,’’ 

which may have allowed for inconsistent calculations of work participation rates. 

Some States included activities in their definitions of work activity that others did 

not, such as: 

• Bed rest; • Physical rehabilitation, which could include massage and regulated exercise; • Activities to promote a healthier lifestyle that will eventually assist the recipient in obtaining employment, such as personal journaling, motivational reading, 

and weight loss promotion; • Helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands. 

It is important to remember that the DRA did not instruct HHS to add, delete, 

alter, or change these 12 activities. Nor did Congress direct HHS to comment on 

the completeness of this list or whether some core activities should be non-core activities. Defining work activities is necessary for consistent measurement and ensures an equitable and level playing field for the States. Because the statute provides 12 distinct activities, we tried to define them as mutually exclusive, while still 

leaving flexibility for States to address the critical needs of families. 

Here are some examples of the new definitions in the Interim Final rule: 

• ‘‘Employment’’ is defined as full—or part-time paid work. • ‘‘Work experience’’ (or working ‘‘off the grant’’) means performing work for an 

employer that provides job skills and work habits in exchange for the TANF 

grant. • ‘‘Job search and job readiness assistance’’ means seeking or preparing for employment which could include short-term substance abuse treatment, mental 

health treatment, or rehabilitation activities. • ‘‘Community service’’ is structured work that directly benefits the community 

via public or nonprofit organizations. • ‘‘Vocational educational training’’ means training that is directly related to employment that does not require a college degree, but which could include remedial and basic education in a work context. 

These definitions clearly tighten the focus on work. For example, they require 

daily supervision in all activities used to satisfy work requirements. They also require that education and training activities relate directly to a specific job or occupation. 

At the same time, they also allow States to count participation in activities that 

many States previously did not count. For example, the interim final rule included 

as part of the definition of job search and job readiness assistance, substance abuse 

treatment, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation activities for those who are 

otherwise employable. Although a few States included some or all of these activities 

in the past most did not count participation in such treatment or services toward 

the participation rates before. (A review of State plans by the Congressional Research Service found that just 14 States counted these activities at all and five of 

them did so as part of the job search and job readiness assistance activity.) Job 

search and job readiness assistance is a time-limited activity under the law, so 

States cannot get participation credit for them without limit, but from what we have 

heard, many more States than ever did before will be counting these activities now 

that we have added them to the definition. We included them as job readiness activities (as opposed to some other activity that is not subject to a time limit) because 

it was the only place we thought it made sense to include them. In fact, these services do help individuals become ready to work and thus fit well within that work 

component. 

Second, the new regulations require uniform methods for reporting hours of work, 

as required by the DRA. They allow States to count only actual hours of participation, but, for the first time in the history of the TANF program, the interim final 

rule grants States credit in the work participation rates for holidays and additional 

excused absences for individuals in unpaid activities. The original TANF rules that 

came out in 1999 let States count paid leave days as participation, but not unpaid 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

days or days in unpaid activities. This is a significant change from past policy and 

will make it considerably easier for States to meet the work participation rates. 

Another new innovation that enhances State flexibility in meeting work participation rates is the provision in the interim final rule for ‘‘FLSA deeming.’’ Under this 

provision, if a work-eligible individual participating in work experience or community service program—two activities that are subject to the minimum wage under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act—works the maximum hours permitted without incurring a minimum wage violation under that law but falls short of the hours needed 

to meet the TANF core activities requirement, we ‘‘deem’’ them to have met that 

requirement. This is likely to be particularly important for families in the two-parent rate, since the hours requirement is higher there. 

Third, the new regulations specify the type of documentation needed to verify reported hours of work and require daily supervision. Daily supervision means that 

a responsible party has daily responsibility for oversight of the individual’s participation, not necessarily daily contact with the participant. The goal of such supervision is to ensure that individuals are participating and making progress in their 

assigned activities. A work site sponsor, classroom instructor, contracted service provider, community-based provider, job search instructor, treatment provider, or even 

a TANF agency employee could fulfill that role. In addition, the supervision need 

not involve in-person contact, but can be by telephone or electronic contact where 

those methods are suitable. 

We established a range of documentation guidelines that vary by type of activity. 

We believe the rule provides a reasonable balance between the need for accurate information and the burden of reporting and verifying hours of participation. In particular, we have allowed States to project up to six months of actual employment, 

reducing the documentation burden for an activity that has accounted for over half 

of all countable hours of participation under TANF. For unpaid activities, we allow 

States to document reported information through attendance and time sheets of providers and other methods beyond client self-reporting, requirements that have been 

a part of the program all along. It is important to recognize that States have always 

had to document work participation hours and most have used sources such as 

these, so we think these new regulations do not pose a special or new burden on 

States, employers, or clients. 

Fourth, the new regulations broaden the pool of individuals subject to the State 

work participation requirements by determining the circumstances under which a 

parent who resides with a child receiving assistance should be included in the work 

participation rates. This means that States must include certain child-only cases, 

primarily individuals in about a dozen States that remove the parents’ ‘‘needs’’ from 

the grant due to a sanction or time limit. The rules include a case-by-case State option to include a parent who receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 

works or participates in the Ticket to Work program. The vast majority of child-only 

cases remain exempt from work participation requirements, including those headed 

by 

• Grandparents and other non-parental caretakers; 

• Undocumented immigrants and immigrants under the five-year ban; 

• Parents receiving SSI who are not included under the State option. 

Under our interim final rule, we excluded from the definition of ‘‘work-eligible individual’’ a parent providing care for a disabled family member living in the home 

who does not attend school on a full-time basis, as long as the need for such care 

is supported by medical documentation. This means that families that include such 

individuals are not part of the participation rate. Again, this is an area where we 

expanded State flexibility. 

Finally, the new regulations require States to establish and maintain work participation verification procedures and internal controls to ensure compliance with 

the procedures. They also require States to have in place by September 30 of this 

year a Work Verification Plan to validate work data and implement new penalties 

for non-compliance with work verification procedures starting October 1, 2007. The 

penalty consists of a one percent reduction in the State grant for each year a State 

is out of compliance, up to a maximum penalty of five percent. The full five percent 

penalty will be imposed if a State fails to submit a Work Verification Plan. 

Eliminate the Two-Parent Rate 

I would like to remind the Subcommittee of another critical point. The Administration has proposed ending the separate participation rate for two-parent families; 

the same participation rate would apply to both single-and two-parent families. This 

would remove a disincentive to equitable treatment of two-parent families. Under 

current law, two-parent families have a far more rigorous work participation rate 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

requirement than do single-parent families (90 percent compared to 50 percent). 

Less than five percent of TANF and SSP families are two-parent families. However, 

if a State meets its overall work participation rate but fails the two-parent rate the 

law requires that a State must meet an 80-percent maintenance of effort requirement, causing a State to spend significantly more. We believe that attaining a 90- 

percent participation rate for two-parent families poses substantial challenges for 

States and presents potentially significant administrative hardships. Even if this 

rate were eliminated, the family would still have an adult required to participate 

constructively and at levels that would lead to self-sufficiency. 

Meeting the Challenge 

We understand and acknowledge that helping States increase the number of welfare recipients participating in work activities will be a challenge. Some question 

whether it can be done. We believe that this challenge is not only feasible, but must 

be met if we are to continue our progress in reforming welfare and moving families 

to self-sufficiency. A fair and objective evaluation of this challenge is necessary. 

Such an evaluation should consider a range of relevant factors including the following: 

• What States achieved in 2005 does not determine what they can achieve in the 

future. When States have a zero or near-zero work participation requirement, 

they operate programs within that context. If they have a higher work participation requirement, they will operate their programs accordingly. 

• Existing participation data understate the actual level of participation. Some 

States do not report all participation that could count because they have already satisfied the participation requirements due to the caseload reduction 

credit. Data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) indicate that 

more TANF adults are employed than is reported. 

• It is possible for States to achieve rapid increases in their work participation 

rates. In two years, Georgia raised its work participation rate from 10 percent 

to 57 percent. This came about once the State made a concerted effort to increase participation rates. 

• States have the resources to do the job. The dramatic decline in welfare caseloads since the 1996 welfare reform has produced savings that far exceed any 

additional costs from new work requirements. For example, TANF funding, 

measured on a per TANF family basis, was $9,100 in 1996 (inflation-adjusted) 

compared to $15,977 in 2007 (projected), an increase of $6,877 per family, representing a 76 percent increase in capacity to meet the challenge of welfare reform. 

• If caseloads continue to decline, even the new ‘‘recalibrated’’ credit can substantially reduce the required participation rate target. Based on a preliminary estimate of the caseload reduction credit for FY 2007, the average target for FY 

2007 will be reduced to 45 percent, and in 12 States the new target will be 

under 40 percent. 

• Meeting work participation requirements will increase employment and further 

reduce caseloads, freeing up more TANF funds that could be used for work activities and child care. 

• Finally, since 1996, Federal and State spending for child care in just these programs—TANF, CCDF, and SSBG—has increased more than 3 fold from $3.6 

billion in 1996 to $11.7 billion in 2006. 

In summary, we sincerely believe that virtually all States have the flexibility they 

will need to meet the new work participation requirements. We hope that they do 

this by helping needy families find appropriate work activities and increasing support services to them. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, I’m sure you will agree with me that it is our shared desire to 

improve the lives of the families who have or would otherwise become dependent 

on welfare. In his second inaugural address, President Bush stated that in America’s ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence. He expressed the vision of an ownership society, making every citizen an 

agent of his or her own destiny. These ideals certainly fit within the reauthorized 

welfare program. Secretary Leavitt, Assistant Secretary Horn, and I stand ready to 

work with you and our State and community partners to make economic independence within reach of America’s neediest families. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you have. 

f 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You can now take a breath. 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SQUIER. It was close, those 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I said to Mr. Weller how I was sure 

you were going to make it to the end. 

Ms. SQUIER. I was going to make it. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We thank you for that testimony, and 

I realize that you feel under some pressure, not having written this 

law, and you being up here to defend it, or to answer questions 

about it, but current law now counts a welfare recipient participating 25 hours a week in constructive activities as someone doing 

nothing. They have to make the mark of 30 hours, or they get nothing. 

I wonder if the Administration would be open to supporting a 

partial credit for partial hours under the TANF work requirement. 

Ms. SQUIER. You will probably remember, the Senate had such 

a proposal that didn’t make it through, for various and sundry reasons. 

However, the Administration does not support partial credit, because we believe that people need to meet a specific work participation standard of either 20 hours—which about 50 percent of the 

population only has to meet 20 hours—or 30 hours, if you have a 

child over 6. We believe that it’s important. It’s important for the 

child. It’s important to establish work procedures, that you get up 

every day and you work a certain amount of hours, that show children that work is part of everyday life. So, the Administration did 

not support partial credit. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. So, there is no flexibility on that issue, 

in your mind? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, there is always flexibility. There is nothing 

that I can say today that I would say for a surety that will or will 

not be in the final rule because it is still under consideration. So, 

you just have to keep in mind that I am not at liberty to tell you 

what will be included in that final rule. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I understand that. The final rules, you 

think, will come out when? 

Ms. SQUIER. My best estimate is that they will come out in September. That is an estimate. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. To be implemented 6 months later, 

the—March/April of next year? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, in fact, the work participation part of it is 

already being implemented. The work verification plan, and how 

they set up their systems, is due to be implemented October 1, 

2007. 

I would say today, though, that I came from a State, I worked 

in four of them, I bet money I end up going back to a State. If I 

were in a State, I would be concerned about the challenge of perhaps only getting this final rule, and then only having months or 

weeks to set up my systems. 

So, we are very sympathetic to the challenge that the States 

have, and we are going to do everything we can to work with the 

States as partners, and keep them out of any kind of penalty. This 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

is not a ‘‘Gotcha’’ situation. We really want to work with them as 

partners, to try to get them to meet the goals that they have to 

meet under the work participation requirements 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. That is one of my concerns about this, 

is that the rule-making—having been in the State legislature for 

a long time, and having been on the receiving end of this pipe, 

when legislatures only meet once every—they meet for 3 months 

and then they’re gone, and then they come back the next year and 

meet, sometimes they can’t make the changes as quickly as necessary to meet the Federal rules. 

So, I would hope that you would build in some flexibility in the 

rule that would allow States to at least let the next legislative session pass, or something, so that they could make whatever changes 

are necessary. 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, Mr. Chairman, my boss, Wade Horn, went to 

five different areas of the country, and did tours about implementing the interim final rule. He said in every single one of them, 

that if a State can show that they cannot meet the work participation rates, or get up and running because their legislature couldn’t 

take action in time, that he would take that under consideration 

as good cause. He asked for States to put that in their work 

verification plans, or to contact him directly. 

To date, to my knowledge, no State has come back and said that 

they cannot meet this because of that reason. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Well, the other question I have is 

would you support creating a TANF work participation category 

that specifically addresses the whole question of removing barriers 

to employment? 

One of the things that I have trouble with the law is the fact 

that the training, or programs like drug abuse treatment, are put 

in a category where they have a very short period of time, and then 

they are done. Whether the program and treatment is done is irrelevant. They are done, as far as being counted, or being given any 

kind of an exemption. 

I wonder if you are willing to talk about that a little bit. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. We were required by the DRA to define the 

12 activities. The statute didn’t include substance abuse, mental 

health, or rehabilitation treatment as any one of the 12 activities 

to count. So, we used what we thought was a very common-sense 

definition, and put it under job readiness, which we believe is really the only place that it actually fits, because you are getting ready 

for a job. 

It is very interesting to note that only 14 States ever counted 

those activities—substance abuse, mental health, or rehabilitation 

services—toward the work participation rate at all in the past. Five 

of them counted it under job readiness. So, we only have nine 

States that counted any of these activities someplace else at all. 

So, we actually think that we are expanding. Now, 36 States will 

be able to count these people in some sort of work participation for 

6, and possibly up to 12, weeks. I would finish by saying that I 

completely agree with you, that if a participant in substance abuse 

treatment or mental health treatment needs more work, then the 

States should allow them to stay in the treatment program; I think 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

that’s the very reason that Congress allowed us the 50 percent 

work participation. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I think we will have some more discussion on this issue. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Squier, thank you 

for joining us this morning, and participating as our first witness. 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you. 

Mr. WELLER. The changing nature of households in America 

has an impact on poverty. We have seen the statistics, that if a 

child is born outside of marriage, they are more likely to be in poverty, less likely to complete a full education, and their future prospects are less than those that are born into a family of traditional 

marriage, a mom and dad. 

Right now, today, about 37 percent of all births in the United 

States today are outside of marriage, so that represents about 1.5 

million children out of 4 million that are born each year. Again, 

statistics show that they are at a higher level of risk, particularly 

of living in poverty, than those who are born into married households. In fact, experts suggest as much as 80 percent of long-term 

child poverty is associated with family breakdown. 

In the DRA, we in the congress last year reprogrammed some 

Federal welfare funds to be used to promote marriage and fatherhood, about $750 million. Can you give us a report on the status 

of how this process is going, and when we are likely to begin seeing 

the results, positive or negative, from this initiative? 

Ms. SQUIER. Absolutely. We were very fortunate last year to 

award 225 grants in marriage and fatherhood in 47 States and 2 

territories. These grantees are now getting up and running, and we 

are providing technical assistance to them. 

We have to give them a little time to implement and see results. 

So, I suspect we are going to have to wait a year or so to actually 

see results, but the whole objective behind this, as you alluded to, 

is that the research indicates that children of families with happy, 

healthy, married parents, or who have a strong connection to the 

father, come out ahead on a whole slew of socio-economic indicators. Our goal is to increase the well-being of children through the 

marriage and fatherhood programs. 

Mr. WELLER. Since States were given the opportunity to develop programs with their own initiative as part of this, do you 

have any success stories where you see as examples, where they 

have been able to increase the likelihood—— 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I think it is a bit early for that. 

Mr. WELLER. Okay. 

Ms. SQUIER. They really didn’t get their money until October. 

So they have to gear up. That’s one of the biggest problems, I 

think, when you have grants of this level, where people—like I 

do—really want to see results, and really want to come here and 

tell you that I can show you 10, 20, 50 places where we’re seeing 

results. It is just a bit premature. 

Mr. WELLER. My other question is, before the effective date of 

the TANF changes that were in the DRA, we saw a drop in welfare 

dependence, a significant drop. In fact, in 2006, we saw the biggest 

drop in 6 years, which was a 6 percent drop in welfare dependence. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

Can you explain why—of course, this is all a result of reforms prior 

to the DRA. 

Ms. SQUIER. I think there were several years where people who 

ran TANF programs in States were seeing the proposed changes, 

and what was going to be in, and what was going to be out, and 

where the Senate and the House agreed on things, and where they 

didn’t. 

I believe that, in preparation for the legislation, where States 

saw things were going to be tightened up, or they saw things were 

going to be different than they are with their current programs, 

that they took that into consideration, and they geared up their 

programs. So, we started seeing results before the legislation was 

actually passed. 

Mr. WELLER. In terms of poverty, what percent of families on 

welfare live in poverty? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I would say all families that are on welfare 

live in poverty. 

Mr. WELLER. Then, does the same go for families who leave 

welfare most often for work? Do any of them escape poverty? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, they do. Most welfare or TANF recipients who 

go to work, go to work for more than minimum wage, but if you 

had a family with a parent who went to work for $5.15 an hour, 

minimum wage, worked full time, received food stamps and the 

earned income tax credit, they would be lifted out of poverty. That 

doesn’t count any other programs that they might be receiving. 

Mr. WELLER. In some of the programs they receive, do they 

count, as part of their income, when we determine whether or not 

they live in poverty? 

Ms. SQUIER. No, sir. They do not. 

Mr. WELLER. Which are the ones—which are the programs 

where they receive benefits that are not considered as part of their 

income when we—— 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, there are several programs that are not considered. For example, food stamps, and housing assistance. Let me 

put it this way, what gets counted is cash. If you are not getting 

cash, if you received child care or transportation assistance, or 

training and employment services, if it isn’t cash, it’s generally not 

counted in poverty. 

So, what you have are people who are getting a lot of services 

that they are not counting in poverty. If you counted the services, 

the cash value of the services that people got, you would see a 

much different poverty level in America. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my 

time is up. Thank you, Ms. Squier. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for holding this hearing. Madame Director, thank you for being here this morning. 

As you saw in one of the Chairman’s charts, the percentage of 

poor children receiving assistance from TANF has dropped from 62 

percent in 1995 to 29 percent in 2005. Do you think this trend is 

positive or negative? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I never think that when you have an increase in any kind of poverty rate, that would be a positive. I do 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

think that one interesting thing is, Mr. Lewis, is that about the 

time that the child poverty rate started to inch up a little bit more, 

was about the same time that work participation rates became basically meaningless in the States, because they had such a precipitous caseload decline, most States only had a zero work participation rate, and the national average was only 6 percent. 

So, I do think it’s kind of an interesting correlation that when 

States stopped having to meet a participation rate, child poverty 

then began to inch up again. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Well, I guess that’s the question that 

I was trying to ask. In other words, you believe reduction in the 

TANF caseload is beneficial, even if such a decline occurs while 

poverty is still rising? 

Ms. SQUIER. I think—— 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. We have this unbelievable gap, and 

it’s not narrowing, but it’s—poverty is increasing, all across America. 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I—— 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. In our large urban centers, in our 

rural areas. 

Ms. SQUIER. I understand. I do think that, from the inception 

of welfare reform in 1996 to present, that child poverty has decreased. It fell from 20 percent to 17.6 percent, and that reflects 

1.4 million fewer children in poverty today than when welfare reform began. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I think there is data, I think there 

is all type of data. Many studies tend to indicate that during the 

past 5 years we have seen a dramatic increase in poverty in America. I don’t think that can be denied. 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t know about a dramatic increase. There 

have been some incremental increases in poverty in America in the 

last 5 years. However, I don’t think you can hold the TANF program solely responsible for reducing poverty, because it’s a very 

small part of all the means tested programs that this country offers. 

If you look at the issue in terms of TANF, any increase may be 

in part because States no longer had to engage people—to put them 

into work activities, not just to get them off the TANF rolls, but 

to get them into work activities, which is clearly the goal of the 

TANF program. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Madame Director, let’s take a close 

look at the State of Georgia. In the last 4 years in Georgia, unemployment is rising. Three times as many people receiving food 

stamps, and the number of people on Medicaid are rising, are increasing. Where are these people going when they leave TANF? 

These numbers tend to say something very different. They are 

unemployed, they are still living in poverty, in need, food stamps, 

Medicaid. Can you really—do you have any idea about what is happening to these people? Where are they going? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I think that many of them are going into 

work, and they are working some hours. They are not necessarily 

making enough to move them out of poverty immediately. I think 

this is an area where States have to work very hard. A lot of States 

work at meeting the participation rate, which means that they 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

bring people off the rolls and into the work force, but then they 

cannot stop there. 

I would submit to you today that this Administration agrees that 

you need to help support those families to move them up the ladder—which takes a little bit more time—but it can be done. States 

need to spend a little bit more time, and a little bit more TANF 

money, doing just that. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I know with a program, it’s the idea 

that you got to reduce the caseload. Do we reduce the caseload and 

bringing down numbers and people are—try to meet a magic goal, 

or—what’s happening? 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t think that just bringing down the numbers 

is the outcome that we’re looking for. We have always been looking 

for an outcome of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is better for the 

child—that’s better for the family, and that’s better for the child. 

So, I don’t think that we are just trying to say, ‘‘Whatever you 

need to do to bring down, or to put 50 percent of your people in 

work activities, you need to make that happen.’’ I think what we 

want is for all families to be engaged. 

Georgia is such a great example. I know you’re from there, and 

I’m glad you brought that up. Georgia is one of my favorite places 

to talk about. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. So, you are prepared to use the State 

of Georgia as a model for the rest of the Nation? 

Ms. SQUIER. I am prepared to tell you that a couple of years 

ago the State of Georgia had a work participation rate of about 6 

percent. Now, just 2 years later, they have, without any resources 

from the Federal Government, raised that work participation rate 

to 57 percent. 

I think a person from Georgia is here, and he or she is going to 

tell you that I am completely wrong on that, that it’s far more than 

57 percent that they have raised their work participation rate. 

So, somehow, they are engaging these clients, they are getting to 

people who were formerly harder to serve, or that they felt had 

more barriers to overcome, and they are working with these people, 

and getting them into work, which is far better than not having 

them work at all. It is the first step into moving them into better 

jobs. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Madame Director, my time is expired, 

but I think we are going to hear a little more from the State of 

Georgia. I think there are a few people around the country that 

have some questions about whether the State of Georgia should— 

I am from that State. 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA, but I tell you, I think people will 

have some question, some reservation, whether the State of Georgia should be used as a model for the rest of America. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will get to that next. Mr. Herger? 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Squier, I want to 

commend you on the great job you are doing. We certainly miss Dr. 

Horn. 

Ms. SQUIER. Right. 

Mr. HERGER, but you are doing a very outstanding job, testifying. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. I think it should be pointed out that even though 

the poverty rate is raising, I think it historically has always raised 

after a recession. We have come out, but I think if we look at the 

numbers, those numbers are still lower than they were when welfare reform came out in 1996. 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes. 

Mr. HERGER. Just another comment. I want to commend you 

and Dr. Horn, the Administration, for the emphasis of getting— 

working to get fathers involved with their families, and with their 

children. Those of us who are parents know it’s tough enough to 

raise children with two parents, a mom and a dad, let alone just 

where there is only a mom out there, working. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. HERGER. So, I commend you for that, and I think that’s 

very important. 

Also, the point that you made, I think, is one that is so very important. I want to commend you and the Administration and—I 

want to urge you to continue to hold tight on the importance of ensuring that these individuals are working. 

We have given the caseload credit and we have gone down to the 

point where there is virtually no one working any more. With the 

reauthorization, we are back to this, but that is the key, as you 

pointed out, that if they are working, even at minimum wage, and 

with everything else they have, they can move out of poverty. 

Ms. SQUIER. That’s correct. 

Mr. HERGER. If they are not working, no matter how well 

meaning it may be to have them in education, which is crucially 

important, and I don’t want for a moment to minimize how important education is in anything else we do. As far as getting them 

out of poverty, nothing takes the place of ensuring that we don’t 

allow these individuals to slip between the cracks, and not be out 

there doing what we can to help get them into jobs, even if they’re 

entry-level jobs to begin with. 

Ms. Squier, could you tell us how much States collectively have 

in unspent Federal TANF and child care funds saved from prior 

years? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, I think I can. I think States have $2.1 billion 

in TANF unobligated funds that they could spend right now on 

child care, and even more importantly, they have $7.7 billion in 

TANF and childcare unliquidated funds that could, so a State 

choose, be used for child care. 

Mr. HERGER. So, could some or all of those funds be spent—I 

believe you have answered that—for child care or other work support? 

Ms. SQUIER. I believe they can. 

Mr. HERGER. So, in other words, we are talking about dollars 

that are out there right now that haven’t been used, that are available. 

Is it reasonable to expect States to reduce their own TANF and 

child care savings before they ask for additional TANF and child 

care funds beyond the increase it provided in the TANF Reduction 

Act? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
21 

Mr. HERGER. So, would you like to say—make any other comments? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, actually, you are doing so well for me that 

I would like to just have you talk for the rest of the hearing, if you 

don’t mind. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SQUIER. Those are big numbers, and I think important 

funds that States could be using, but if you take just three programs, TANF, the social services block grant, and the child care development fund, just those three programs alone for child care, 

child care has increased from 1996 to 2006, child care spending, 

225 percent, from something like $3.6 billion to $11.7 billion. 

So, that doesn’t even count other programs that are out there, 

like pre-K programs, or Head Start programs that most States 

have. If I looked through my notes, I could find you some other 

child care programs that are out there, which aren’t included in the 

$11.7 billion total. 

I think we are also discounting the number of people who may 

be eligible for government child care that don’t want or necessarily 

need it. This is a portion of the population who prefers to not use 

regulated day care, and prefers to use friends and family, which 

works better with their schedule, work schedule, and they feel comfortable putting their child there. 

I do not have a way to give you an exact figure of how many people that is, but in low-income families, that’s a very traditional way 

of getting child care. We believe this encompasses a substantial 

number. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Mr. Stark? 

Mr. STARK. Ms. Squier, thank you. What I thought I just heard 

you say is that for people who can afford day care at $200 a week, 

that’s good, and for people who can’t, they should ship it off to 

Granny or cousin, or aunt and uncle, is that—— 

Ms. SQUIER. No, I don’t think that’s what I said. 

Mr. STARK. I think that’s what you just said, but you maybe 

said it differently. 

Let me ask you this. Is there a difference between the welfare 

recipient who leaves TANF and gets 1.5 times, say, the minimum 

wage—maybe he makes $30,000 a years before deductions—and a 

recipient who is sanctioned off welfare, and leaves with no source 

of income? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, clearly, there would be a difference between 

someone who has no income and someone who has $30,000 a year 

in income. 

Mr. STARK. So, why do we treat these recipients differently, or 

the same? Why don’t we treat them—when you calculate the case 

reduction credit? Shouldn’t we give more credit when they assist 

someone to become self-sufficient than we kick them off and they 

become homeless or dependent? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I think that tonce they are sanctioned off, 

that we should still—and I think our regulations do ask for this— 

keep them in the work participation rate, so we still work with 

those families, so they’re not just languishing. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
22 

Mr. STARK. How would you work with them? Faith-based initiatives? Would that be a good way to work with them? 

Ms. SQUIER. That is one way. 

Mr. STARK. How much money do you guys spend on faith-based 

stuff for children? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, the States would run the programs, so I don’t 

know that. It wouldn’t be the Federal Government. 

Mr. STARK. You don’t have any Federal faith-based initiatives 

under TANF, or for children’s programs, or for family support? 

Ms. SQUIER. The TANF program is a block grant, so we give the 

money to the States. 

Mr. STARK. I understand that, but what about for day care or 

family preservation? You don’t have any faith-based programs 

under your jurisdiction? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, the child care program is a block grant also, 

so it goes to the States. So, I would have to check to be sure, but 

I do not think that is the focus of our program here, in the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. STARK. Now, you talk about increasing funding for child 

care. There is some new money, but based on the estimates of what 

is needed, the new money is going to amount to $70 a month for 

the new participants. The President’s budget requests a freeze in 

discretionary child care funding, which by his own estimate, leads 

to 300,000 fewer families receiving the assistance. 

Is there anywhere that you know of that you can get safe child care for $70 a month? 

Ms. SQUIER. There may be. I don’t work in the States, so I do 

not know. 

Mr. STARK. Come on, let’s stop a minute. 

Ms. SQUIER. I do not know the answer to that, Mr. Stark. 

Mr. STARK. You don’t? 

Ms. SQUIER. I do not know. 

Mr. STARK. Well, I would commend you to look at it, and decide 

what you think is a minimum amount that you—under which you 

could provide child care in this country. I think you’re going to find 

it’s far north of $70 a month. 

It seems to me that it is—you are right up there with Jonathan 

Swift. At $70 a month you might as well go to his suggestion. If 

you haven’t read it, I would commend that to you, because it outlines the Republican theory. It’s called ‘‘A Modest Proposal.’’ Go 

back to your high school English and look at it. 

What programs do you think the States should cut to provide 

child care funding? 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t think States need to cut any programs. I 

think there is enough money out there in child care, and in their 

unobligated and unliquidated funds to provide child care. Money 

should not really be an issue here. 

Mr. STARK. So, they should take it out of nursing homes and 

other areas, and put it into child care? 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t even think that is necessary. I think when 

you have the TANF block grant that has not been cut at all over 

the years, and you have a 60-percent decline in caseload, then—— 

Mr. STARK. Yes, but—— 

Ms. SQUIER [continuing]. There is money to spend there. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
23 

Mr. STARK [continuing]. Any idiot can get 60 percent. You just 

kick people out. 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t think that’s what happens—— 

Mr. STARK. Without reason, without care. That’s what this Administration has done. 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I don’t agree with that—— 

Mr. STARK. It just blindly has kicked people out, thinking that 

they can go to church, or someplace else, and get fed and clothed, 

and get protection. I submit to you that it’s a kind of heartless approach, but if that’s your approach—— 

Ms. SQUIER. No, that—— 

Mr. STARK [continuing]. You will have to wait until after 2008 

to change it, won’t we? 

Ms. SQUIER. That’s definitely not my approach. I hope after 

2008 it doesn’t change. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Stark. Mr. Camp, 

please? 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Ms. Squier, how 

much are the unspent Federal TANF funds held by the States now, 

collectively? 

Ms. SQUIER. Unspent, I think, is—well, I think that goes back 

to my $2.1 billion in unobligated, and $7.7 billion in TANF and 

childcare unliquidated. 

Mr. CAMP. Some or all of these funds could be used for child 

care or other work support programs, if the States chose? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAMP. So, would it be reasonable to expect the States to reduce their TANF surpluses before seeking additional funds? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir. They should. 

Mr. CAMP. In 1996, many so-called experts predicted inadequate 

child care funds. In fact, some on the other side said that there 

were projections that would show work in child care funding $13 

billion short of what was needed, but in reality, the States in 2002, 

at the end, had $6 billion in unspent welfare funds. So, that was 

about a $20 billion mistake there. 

I guess since the 1996 reforms, in terms of States using TANF 

funds for child care, what did we see? When they needed to help 

recipients go to work, or obviously, to get child care to go to work, 

what did we see the States doing after 1996, with those funds? 

Ms. SQUIER. As you know, States can transfer 30 percent of 

their TANF funds to the child care development fund, or they can 

spend TANF directly from their block grant directly on child care. 

I think all States, almost all States—I would have to check, did 

transfer some, or spent directly. I think that stayed fairly consistent. 

Mr. CAMP. I think in response to Mr. Weller’s questioning, you 

mentioned that when you are dependent on TANF funds, you tend 

to be in poverty, but it’s through work and leaving those programs 

that families find themselves getting out of poverty. 

Is it true that we saw the States’ dedication to TANF funds for 

child care actually slow down when they were having less pressure 

to get more welfare recipients into work, when we saw a meaningless work requirement? Did we find that the States used fewer reVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 

sources to help people with child care and other support programs 

to get to work? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I think they didn’t have to. That’s the whole 

point of making a more meaningful caseload reduction credit, and 

a more meaningful work participation rate. That they didn’t have 

to spend any more money to help people in training, education, 

child care, or any other place, because they had already met their 

work participation rate, and they were lifted outside of any Federal 

penalty. So there was not an incentive or motivation for them to 

continue to work with families. Now, you can’t say that all States 

did that. 

Mr. CAMP. Right. 

Ms. SQUIER. You can’t say that all States did that. 

Mr. CAMP. Right, we are just talking generally. Not only was 

there not an incentive for them to use TANF funds, but we actually 

saw the States’ dedication to use TANF funds for child care slow 

down when they were under—no longer under pressure to get more 

welfare recipients into the workplace before the DRA. 

Not only was there not an incentive, but didn’t we see the accumulation of these surpluses? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes. I would say they weren’t spending them, and 

that’s why we have these surpluses. 

Mr. CAMP. All right. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Squier, let me go 

back to the colloquy that you had with my friend from Georgia, 

John Lewis. He was asking you about the number of children in 

poverty, and I think you compared the rate today with the rate in 

1996. We have so many people here, I want to make sure the facts 

are accurate. 

It is my understanding—and I am sure you will correct me if I 

am wrong—that the rate of poverty among children has gone up 

the last 5 years. Is that right? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, it has increased. 

Mr. DAVIS. What is of concern to me about that, Ms. Squier, is 

it has happened in the context of two things. We have had growth 

in GDP for five years in a row, is that correct? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, we have had a great economy. 

Mr. DAVIS. We have had, relatively—if this is on relatively—robust job creation for the last 3 years, is that correct? 

Ms. SQUIER. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. So, something isn’t working. I think that’s the point 

that Mr. Lewis was driving at. If we have an economy that, by your 

Administration’s count, is getting stronger and better and more robust, it ought to be reducing the ranks of poverty. We shouldn’t see 

the ranks of poverty going up. That’s what concerns some of us on 

at least one side of the dais. It suggests to me that something is 

not working. 

So, speaking from your perspective, Ms. Squier, someone who is 

involved in administering the TANF program, doesn’t it tell you 

that something isn’t working about how these policies are delivVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
25 

ered, if we are getting richer as a country, and more kids are getting poorer? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, it does tell me something. It tells me that 

States aren’t engaging people in work activities because they don’t 

have to, because they don’t have a meaningful work participation 

rate to meet. So, if you have to meet a zero work participation rate, 

pretty much, that’s what you’re going to meet. Seventeen States 

only had to meet 0, and again, the—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Squier, what does that have to do with the number of children in poverty? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, if parents work, you have less children in 

poverty. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, all right. Let me take that premise. First of all, 

it’s not necessarily the case, if they are low-wage jobs. Let me follow up on that. 

Take the number that you gave Mr. Lewis, going from a 6 percent job participation rate to a 57-percent rate. How many of those 

jobs are—well, give me a sense of the wage classification of those 

jobs. How many of those jobs are low-wage jobs? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I can’t speak necessarily to Georgia, but I do 

know that most TANF recipients go into their first job and make 

about $7 or $8 an hour. 

Mr. DAVIS. That would translate to how much a year? 

Ms. SQUIER. You’re going to make me do math under this kind 

of pressure? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, would you agree that it’s a fairly low amount? 

Ms. SQUIER. What does that come up to, do you know? 

Mr. DAVIS. $14,000? 

Ms. SQUIER. $14,000 to $16,000. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you consider that to be a middle-income job? 

Ms. SQUIER. I do not. I do think, though, that you have to—— 

Mr. DAVIS. It’s just poor, it’s not that poor. 

Ms. SQUIER. You have to consider all the other benefits that 

they get. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, Ms. Squier, you make my point, though. One 

of the things that you are touting is more people working. 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. That sounds like a good thing, but, again, because 

we have a lot of people here, and I don’t want them to be misinformed, if a lot of people are working, but they are abysmally 

low-wage jobs, that probably means they still can’t purchase things 

for their families. It means that they are still very much behind the 

eight ball. 

So, Mr. Lewis and I are trying to make the point to you, you 

can’t just judge the efficacy of this program by whether or not people are working. You have to look at the quality of the work, and 

the most important is quality—is whether it pays you enough to 

feed your family. 

Ms. SQUIER, but they—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, the second point that I want to make to you 

is I understood TANF, when President Clinton pushed it through 

11 years ago, there was a very simple goal, to encourage better conVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

duct on the part of a lot of welfare recipients, to get them to move 

toward more productive activity. Is that one policy goal of TANF? 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, if that’s the case, it would seem to me that the 

work requirements make sense for that reason, but it would also 

seem, for example, if someone is attempting to go to college, that 

that is a productive activity. Is it not correct that under the regulations that you have adopted, that States have less flexibility now 

to count BA classes toward vocational training? They have less 

flexibility now than they did before, is that right? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, actually, we do say under vocational/educational training, that there is not a road there to a baccalaureate 

degree. 

Let me just tell you how we got there, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, no, but this is what I want you to respond to. 

Why isn’t any kind of education good, productive activity, that 

gives these people a chance at a better life? 

Ms. SQUIER. I disagree that we don’t allow education and training—— 

Mr. DAVIS, but you make it harder, and you give States less 

flexibility than they had. 

Ms. SQUIER. I think only for a baccalaureate, and I will say—— 

Mr. DAVIS. You don’t think a baccalaureate degree is a productive thing for a person to have? 

Ms. SQUIER. We received many comments, just on this subject. 

While I won’t tell you what is in and what is out of the final rule, 

we received—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Squier, respond to my observation. 

Ms. SQUIER [continuing]. Many comments, and this is under 

consideration. 

Mr. DAVIS. Respond to my observation. I am talking about the 

status quo, not what happens after the commentary. Don’t you 

agree with me, that getting a college degree is a very important 

thing to help lift someone out of poverty? 

Ms. SQUIER. If they could do it, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if they could do it? Isn’t the premise that anybody should be able to get a college degree, if they apply themselves and work hard enough? 

Ms. SQUIER. That may be true. 

Mr. DAVIS. So, why shouldn’t the policies encourage people to 

try to do that? 

Ms. SQUIER. We got many comments on that, and we are considering it—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Why shouldn’t the policies encourage people to do 

that, Ms. Squier? 

Ms. SQUIER. They may, in the final. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, why are you agnostic about it? Why not just 

agree with me on that? 

Ms. SQUIER. We took the definition that the Department of 

Education had for vocational/educational training in order to keep 

it consistent across the Administration. They did not include baccalaureate. 

Since we put out the interim final rules, the Department of Education has come around and changed their definition, and they 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

have taken out any reference to not being able to get a baccalaureate. So, that’s why I think that—along with the comments I 

received—we may have some consideration for this. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will probably have some more discussion on this one, too. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Porter? 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

being here. We appreciate your testimony. 

I would like the record to reflect that President Clinton vetoed 

TANF twice, prior to its passing in 1996. I just want to make sure 

that that’s for the record. 

If we’re looking at 1995, there were 5 million families unemployed in the United States. If you look at 2005, 2006, there is 

about 1.7 million families that are not working. So, there has been 

a substantial improvement. Although not perfect, there are a lot of 

families now that have an opportunity. We could talk about the 

hourly wage—and certainly there are areas that needs to be adjusted—but compared to where we were in 1995, I think we have 

come a long way. 

Unfortunately, they are not making more. It would be great if 

they could, but at least now they are having an opportunity—almost four million more families have opportunities they didn’t have 

before, although not perfect. That really begs my question. We are spending about $600 billion a year on welfare in this country. Depending on the day—and 

I hate to use statistics, because we’re talking about real kids, real 

families, and real problems, but for the moment, we are talking in 

statistics—15 to 25 million kids at one time that are on welfare in 

the country. If my math is right, we are spending about $30,000 per poor 

child a year in our country. Now, this is facetious, but someone 

might suggest we should give each one a check for $30,000 and let 

them put it in the bank and live off of that. It would probably be 

a lot better lifestyle than some kids have today. 

The problem is, when we’re spending so much per child, the 

money is not getting to the kids in all cases. I know we try to give 

States more flexibility, but what can we do to make sure more of 

that $30,000 we’re spending per child under the age of 3 in this 

country to receive more benefits? What can we do to help streamline the process? 

The moms and dads out here that need help complain about access, and what they could do to make it easier? What would you 

suggest? 

Ms. SQUIER. That’s actually a tough question for me. As you 

know, the whole design of a block grant program is for States to 

have flexibility to design their own programs, to look at their populations, and to say, ‘‘This is where we need to expend funds, because this is where we have the greatest need.’’ 

I don’t think any of us here really want to take that kind of flexibility away from States. So, I think that’s a question that we really 

would need to ask to the States, what do they think they need to 

do to work with the population of children that are under three; 

they would be in a better situation than I to answer that. 

Mr. PORTER. What do you hear from States when you’re out? 

What are some of their number one complaints? 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

Ms. SQUIER. Since the interim final rule came out? 

Mr. PORTER. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SQUIER. What was happening before is that many States 

defined work activities very broadly—some bed rest, motivational 

reading, exercise, smoking cessation, journal writing—and they got 

credit toward work, while other States defined work in a more traditional sense. They didn’t get credit for all those things. So, in a 

sense, you had some States that were penalizing themselves. 

What we were directed to do under the DRA, is get rid of that, 

so that States have an equal playingfield. I think some States do 

not particularly like the fact that they can’t count anything they 

want as work. We put in there common-sense definitions of what 

we believe counts as work, and some of the other things that some 

States were counting no longer count toward work. I think States— 

that is one of the things that they don’t like. 

Mr. PORTER. We have had challenges in Nevada, because of our 

massive growth. We are growing, depending on who you ask, 7,000 

to 8,000 people a month. I know that you have made some adjustments for fast-growing States. We appreciate that. Is there any 

other areas for fast-growing States that you would suggest, to help 

with our massive growth, and cutting through the bureaucracy? 

Ms. SQUIER. You’re not supposed to be this hard on me. That’s 

not supposed to happen from you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SQUIER. I really would have to put some thought into that, 

and I actually will put some thought into that and share a response for the record. I don’t exactly know what to tell you right 

here and now of what I think States could do with a faster-growing 

population that would make a difference, other than what good 

welfare work programs are doing now. 

[The information follows:] 

Nevada has received a supplemental grant for population increases sin FY 1998. 

Since 2001, it has received $3.734 million each year in addition to its TANF grant 

of $43.977 million 

Although Nevada’s population is growing rapidly, its TANF caseload declined 62.1 

percent between August 1996 and Septemeber 2006. This indicates they should have 

sufficient TANF savings to fund any added costs associated with welfare reform. 

Moreover, the caseload decline from FY 2005 to FY 2006 has been 11 percent. In 

addition, the interim TANF rule gives States new flexibility to exclude parents caring for a disabled family member from the work participation requirements as well 

as gives states credit to count excused absences and holidays. In light of this information, we believe that Nevada should be able to meet the new program requirements despite the fact that it is a growing State. 

In regards to programmatic suggestions or recommendations, I would like to refer 

you to our Peer Technical Assistance website. Here you can find samples of Success 

stories and best practice methods used by many States. 

Mr. PORTER. Well, we are blessed in Nevada, that our unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in four decades, and I think 

we employed 90,000 people last year, but the problem is we still 

have kids that need help. So, I would appreciate it if we could get 

together to talk about some of those solutions. 

Ms. SQUIER. Great. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. 

Ms. SQUIER. We will put some thinking into that, and get back 

to you. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
29 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I don’t know how many times in 30 

years I have heard a witness say, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I am unique and unusual. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Well, Ms. Berkley from Nevada. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the Subcommittee. 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Appreciate you being here. I represent southern 

Nevada, which is the fastest growing district in the United States 

of America. While it is true that we have an extraordinarily robust 

economy, and we do, and our unemployment rates are relatively 

low, we have a growing problem with poverty in our community, 

and low-income wage earners. Consequently, the issues that we are 

talking about today are very important for the people that I represent. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Now, in the second panel, we have somebody 

from Nevada, who is going to enlighten the Committee Members on 

how serious this issue is, but when you’re talking about a State 

that is growing as rapidly as the State of Nevada, whatever adjustments you have made are not helping. The reason that you can’t 

give an answer to my colleague from Nevada is because there isn’t 

one, unless we adequately fund these programs. 

Now, if the States use TANF reserve for child care, what do they 

possibly have to fall back on? Let me tell you why I’m asking. 

After 9/11, we had massive lay-offs in the State of Nevada, obviously in southern Nevada. People come to Las Vegas for a good 

time. After 9/11, nobody was flying, and nobody was coming for a 

good time. There was a national tragedy we were all dealing with. 

We lost 1 year’s worth of business in the aftermath of 9/11. We 

had—because of massive lay-offs in the gaming industry, our TANF 

caseload almost doubled. We went through the reserve. There was 

nothing left. We went past the skin, past the muscle, into the bone. 

Now, if we’re talking about using the TANF reserve money for 

child care, but Nevada needs that money for other parts of TANF, 

what do we do in—when we have a State with an enormous—a 

rapidly growing population? Your block grants don’t cover our 

needs, and there is no way that we could use those TANF funds 

for child care when we need it for other things as well. 

Let me mention something else. We have one of the one of the 

blessings in southern Nevada is that our management of our gaming casinos—which a majority of people work in our gaming industry—and our labor unions work very closely together. 

We have the culinary training center that is funded by the gaming industry—pretty much funded by the gaming industry. When 

I meet with these welfare-to-work mothers, and I do on a period 

basis, what they tell me—and they are training for those $7 and 

$8-an-hour jobs—is that the two things they need more than anything else are child care and transportation. 

It doesn’t do us any good to train these women to get off welfare 

and go to work, if they have got children at home that need caring 

for. If their money that they make, the $7 and $8 an hour, is going 

to get eaten up by child care costs—and let me tell you, if you don’t 

know how much child care costs, let me tell you. The idea of $70 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

a month is a joke. It’s twice that, minimum, if you’re going to get 

anybody that you can trust with your children. 

Second thing they needed was transportation. Doesn’t do any 

good if you have a job and you can’t get there. So, your cuts, even 

if the President’s budget maintained what it did this year, maintained funding, we still lose out. Any cut is detrimental to progrowth States. So, what do we do? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, first of all, I don’t believe that you are getting a cut in child care. 

Ms. BERKLEY. How much are we getting in increase? 

Ms. SQUIER. The DRA contained an increase of about $1 billion 

over 5 years. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Okay. If it costs us twice that much to take care 

of our needy? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I can’t speak directly to your statistics in Nevada. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I can. 

Ms. SQUIER. Of course, and you’re very knowledgeable about 

your State, but, overall, with the caseload declines that have 

occured in this country—and I don’t have it, State by State—— 

Ms. BERKLEY, but we are not having a caseload decline in Nevada. So, what do we do? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, I was under the impression that Nevada was 

making a fabulous comeback. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Nevada is making a fabulous comeback, but we 

still aren’t where we need to be. So, what do we do? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well—— 

Ms. BERKLEY. What if we take the TANF funds and put it into 

child care, and we don’t have enough in the reserve, in case there 

is another, God forbid, 9/11 in this country? 

Ms. SQUIER. These are decisions that the people in your State 

have to make. Maybe they are very tough decisions. I can appreciate that they could be very tough decisions to make, but unless 

Congress—— 

Ms. BERKLEY. Do you not feel that the Federal Government has 

any obligation whatsoever to the people of this country? 

Ms. SQUIER. Of course I do. 

Ms. BERKLEY. To lift people out of poverty, give them these opportunities? 

Ms. SQUIER. Of course I do, and I think that’s exactly what the 

TANF program is set up to do, exactly those things that you’re saying. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Not if it is not adequately funded. A program 

doesn’t make—we also have Leave No Child Behind, but if you cut 

it by $71 billion, you’re leaving a lot of children behind. Same thing 

here. 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, Congress, I think, generously has chosen to 

not cut the TANF block grant, even though there has been, nationwide, a huge caseload decline. So, I—— 

Ms. BERKLEY. So, in—— 

Ms. SQUIER. I just—— 

Ms. BERKLEY. I would like you to report back to me, if you 

don’t mind. In a State like Nevada, where we have an increasing 

population, an extraordinary—our economy couldn’t get any better, 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

everybody that is employed and wants to be employed, is employed. 

So, what do you do in a case like the State of Nevada? 

[The information follows:] 

Nevada has received a supplemental grant for population increases sin FY 1998. 

Since 2001, it has received $3.734 million each year in addition to its TANF grant 

of $43.977 million 

Although Nevada’s population is growing rapidly, its TANF caseload declined 62.1 

percent between August 1996 and Septemeber 2006. This indicates they should have 

sufficient TANF savings to fund any added costs associated with welfare reform. 

Moreover, the caseload decline from FY 2005 to FY 2006 has been 11 percent. In 

addition, the interim TANF rule gives States new flexibility to exclude parents caring for a disabled family member from the work participation requirements as well 

as gives states credit to count excused absences and holidays. In light of this information, we believe that Nevada should be able to meet the new program requirements despite the fact that it is a growing State. 

In regards to programmatic suggestions or recommendations, I would like to refer 

you to our Peer Technical Assistance website. Here you can find samples of Success 

stories and best practice methods used by many States. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller has asked for the opportunity to ask a brief question. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Berkley raised, I 

thought, an important point. That is that Nevada is a very rapidly 

growing State, compared to States like Illinois, where everyone is 

trying to move somewhere else, it appears, including to Nevada. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WELLER. Particularly with the kind of weather we have 

been having, with the ice and snow these last few weeks. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Enough advertisement, Mr. Weller. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WELLER. Ms. Squier, a former Member of this Committee, 

John Ensign, now a Member of the Senate, as I recall created 

something called a TANF supplemental grant to provide additional 

TANF funds to States like Nevada, that are dealing with rapid 

population growth. Are you familiar with that? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes. 

Mr. WELLER. Could you explain that to the Subcommittee? 

Ms. SQUIER. There is $319 million for States that experience 

rapid growth, and I—that’s a very good point. I am not sure why 

that would not be available to the State of Nevada. 

Mr. WELLER. So, those funds are being made available, in addition to the regular TANF? 

Ms. SQUIER. Yes, they are in addition to the regular TANF. 

Mr. WELLER. Would you provide to the Committee, some specifics, how much Nevada receives from this program? 

Ms. SQUIER. How much they would receive? Sure. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You can submit it in written form. 

Ms. SQUIER. Okay. I would be more than happy—— 

Ms. BERKLEY. Can I have a point of clarification? Those—thank 

you for bringing that up, Mr. Weller, but I think it just emphasizes 

my point, because the grants are based on population numbers in 

the early nineties. 

Mr. WELLER. Right. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Since then, we have gotten an additional congressional seat, and that’s why Mr. Porter is sitting here. That’s 

how fast our growth is, and that’s why we need help. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
32 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your testimony here today. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I had a question about the work requirements, as it relates to individuals with disabilities. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Whether there be an opportunity to provide 

greater flexibility. One of the questions that obviously faces the 

States is making sure people meet the work requirements. Obviously, individuals with disabilities, especially more severe disabilities, may have difficulty meeting some of those requirements. 

So, my question, first question, relates to individuals who fall 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (P.L.101–336), 

and whether or not there is any provision made for providing flexibility for how they are expected to meet the requirements. 

Ms. SQUIER. The regulations meet the ADA, and States must 

also meet the ADA. There is no wiggle room there. It is a law, and 

they have to meet it. 

While there is no provision for a different level of work—30 

hours, 20 hours, what we are saying to States is that, ‘‘Now you 

have to pay attention to this population.’’ What was happening before, in my opinion, is States were taking people that were disabled, and they were putting them into separate State programs 

where they weren’t part of the work participation rate. 

Some States did that. Or, they had a very, very low participation 

rate and there was no incentive to work with people with disabilities. 

So, if anybody was remotely hard to serve, as you might call 

someone with a disability, they were languishing in welfare without benefits and services. What we really believe that this regulation does—and the law allows for—is to engage States to work with 

people with disabilities, so that they get the same benefits and 

services as anybody would that is not disabled. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, I—look, I believe we obviously need to 

provide as many opportunities for individuals with disabilities as 

possible. I guess the question is, in those cases where States feel 

that the have provided every opportunity possible, and are unable 

to meet those requirements—let me ask you, for example, individuals who apply for Social Security Insurance (SSI) benefits. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Those, as you know, that receive those disability benefits under SSI are people who are determined to be fairly disabled. That’s why they are receiving that particular benefit. 

My understanding—I don’t know the exact figure—of how many 

people who apply ultimately receive them, but I think it is at least 

35 percent, maybe more. 

I guess the question is, if you have got somebody going through 

that process—and this is a question that has been raised by some 

of the States—if you’ve got somebody going through that process, 

prior to them being determined eligible—because I know, and I 

think a lot of us know, this process can drag out sometimes as long 

as 2 years. 

Ms. SQUIER. Sure, it can. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
33 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Why not consider some flexibility, with respect to allowing them to be counted? 

Ms. SQUIER. Well, this is a problem for States, but the bigger 

problem is that 60 percent of those people that apply don’t get SSI. 

So, what they have done is they sat there for 2 years, without 

any benefits or services, eating up their time clock. I think that’s 

the bigger problem. We can’t afford to let people, of which a majority will not get SSI, sit there without any help to move them into 

some sort of self-sufficiency. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, and I understand that issue. I guess the 

question is whether or not—I mean, this is—35 percent is obviously 

still a significant number. I don’t know if there is any way to try 

and sort out or provide some accommodation or assumption that 

about a third of the people will get it, and make some accommodation based on those lines. 

Ms. SQUIER. I don’t know how you would predict who would be 

the ones to get it, and who wouldn’t. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. 

Ms. SQUIER. This is another area where I think if the State 

truly believes that they have someone who is going to qualify, then 

they ought to put that person in the 50 percent of their population 

that doesn’t have to meet work participation rates. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. 

Squier. I will tell Dr. Horn you did very well today. 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You survived an hour and 10 minutes 

of this? 

Ms. SQUIER. I did. That’s just the way I looked at it, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. SQUIER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You are welcome. The next panel,—if 

you will come up to the table, and we will quickly move on, here— 

we will now hear from the States. I would—I think all the Members of the Committee would appreciate hearing from you those— 

answers to those questions that you heard posed to the Federal 

Government. 

This is your opportunity to make us informed what it feels like, 

from your level. I hope that you will avail yourself of this opportunity. 

Our first witness on the second panel is Robin Arnold-Williams, 

who is from the State of Washington. My staff gives me a biography of everybody, and if I am going to go through all this—no, 

no, I’m not going to, except to say that Ms. Williams was with Governor Leavitt in Utah for 11 years before she came to the State of 

Washington. So, she has operated in a blue State and a red State, 

and has a balanced background. So, Ms. Williams? 

Of course, as I said earlier, your entire testimony will be put in 

the record, so we would like you to summarize, and then we will 

move to questions. 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Be happy to do that. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS, PH.D., SECRETARY 

OF THE WASHINGTON SATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND 

HEALTH SERVICES, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I am Robin Arnold-Williams, and I 

am the secretary of the Washington State Department of Social 

and Health Services, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today, to testify on behalf of Washington State, where we created 

WorkFirst in 1997, with very clear goals: work; personal responsibility; and accountability. 

We have succeeded. Our caseloads are down 45 percent, 160,000 

parents went off and stayed off welfare, and we now have 2.3 percent of our population on welfare, which is the lowest level in 30 

years. The DRA provisions are impacting how we operate our program, and our ability to support families. 

Discussions have turned to ‘‘take out’’ and ‘‘keep in’’ strategies, 

to achieve the best rate and avoid penalties not to best serve families. 

The TANF caseload reduction credit did need updating, but 

States should also get credit for moving parents into sustainable 

employment, for diversion, based on employment, and partial credit 

for families who are participating, but short of the Federal standard. 

Deeming of participation in activities governed by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (P.L. 75–718) is very positive, particularly for Washington, where have the highest minimum wage, but they also 

should be expanded to the full 30 hours of participation, where required—or where appropriate. 

We believe HHS has too narrowly defined populations excluded 

from work eligibility. In addition to SSI recipients, others with 

medically certified disabilities should be excluded, including SSI 

applicants and SSDI recipients. We are also home to a large population of legal immigrants and refugees in our State, and we love 

that it adds to our cultural diversity and richness. 

The regulations provide inadequate allowance for us to address 

the barriers for those who can’t speak English, have little education, or low levels of literacy. 

TANF parents do face significant barriers that have to be addressed, if they’re going to be successful in the work force. Barrier 

removal services are not fully countable, and are, instead, under 

the very time-limited job search category. I encourage Congress to 

clarify that this was not your intent. 

In our State, research shows that there is a 13 percent higher 

employment rate, and 17 percent higher median wage for TANF 

parents who complete a full year of vocational training, but since 

many of those programs have pre-requisites, the 12-month lifetime 

limit really shuts some people out from participating in that full 

12 months, and getting a credential. 

So, we do believe that an additional time period—and allowing 

up to two years—would ensure more parents are prepared to benefit, and can take advantage of that training. Basic skills education 

and English as a Second Language should be allowable, as part of 

vocational education. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
35 

The new child support pass-through options are very positive, 

but prohibiting States from using incentive funds to draw down 4D 

shifts costs to States when we are also being directed to take on 

new responsibilities, like medical support enforcement. The result 

for my State is a loss of $27 million a year. It will affect our ability 

to establish paternity, and establish and enforce support orders. 

States were required to submit work verification plans last fall, 

received generic feedback, and submitted revised plans at the end 

of February. States’ specific feedback will not come until the end 

of April. TANF rules remain in the early stages of clearance. Yet 

States are going to be subject to the new penalty in just 6 months. 

So, we can choose to expend resources revising our policy manuals, making systems changes, training staff, doing all those things 

now, to meet the deadline, and risk having to do it all over again, 

or we can we wait until we get final feedback and direction, and 

risk not having sufficient time to get it done. 

So, we would ask that you would give consideration to modifying 

the effective date to 12 months from the publishing of the final 

regs, which you heard from Sidonie, may not come until September. Yet October, right now, is the date that the penalties—we 

are held accountable for the penalties. 

So, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and 

I urge you to take steps to return greater flexibility to the States 

to operate our TANF program, while holding us accountable for 

true outcomes. Allow us to return our focus to connecting parents 

to the labor market, so they can increase their family income, support their children, and build a better life for themselves and their 

family. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnold-Williams follows:] 

Statement of Robin Arnold-Williams, Ph.D., Secretary of the Washington 

State Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, Washington 

Good morning, Chairman McDermott and members of the sub-committee. I am 

Robin Arnold-Williams, Secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and 

Health Services. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

State of Washington regarding the impact of recent legislative changes on critical 

programs serving low-income families. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1996, Congress approved the nation’s first major welfare reform overhaul in 

decades. Preceding enactment of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), 48 states including Washington State, were operating their welfare programs under federal waiver. No two of those 48 state waiver programs looked exactly alike and yet all were successful in their own right. Congress and the states 

struck a deal—states were challenged to achieve new goals surrounding work participation requirements and time limits within capped block grant funding and in 

return, states were granted unprecedented flexibility to design and operate their 

programs. 

I have had the opportunity to watch this flexibility spur innovation in two states. 

I have been with the State of Washington for two years and prior to that with the 

State of Utah. Washington created WorkFirst in 1997 with a motto of ‘‘a job, a better job and a better life’’. WorkFirst is clear about its program goals and target outcomes: 

• Work is better than welfare—paid work offers the best opportunity for families 

to escape poverty; 

• Personal responsibility—parents have primary responsibility in supporting their 

children; 

• Program accountability—our state constantly assesses WorkFirst performance 

and results, particularly in how it affects low-income families; and 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
36 

• Making the best use of limited resources—we safeguard the public’s money by 

using limited government resources to help those most in need. 

WorkFirst is implemented collaboratively by five state agencies—my Department 

of Social and Health Services, the Employment Security Department, State Board 

for Community and Technical Colleges, the Department of Community, Trade and 

Economic Development and our newly created Department of Early Learning. 32 

local planning area networks cross the state comprised of businesses, community 

agencies, tribal governments, Workforce Development Councils, and faith based providers address local issues and needs. Washington State is also proud to have the 

largest number of Tribal TANF and Tribal child support programs in the nation. 

The TANF program in Washington has succeeded far beyond original expectations. The number of families on welfare in Washington has dropped 45% since 

1997. Nearly 160,000 parents went off and stayed off welfare. Less than 2.3% of 

Washington’s population is on welfare—the lowest level in 30 years. Our success is 

best measured by the number of TANF families who entered employment. 

WorkFirst has helped over 250,000 parents get jobs. The birth rate among women 

on welfare has dropped by nearly one-third. We received high performance bonuses 

in 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2005 for job placement, job retention, and increased earnings—exactly the desired outcomes of a program seeking to help struggling families, 

especially single parent households increase their incomes and create better opportunities for their children. 

Given the success of Washington State, and all other states, expectations were 

high that TANF re-authorization would retain maximum state flexibility and control 

with any major changes focused on helping states address the serious barriers to 

employment faced by families remaining on assistance. Unfortunately, lack of consensus and compromise on issues related to work participation requirements prevented enactment of a stand alone TANF bill. 

With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) in 2005, states were disappointed that transition to measuring and rewarding states based on employment 

outcomes was not included, we remained hopeful, however, that implementing regulations would at least not take us backwards. We were again disappointed. 

Specific DRA provisions related to TANF and child support are having direct impact on how Washington State operates it WorkFirst program and our ability to 

support low-income families. In the past year, policy and service discussions have 

turned to ‘‘take-out’’ and ‘‘keep-in’’ strategies to achieve the best participation rate 

and avoid penalties, not to best serve families. Scarce federal and state resources 

are being diverted into new services to ‘‘fill’’ hours and meet new restrictive definitions rather than to further an individualized approach to achieving self-sufficiency. 

State legislatures are being asked to direct new state resources to fund those strategies and continue programs that can no longer count as maintenance of effort 

(MOE) but which provide a critical service to struggling families. 

PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS, RATES AND CREDITS 

Separate State Programs (SSP). To date in Washington State, the only SSP is our 

food assistance program for legal immigrants not eligible for federal food assistance 

due to PRWORA. Prior to the DRA, Separate State Programs were allowed to count 

as MOE and not subject to TANF work participation requirements. The DRA reversed this long-standing policy. It is proper for Congress to regulate the use of federal TANF dollars but not the use of what are exclusively state funds. 

Two-Parent Families: Two-parent families are held to a 90% work participation 

standard, compared to the 50% ‘‘all-family’’ rate. With the loss or drastic decline in 

the caseload reduction credit, few if any states are expected to meet the two-parent 

rate for the foreseeable future, guaranteeing significant financial penalties that 

states can ill afford. Within Washington State, we now have to allocate state funds 

to finance our Working Connections Child Care program for two-parent TANF families to reduce the weekly two-parent work participation requirements from 55 to 35 

hours per family in order to attempt to meet the rate. There has long been bi-partisan support for abolishing the separate two-parent rate, reflecting recognition that 

many of these families face barriers to employment as serious as those facing single 

parent families. Despite this consensus, the DRA retained the two-parent rate and 

I encourage you to act to change that. 

Employment v. Caseload Reduction Credit: While no one can quarrel with the 

need to update the TANF caseload reduction credit, we were disappointed that Congress did not take this opportunity to substitute a credit more in keeping with the 

underlying purpose of TANF—moving families into sustainable employment. Several 

proposals for an ‘‘employment credit’’—giving states credit against their participation rate targets for successfully moving parents into jobs—were floated during the 

TANF reauthorization debate, and these deserve to be reconsidered. The current 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
37 

rule makes little sense from a public policy perspective—states should get credit for 

moving parents into employment, not just for reducing the caseload. Congress 

should also consider giving states credit for ‘‘diversion’’ from TANF when it is based 

on employment. 

Partial Work Participation Credit: Another common sense proposal that was on 

the table prior to the passage of the DRA was to offer states partial credit for families who are participating in earnest but falling short of the federal standards. The 

current ‘‘all or nothing’’ approach means that a family participating just an hour or 

two shy of the standard is considered ‘‘not participating’’ for federal reporting purposes. This makes no sense, either for the families themselves who are clearly making a good faith effort, or for the states which are investing significant resources 

in these families. 

‘‘Deeming’’ Issues: One very positive feature of the DRA interim final regulations 

is the provision to ‘‘deem’’ hours of participation in certain unpaid work activities 

governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This means that parents in unpaid work activities who are restricted to less than 20 hours under the FLSA still 

get credit for 20 hours of ‘‘core’’ activities. This is a critical provision for Washington 

State where we have the highest minimum wage in the country. We believe this 

‘‘deeming’’ should be expanded to the full 30 hours of federally required participation, where appropriate. 

Parents or Dependents with Disabilities: The DRA directs HHS to define ‘‘who is 

[and is not] a work-eligible individual’’ for purposes of calculating federal participation rates. HHS has too narrowly defined those populations excluded from ‘‘workeligibility’’, particularly with regard to parents with disabilities. In addition to SSI 

recipients, other individuals with medically certified disabilities should be excluded 

from the definition, including SSI applicants and SSDI recipients. SSI applicants 

sometimes wait two years for approval. There seems no logical reason to exclude 

from participation requirements some individuals with medically certified disabilities and not others. 

Other ‘‘Work-Eligible’’ Exclusions: Washington State is home to a large immigrant 

population which adds greatly to our cultural diversity and richness. Some of these 

refugees and other legal immigrants need TANF assistance until they can get on 

their feet economically. Unfortunately, the DRA regulations make inadequate allowance for addressing the barriers to self-sufficiency experienced by people who cannot 

speak English and have little education and low levels of literacy. It takes time for 

these individuals to bring their English skills up to a level that allows them to compete for unsubsidized jobs. This is an even more significant problem for refugees, 

as they often enter the U.S. with this same lack of English and literacy levels and 

must also learn to navigate an unfamiliar culture without the benefit of having family and friends already here. 

Washington State has proposed two amendments to the DRA regulations to accommodate the needs of these individuals: 1) for refugees (and others of comparable 

status, such as victims of human trafficking), we propose they not be considered 

‘‘work-eligible’’ for up to 12 months; 2) for other legal immigrants, we propose that 

those who score below a certain level of English proficiency and literacy be excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘work-eligible’’ for up to 12 months. States should be allowed 

to apply these exclusions on a case-by-case basis. 

DEFINITION OF WORK ACTIVITIES 

Activities to Address Employment Barriers: Many of the parents currently on assistance face significant barriers to employment, including mental health problems, 

substance abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness. While these issues clearly 

need to be addressed before parents can be successful in the workforce, the new interim final TANF regulations issued in June actually hinder state efforts to help 

these families. This is because services to address these issues are not fully countable under the new regulations but are instead included under the very time-limited 

job search/job readiness category. 

HHS overstepped its mandate in restricting the counting of barrier removal activities in this way and I encourage Congress to step in and clarify in statute that this 

was not its intent. The most straightforward solution would be to create a separate 

‘‘core’’ participation category for these and other barrier removal efforts. Short of 

creating a new category, HHS could allow states to ‘‘blend’’ barrier removal activities into existing categories where appropriate, including subsidized employment, 

community service, and training or education directly related to employment. For 

example, Washington State currently runs a very successful transitional (subsidized) jobs program—Community Jobs—which integrates barrier-removal activities into total activity hours. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that has allowed 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
38 

states, including Washington, to be so successful in moving families from welfare 

to work. 

Adult Basic Education: TANF reauthorization was an opportunity to recognize 

and accommodate the importance of education in preparing families for the living 

wage jobs that will enable them to become truly independent of public assistance. 

This opportunity was not taken. Basic skills and English as a Second Language programs are key components of training necessary for lower-skilled individuals to succeed in the labor market. Unfortunately, those TANF recipients with the lowest 

skills often get stuck in low-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement. 

Adult Basic Education should be added as a ‘‘core’’ countable TANF activity. 

Expanding Vocational Education: Research indicates that in order to reach the 

‘‘tipping point’’ to economic self-sufficiency, a minimum of one year of college-level 

work and a credential are required. Since most vocational education programs have 

several pre-requisite courses that must be completed prior, the current one-year lifetime limitation on vocational education inhibits access to these programs. Expanding vocational education to two years as a ‘‘core’’ countable activity would ensure 

that parents are prepared to benefit from this training and that the largest number 

possible can access it. Contrary to the restrictive language in the TANF interim 

final regulations, basic skills education and English as a Second Language should 

be allowable as part of vocational education if a necessary or regular part of the 

program or if necessary for a TANF parent to access the training. 

FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION 

Child Support. While we are pleased that states have new options to pass through 

child support to families—we are seeking legislative funding and authority to implement this provision in Washington State—other child support provisions are concerning. Prohibiting states from using dollars earned from the federal Child Support 

Performance Incentive award toward the federal Title IV–D match clearly amounts 

to an ‘‘unfunded mandate’’ and should be rescinded. This provision effectively shifts 

costs to the state at a time when we are also being directed by the federal government to take on new responsibilities (i.e. medical enforcement against custodial parents, and collection of annual user fees). We estimate this provision alone will cost 

our child support enforcement program about $27 million annually and impede our 

ability to establish paternity, and establish and enforce child and medical support 

orders. This can only result in foregone child support collections, which families 

leaving or avoiding TANF depend on for economic survival. 

Work Verification Requirements. The DRA institutes a whole set of work 

verification requirements which amount to a dramatic shift toward federal micromanagement and focus on process and away from the state flexibility and client outcome focus of the original TANF legislation. This is the wrong direction for TANF 

and will only force states to pour precious resources into verification that could be 

better spent on strategies and resources that will actually move families towards 

self-sufficiency. At the very least, states need a clear ‘‘tolerance level’’ for compliance 

with verification requirements, so they are held to a reasonable and common standard and have some assurance federal penalties will not be assessed for minor ‘‘errors’’. 

The requirement for supervised and documented study time in the DRA interim 

final TANF regulations is a good example of verification gone overboard. If a TANF 

recipient is progressing in school, it is evident she is spending time studying. It is 

burdensome to the student and to the institution to devote time and resources to 

such verification, especially for single parents and for those facing transportation 

barriers or living in rural areas. States should have the option to replace the supervised study time requirement with an allowance of two hours of unsupervised study 

time for one hour of class time (the commonly accepted standard) if a TANF recipient is making satisfactory progress. 

Effective Dates and Penalties. States were required to submit work verification 

plans by the September 30, 2006 deadline established by HHS. While all states have 

received generic feedback on our plans and were required to submit revised plan by 

the end of February, we now understand that we will not receive direct, state-specific feedback until the end of April. We also understand the final TANF rules remain in the early stages of clearance. Most if not all states are engaging with their 

Legislature to modify state law and budgets without having a final sense of what 

will be required. Considering that states are to be subject to the new work 

verification penalty beginning in just six month—October 1, 2007—we are faced 

with two options, neither of which are desirable. We can choose to expend staff and 

financial resources revising policy manual, making computer system changes, modifying contracts, and re-training staff in order to have a chance of making the October deadline and risk having to re-do some or all of that depending on final rules 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
39 

and work verification requirements OR we can wait to receive final feedback and 

direction and risk not having sufficient time to make these changes. Consideration 

should be given to modifying the effective date to 12 months from the publishing 

of the final regulations. 

TOTALITY OF FEDERAL CHANGES 

As the head of a comprehensive state social and health services agency, I also 

have to call attention to the fact that TANF and child support changes are only one 

piece of the numerous federal legislative and administrative changes that have been 

enacted in the past two years. While not all of these are within the jurisdiction of 

this sub-committee, they all impact services and supports for vulnerable children 

and adults and struggling families. Washington State can provide you with a snapshot of the fiscal impact on the states of these changes. The totality of federal 

changes equates to a biennial request from my Department of nearly $80 million 

in new state funds to ‘‘back-fill’’ loss of federal funds, add staff to meet new administrative requirements, and implement changes to our TANF program. Questions can 

and should be asked whether this is the best use of scarce resources. More importantly, whether intentional or not, some of these changes are creating new barriers 

for individuals requesting and receiving needed services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I urge you to take steps to return 

greater flexibility to the states to operate our TANF program while holding us accountable for true outcomes. Allow us to return our focus to connecting parents to 

the labor market so they can increase their family income, support their children 

and provide a better life for themselves and their family. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Hansell is the acting 

director—or acting commissioner—for the New York State office of 

temporary disability assistance. I think you are acting only because 

the state senate has not yet confirmed your appointment. 

Mr. HANSELL. That is correct. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You have lots of experience. We welcome you. 

Mr. HANSELL. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HANSELL, ESQ., ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TEMPORARY 

DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, ALBANY, NEW YORK 

Mr. HANSELL. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. 

McDermott, Mr. Weller, and Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the impact of DRA child support and TANF changes. 

Today’s New York State TANF caseload of 280,000 represents a 

75 percent decrease since 1996. In this Administration, we intend 

to continue New York’s focus on rapid work engagement. 

In 2006, we collected a record $1.558 billion in child support. 

Only 15 percent of our child support caseload is currently receiving 

TANF assistance; 50 percent were former TANF recipients; 35 percent never received TANF assistance. These numbers suggest that 

successful child support programs keep many children and families 

from sliding back onto TANF assistance. 

However, we fear that our continued ability to help individuals 

move from TANF to employment may be undermined by some of 

the requirements of the DRA and the regulatory interpretations of 

HHS. 

I should first note that some of the DRA child support changes 

will help strengthen our program. Decreasing the amount of arrears triggering passport enforcement has made 44,600 more child 

support obligors in New York State subject to this enforcement 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
40 

mechanism, which is a good thing. The simplification of child support distribution rules, and the increased pass-through for TANF 

families are also important and positive changes. 

The elimination of Federal match for earned incentives will hurt 

our child support program. New York typically earns about $25 

million, at a minimum, each year in incentives. We pass on 60 percent of them to our counties, which carry out program activities on 

our behalf. Eliminating the Federal match for earned incentives 

will cost New York State and its counties at least $17 million, annually. 

In a difficult fiscal environment, as Robin indicated as well, the 

State and our counties are not in a position to fill this gap and to 

meet all the other new costs associated with DRA. Staffing reductions in the child support program are likely. The elimination of incentives may jeopardize our progress in increasing collections, and 

perhaps our ability to take advantage of the other DRA provisions 

to increase distributions to families. 

We are equally concerned about five significant TANF provisions 

in DRA that have undermined our efforts to increase participation 

rates. 

First, the interim TANF regulations prohibit States from counting toward the participation rate any time a participant spends in 

job search activities after six weeks in a given year, or 4 weeks in 

a month. Even worse, under HHS’s interpretation, a single hour of 

job search constitutes a full week of participation. 

We find it counterintuitive that Congress intended to make 

major investments in job skills development and training, and then 

forbid TANF clients to look for work after 6 weeks. I hope you will 

clarify that Congress had no intention to restrict job search so 

drastically, and that job search can continue beyond the 6-week period, if combined with at least 20 hours of core work activity, or 

as a component of a more comprehensive activity. 

Second, the interim regulations dictate that an individual can be 

absent from work activities no more than 10 days a year for any 

reason, or 2 days in a month. Most of us work in our own jobs 

under far more reasonable allowances for sick time, vacation time, 

and personal leave. Under HHS limitations, if a mother needs to 

care for a child too sick to attend school for more than 2 days in 

a month, she would not meet the participation rate. 

Third, the reason many parents require TANF cash assistance is 

that they are temporarily unable to work, for health reasons. 

Under the interim regulations, HHS has permitted treatment activities to be considered only as job readiness subject to the same 

6-week limitation as job search. This unnecessarily restricts State 

discretion to set reasonable timeframes for treatment for physical 

or mental health problems, alcohol, or substance abuse. 

Moreover, the HHS regulatory construct would then preclude any 

attempts to look for work following recovery from counting toward 

the participation rate for the remainder of that year. 

Fourth, some TANF parents are unable to meet the full 30-hour 

weekly requirement for a variety of reasons, including documented 

medical limitations. Reasonable partial credit for significant participation would create incentives for States to focus engagement 

efforts on all parents. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
41 

Partial credit for part-time employment would also let us reconcile, in individual cases, the requirements of TANF with those of 

the ADA. 

Fifth, in New York we exempt clients from work for disability 

reasons only when the social services district has required them to 

file a Federal disability application as a condition of TANF eligibility. We should not be penalized by having to include them in our 

participate rate while their applications are pending. 

I would also like to mention a few areas of welfare reform not 

addressed in the ADA. First, we also strongly support the elimination of the 90 percent participation rate for 2-parent families, as 

the President has proposed. 

Second, States should be allowed to exclude cases from the rate 

during the first month of assistance, when we must put child care 

and transportation in place before we can engage them in work activities. 

Third, the Senate-passed TANF reauthorization bill would have provided $6 billion in additional child care funding over 5 years. 

Quality and affordable child care is one of the most significant supports that enables low-income parents to work on or off TANF. The 

demand for child care will only grow with increases in participation 

rates, and I urge you to provide additional child care funds to meet 

this need. 

Given that the final regulations are not expected soon, I agree 

with my colleague, we need additional time to implement these 

rules. We would ask that any penalties, in particular, be forestalled 

at least until Federal Fiscal Year 2009. 

Finally, the President’s budget includes funding for a new TANF 

quality control program. We appreciate the need for accountability, 

but this proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept 

and goals of a block grant program like TANF, which has produced 

successful results by encouraging State creativity and flexibility. It 

suggests a mistrust of States, despite 10 years of success, and inappropriately focuses resource on process, rather than outcomes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansell follows:] 

Statement of David A. Hansell, Esq., Acting Commissioner, New York St2te 

Department of Temporary Disability Assistance, Albany, New York 

Good morning, Chairman McDermott and distinguished members of the Income 

Security and Family Support Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

My name is David Hansell and I am Governor Spitzer’s appointee as Commissioner 

of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA). 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impact on states of changes affecting 

low-income families contained within the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). 

OTDA is the New York State agency responsible for promoting greater self-sufficiency of the State’s residents through the delivery of a range of economic benefits 

and supportive services. New York, through a combination of these supports and 

through the State’s emphasis on work engagement, has had great success in its 

TANF program, and has seen unprecedented declines in the number of families receiving cash assistance. The New York State TANF caseload of approximately 

280,000 at the end of 2006 represents a decrease of about 75 percent from the historic high of 1.1 million in 1996. We project a further caseload decline of 5.6 percent 

in this current year. In this administration, we intend to continue and strengthen 

New York’s focus on rapid work engagement. 

We are also proud of New York’s accomplishments in the area of child support. 

We collected a record $1.558 billion in 2006. Over 92% of these collections were disVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
42 

tributed directly to children and families, making a critical contribution to economic 

self-sufficiency for many. In 2006, we continued to improve our paternity establishment percentage to 91%, our support order establishment percentage to 81%, and 

improved our cost-effectiveness, collecting $4.75 for every federal/state/local dollar 

spent administering our child support enforcement program. 

Our overall success rests on a package of work supports that complement these programs, including: the recent increase in our state minimum wage to $7.15 an 

hour; our robust state earned income tax credit; our increasing number of families 

who take advantage of federal food stamp benefits; and our substantial investments 

in subsidized child care. However, we fear that our continued ability to help individuals move from temporary assistance to long-term work engagement may be undermined by some of the requirements contained within the DRA and the regulatory 

interpretations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Child Support 

Our Division of Child Support Enforcement supervises the child support enforcement program, but program activities are carried out by our fifty-eight local social 

services districts, which include the City of New York and the fifty-seven other 

counties. The child support enforcement program helps strengthen families and reduce welfare spending by placing responsibility for supporting children on those parents with the financial resources to provide such support. For families receiving 

public assistance, the establishment and enforcement of support obligations provides 

an important step towards self-sufficiency. By providing child support enforcement 

services to families not in receipt of public assistance, future dependence on public 

assistance is avoided. 

At the end of 2006, only 15% of our child support caseload was receiving TANF 

assistance, 50% were former assistance clients and 35% had never received assistance. These statistics demonstrate that successful child support enforcement programs provide significant economic support to children and families on the path to 

greater self-sufficiency, and keep many children and families from sliding back onto 

TANF assistance. 

The DRA made many child support changes, some of which will assist us to further improve the child support enforcement program in New York. For example, decreasing the amount of child support arrears triggering passport enforcement from 

$5,000 to $2,500 increased by 44,600 the number of child support obligors in New 

York subject to this enforcement mechanism. This change holds great potential for 

increased collections. In addition, the DRA provisions to increase child support payments to families and simplify child support distribution rules, including the passthrough provision for TANF families, are important and will be carefully considered 

by New York. 

However, I would like to share with you our sense of how the misdirected DRA 

elimination of the federal match for earned incentives will negatively impact our 

child support program in New York State. 

Child support is a results-oriented program. Federal child support incentives are 

earned by states for meeting program performance requirements in five core areas 

(paternity establishment, support order establishment, current support collected, arrears collected, and cost effectiveness). The child support program’s strong mission, 

effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting 

annual and long—term performance measures earned OMB’s recognition as ‘‘one of 

the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide.’’ Over the last several years, New York has earned amounts ranging from $25 to $30 million annually in federal incentives based on our strong program performance. We pass on sixty percent of our earned incentives to our counties, to reward 

their local performance efforts and provide motivation for them to continually improve their efforts. Eliminating the federal match of earned incentives will cost New 

York State and its counties at least $17 million annually. Sixty percent (or approximately $10 million) of this lost federal support will be borne by our county-run child 

support offices. To put this impact in perspective, the vast majority of county child 

support program costs in New York (a full 70% percent) support adequate staffing 

to: 

• Interview child support applicants to determine if paternity and support establishment is necessary 

• Build our cases through our child support management system so automated 

locate efforts can be initiated 

• Develop petition filing packages to obtain paternity, support or judicial enforcement orders 

• Build, monitor, and update child support accounts on our child support management system 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
43 

• Address custodial and non-custodial parent customer service issues • Conduct local investigation of cases and appear in court on behalf of the local 

department of social services • Issue and respond to administrative enforcement actions and challenges • Work directly with the Family Court to obtain appropriate orders • Conduct outreach to program participants and local community-based organizations involved with custodial and non-custodial parents to improve compliance 

and parental involvement in their children’s lives • Report and maintain records for performance audit purposes so incentive funds 

can be earned 

In a difficult fiscal environment, New York and its local districts are not in a posi- tion to fill the $17 million gap created by this pending reduction in federal funds, 

and staffing reductions are likely to result. In fact, we are fearful that the elimination of federal match on incentives will jeopardize our steady progress in increasing year-to-year collections, and perhaps our ability to take advantage of the other 

DRA provisions to increase distributions to families. 

Because child support payments from parents reinforce parental responsibility, increase the incomes of thousands of New York families, promote two-parent involvement in their children’s lives, and prevent the need for other social services spending, we urge you to undo this elimination of the federal match on state-earned child 

support incentives. Abundant research has linked strong child support enforcement 

programs to reduced poverty, decreased TANF caseloads and improved child outcomes. Retreating from longstanding federal commitments in this area—commitments that have supported a successful federal-state partnership—seems to us 

penny-wise and pound-foolish. 

TANF 

We are equally concerned about a number of TANF provisions in the DRA that 

work counter to the flexibility Congress had previously provided states and, therefore, hinder our efforts to operate effective work programs. There are five significant 

provisions within the DRA, or its interpretation by HHS, that undermine New 

York’s efforts to achieve high participation rates and our commitment to helping individuals move to employment and economic self-sufficiency: 

• Rigid limitations on job search and job placement activities. In its interim 

TANF regulations, HHS has determined, based on its understanding of statutory requirements, that states are not permitted to count toward the federal 

work participation requirements any time a participant spends in job search 

and job placement activities beyond six weeks in any given year (four weeks 

consecutively). Even worse, under HHS’s interpretation, a single hour of job 

search constitutes a full week of participation. HHS has taken this position by 

interpreting the six-week statutory limit as applying to any job search, rather 

than just full time, stand-alone job search. We find it counterintuitive that Congress intended to make major investments in job skills development and training and then forbid TANF clients to look for work after six weeks. This simply 

makes no sense in a work-focused program. 

I urge you to clarify for HHS that Congress had no intention to restrict job search 

efforts in this manner, and that job search beyond the six-week period is permissible, if combined with at least 20 hours of a core work activity, or as an incidental 

accompanying activity to other components of allowable work activities. Many of our 

engagement programs require one day per week of job search as part of a full-time 

program of work experience and training. The ability to count job search and job 

placement efforts throughout the year is critical to enabling states to continually 

help parents enter the workforce, as we have successfully done for the past ten 

years. 

• Limitation on excused program absences that may be counted toward the work 

participation rate. Within the DRA rules, HHS has established that an individual can be absent from work activities no more than 10 days per year for 

any reason, with no more than two absences in any month. This requirement 

is overly stringent, and fails to reflect the reality of a typical workplace. Most 

of us are provided far more allowable absences, including reasonable sick, vacation and personal leave. Under the HHS limitations, if a mother were unable 

to participate full time due to her need to care for a child too sick to attend 

school for more than two days in a month, she would not meet the federal work 

participation standard. Additionally, the time parents are required to attend 

agency-mandated appointments, school conferences and court-mandated appointments are not countable as excused absences. While we are in complete 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
44 

agreement that it is necessary for states to enforce a work absence policy, we 

seek your support in clarifying these provisions within the DRA to permit states 

to count reasonable excused absences, especially those that are beyond the participant’s control, toward federal work participation standards. 

• Restrictions on the types of activities that could count toward the federal work 

participation rate requirement. The reason many parents require TANF cash assistance is that they are temporarily unable to work due to health-related 

issues that must first be addressed. Under the interim regulations, HHS has 

only permitted treatment activities addressing temporary disabilities to be considered as job readiness activities, which are subject to the same six-week limit 

as job search. This unnecessarily restricts state discretion in determining a reasonable amount of time to permit recovery through treatment, whether for overcoming temporary physical or mental health issues or alcohol or substance 

abuse. Moreover, the HHS regulatory construct would then preclude any attempts to look for work following recovery from counting toward the participation standard within a year. 

• Lack of partial credit for engaging individuals in work activities, even if such 

participation is not full time. Some TANF parents may be unable to participate 

for the full 30-hour weekly requirement for a variety of reasons, including documented medical limitations, the availability of only part-time work, or the assessment-based need for participation in activities not counting toward the federal work requirement. Providing reasonable partial credit for significant participation short of the 30-hour standard would create incentives for states to 

focus engagement efforts on all parents. Additionally, partial credit for parttime employment would allow us to reconcile, in individual cases, the potentially conflicting requirements of TANF and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. 

• Exclusion from the work participation rate when the head of household has been 

determined by the state to be medically eligible for federal disability benefits. In 

New York, we exempt clients from work for disability reasons only when the 

social services district has required them to file an SSI, SSDI or Veteran’s Disability application, as a condition of TANF eligibility. We provide necessary income support to these disabled individuals as they await determination, and 

should not be penalized by our inability to engage them in work, particularly 

when doing so may jeopardize their eventual eligibility for disability benefits. 

This issue is frustrating to states because the length of time these parents remain on TANF assistance is extensive, as it often takes a protracted period 

(generally 12 to 24 months from initial application through appeals) for a final 

decision to be made by the federal Social Security Administration. 

We believe that HHS has the authority to address these issues in regulation, but 

whether by regulation or statutory change, we would urge you to make sure they 

are addressed. I would also like to mention several key areas of welfare reform that 

were originally proposed but not addressed through the DRA reconciliation process. 

These are items that we believe Congress should reconsider in order to further the 

employment-related goals of the TANF program. 

• Repeal the separate 90% work participation requirement for two-parent families. 

We strongly support the elimination of this provision, as recommended in the 

President’s 2008 Budget, since a 90% participation standard has proven 

unachievable nationwide, represents a diversion from our overall engagement 

efforts, and works against two-parent family formation. Even if this is repealed, 

these parents would remain subject to work requirements as part of the AllFamilies participation rate. 

• Allow states to exclude cases from the work participation rate during the first 

month of assistance. While New York is a strong supporter of rapid engagement 

and will continue to stress this goal, there are significant administrative difficulties associated with ensuring a participant is engaged full time immediately. Due to the typical need to put child care and transportation services 

in place prior to engagement, it is virtually impossible to engage every participant full time as soon as they are found eligible. 

• Additional federal funding for child care. The Senate-passed TANF reauthorization bill would have provided $6 billion in additional child care funding over five 

years, to support efforts to engage additional TANF-eligible parents in the labor 

market. Quality and affordable child care is one of the most significant supports 

needed to enable low-income parents to work. Further, the demand for child 

care will only grow with increases in work participation rates. I urge you to provide additional child care funds to meet this need. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
45 

States also require additional time to fully implement the work-related requirements of the DRA and interim final regulations, given that the final regulations are 

not expected to be published for some time and that states have not yet received 

final approval of newly-required work verification plans. Many of the provisions require states to make substantial changes to computer systems, which require time 

for systems development and implementation. In particular, we request that any 

penalties associated with work verification plans be postponed until Federal Fiscal 

Year 2009. 

Finally, I would like to address an item included in the President’s 2008 Budget 

proposal that is of great concern to New York and other states. The President’s 

Budget includes $11 million for efforts to prevent improper payments and establish 

error rates in the TANF program. We strongly appreciate the need for accountability; indeed, it is a hallmark of Governor Spitzer’s efforts to ensure integrity and 

cost-effectiveness in all state programs. However, New York State believes that this 

proposed form of quality control and payment accuracy monitoring is fundamentally 

inconsistent with the concept and goals of a block-grant program like TANF, which 

has produced successful results through encouraging state creativity and flexibility. 

It suggests a mistrust of states despite their ten years of clear success in TANF, 

by focusing more on process than outcomes. Given the multiple and varied ways 

states have invested TANF dollars in moving families towards employment and economic self-sufficiency, a payment accuracy focus would be almost impossible to 

measure by any equitable and reasonable standard. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address these very 

real concerns. I hope that as you review the DRA, you will look for opportunities 

to make changes that respect the progress we have collectively made to date in the 

child support and TANF programs, and that will situate us for even better results 

in the future. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Ms. Ford, I am 

going to give Ms. Berkley a chance to introduce you. So, welcome. 

Ms. FORD. Thank you. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce the Members of our Subcommittee to Ms. Nancy Ford, administrator for Nevada’s division of welfare and supportive services. 

Ms. Ford has served as the administrator since July 30, 2001. In 

this role, she oversees programs including TANF, food stamps, 

child support enforcement, child care assistance, employment and 

training for TANF recipients, energy assistance, and eligibility for 

Nevada’s Medicare Program. A very daunting task. 

Ms. Ford served as the chief deputy attorney general for the 

human resources division of Nevada’s attorney general’s office for 

11 years before her appointment. She was in private practice before 

joining the attorney general’s office. I would like to welcome Ms. 

Ford to the Subcommittee, and I look forward to hearing her comments. 

Welcome. On behalf of my colleague and I, we both welcome you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Porter, if you would like to 

make—please don’t do it all over again. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PORTER. I will be very brief, I promise. Welcome. It is good 

to see you. It was a pleasure to work with you for many years 

while I was in the State senate. Thank you for your work. 

I think a highlight of her background is with the growth that we 

have mentioned in Nevada, it’s a serious challenge, but Ms. Ford 

has been on the forefront of technology, in transitioning the State 

into a state of the art—our technology is one of the best in the 

country. So, welcome to Washington. I appreciate you being here. 

Ms. FORD. Thank you very much. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
46 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I see that you had the unusual foresight of accepting this job on July 30, 2001, about 3 months before 

the real problems hit. 

Ms. FORD. We had a real challenge after September 11, 2001. 

We really did. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY K. FORD, ADMINISTRATOR, NEVADA 

DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, CARSON CITY, NEVADA 

Ms. FORD. Well, I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

for having me here. I am very happy to be able to present to the 

Committee. 

One thing I think you need to know. TANF, as we all know, was 

designed to be a block grant so the States would have flexibility in 

designing their own programs, and to be able to have their own 

programs. 

The DRA of 2005 significantly took away that flexibility. We no 

longer have that flexibility. We really design our programs to meet 

the needs of our clients. The focus has shifted, as a result of the 

DRA. The focus is no longer on assisting needy families to self-sufficiency. The focus is on meeting work participation rates, and 

avoiding penalties. So, it’s become a work program, rather than an 

assistance program. 

Now, one of the major impacts that has happened is the removal 

of the ability of the State to use their State maintenance effort dollars to create separate State programs. In Nevada, just a couple of 

years ago, we started to create some separate State programs. 

What we did is we put our hardest-to-serve clients that we knew 

would not be able to participate full time—which means 30 hours 

or more per week in strictly defined countable activities—we knew 

they could not meet that. 

So, we took: people that had disabilities under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, who are pending SSI and disability determinations from Social Security, which you know can take a significant amount of time; people that met Family and Medical Leave 

Act illness and physical limitations; people with substance abuse 

problems, domestic violence problems, mental health issues, and 

we put them in our separate State program. 

In 2006, we were able to make a 43 percent work participation 

rate with the remaining population, 43 percent. Everybody talks 

about 50 percent, and how easy that should be. We made 43 percent with the population that did not have significant barriers to 

work. So, by taking in that separate State program—they now have 

to get folded back into our participation rate—our rate drops to 27 

percent. I don’t know that we can make 50 percent by wrapping 

those people in. 

We have had a very good economy. As Mr. Porter pointed out, 

we have had a really good economy in Nevada. Well, what that 

means is that everybody who is capable of work and capable of selfsufficiency is out there working. So, the populations that is left on 

our caseload are our most needy, our most barrier-driven caseload. 

For Nevada, 38 percent of our work mandatory caseload, as defined 

in the new Federal regulations, have significant barriers to work. 

They cannot meet 30 hours of work a week. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
47 

What that means is that 62 percent of our caseload, that remaining 62 percent, must carry that 50 percent work participation rate. 

To do that, I don’t need to make 50 percent with those people. I 

need to make an 81 percent work participation rate with 62 percent of my population. I submit I cannot do it. I am going to be 

facing penalties. 

Now, I think there are ways that we can try and improve that, 

and that’s, like, expand eligibility, attract more working poor, but 

is that really the goal? To expand my rolls? To get more working 

poor, so I can count them? Or, is the goal to help my most needy 

citizens to actually get to self-sufficiency? 

If you do allow us to have separate State programs, then we can 

work with those people. Once they are able to work, and able to 

get into our participation rate, we can transition them over into our 

regular TANF program. 

One of my main concerns is that there may be an unintended 

consequence in the DRA. That is, I am concerned that it will actually encourage the break-up of families. The reason for that is because if we can’t provide the support we need to our parents, who 

are the most needy, and that they can’t be eligible any more, because they can’t meet our requirements, they are going to fall off 

our rolls. They will have nowhere to go, and they will have to give 

their children up to foster care or to relatives to raise. So, I am 

very concerned about unintended consequence, as a result of the 

DRA. 

So, what I would urge is that Congress reinstate the ability of 

States to have flexibility of their State programs. I agree, the caseload reduction credit needed to be trued up. Like I mentioned, last 

year in Nevada we made a 43 percent work participation rate. We 

had a 48 percent caseload reduction credit. We didn’t take advantage of that. We were trying to meet that 50-percent rate, and we 

did everything in our power to do that, and we made 43 percent, 

but like I said, it’s now down to 27 percent by wrapping those people, those hard-to-serve people, back in. 

The only other thing I would like to point out is that the 90 percent 2-parent rate, I think that is universally recognized as 

unachievable. The President has recommended it be abolished. We 

would all concur with that. I also concur with the comments made 

by my colleagues here. 

I would just like to mention the supplemental grant in Nevada. We get $3.7 million a year in supplemental grant, in recognition of 

our population growth. That is frozen at the 2001 level. What that 

means is that we have had no recognition for population growth 

since 2001. So, we get $3.7 million, but it’s frozen, so we won’t get 

any more. 

So, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ford follows:] 

Statement of Nancy K. Ford, Administrator, Division of Welfare and 

Supportive Services, Carson City, Nevada 

INTRODUCTION 

Good Morning Chairman McDermott, members of the subcommittee, I am Nancy 

Ford, Administrator of the Division of Welfare and Support Services for the State 

of Nevada. In this position, I am responsible for a variety of programs including the 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
48 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, Medicaid eligibility, 

Food Stamps, Child Support Enforcement, Energy Assistance, and Child Care Assistance. I am also here today as a representative of the American Public Human 

Services Association (APHSA). APHSA is a nonprofit, bipartisan organization that 

has represented state and local human service professionals for more than 75 years. 

I would like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to share 

with you Nevada’s concerns regarding recent changes to TANF as required by the 

Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005. 

BACKGROUND 

Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services as 

been focused on our mission statement ‘‘to provide quality, timely and temporary 

services enabling Nevada families, the disabled and elderly to achieve their highest 

levels of self-sufficiency.’’ Through PRWORA, states were provided the flexibility to 

develop and administer programs using the TANF Block Grant as long as those programs met the purposes of TANF as defined in federal statute. Nevada has demonstrated remarkable success in lowering TANF caseloads and moving families to 

self-sufficiency. 

The number of Nevada TANF clients per capita substantially decreased each year 

after the implementation of PRWORA, until it spiked in FFY02 and FFY03 when 

Nevada experienced an economic disaster related to a significant drop in tourism 

after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As Nevada’s economy recovered and 

individuals with job experience returned to the work force, the number of clients per 

capita fell significantly each year to present. Please refer to Exhibit # 1. Those who 

were work-ready left our roles; the remaining caseload represents the hardest to 

serve population. 

Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 removed state flexibility in administering 

the TANF Block Grant. The DRA made several significant changes which negatively 

impact the states’ ability to meet work participation requirements (WPR). The Act 

granted the Secretary regulatory authority to define ‘‘work eligible individuals’’ who 

must be included in the work participation rate; to define work activities, and to 

establish new work verification and documentation requirements. In addition, the 

DRA removed the states’ ability to establish separate state programs with maintenance of effort (MOE) dollars and rather includes those previously served through 

separate state programs in work participation requirements. Please refer to Exhibit 

# 2 for a comparison of TANF before and after the DRA. 

Nevada estimates more than one-third of our adult work eligible TANF clients 

have significant barriers to employment. These include individuals: 

• pending Social Security Disability adjudications; 

• with disabilities as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); 

• with mental health issues; 

• under a physicians care with temporary work limitations/waivers that meet the 

definitions under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); 

• in domestic violence situations; 

• with unresolved substance abuse issues; 

• in their last trimester of pregnancy. 

For the last few years, Nevada has assisted these families by serving them under 

a State MOE program. It was structured almost identical to the standard program 

but differed due to the clients’ barriers to participating full time in countable activities. Family members were required to participate to their full potential in a written 

plan which supported transition of the family from dependency to self-sufficiency. 

This caseload was primarily managed by social work staff who worked aggressively 

with families to address their barriers and stabilize the family situation. Once the 

individuals’ barriers had been addressed and they had the potential to meet the 

standard work requirements they were moved back into the standard TANF Program. 

DRA effectively eliminated our ability to use state MOE dollars to manage our 

difficult to serve TANF population by defining parents in these programs as ‘workeligible’ and including them in the participation rate. This will have a major impact 

on our work participation rates and our ability to achieve long-lasting self-sufficiency through the provision of tools and support these families require. 

For example: In FY 2006 Nevada’s transmitted participation rate was 43%. If we 

recalculate the participation rate by taking into consideration the individuals who 

were served in our State MOE Program, the rate drops to 27%. If you consider the 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
49 

fact that 38% of our caseload has significant barriers to employment, it leaves only 

62% of our caseload deemed capable of meeting the work requirements. To meet the 

work participation rate, 81% of these households would need to be meeting participation in order to meet the All-Family WPR of 50%. Please refer to Exhibits # 3 

and 4. 

Households who are not considered to have ‘significant’ barriers to employment 

still have a multitude of challenges to address, including: educational deficiencies, 

lack of job skills and job experience, transportation issues, child care issues, court 

ordered conflicts (delinquency of a child requiring supervision to retain custody, 

house arrest, community services, etc.), inability to problem solve and an absence 

of a family support system to fall back on when something unexpected happens. 

It has been Nevada’s observation substantially more TANF clients are engaged in 

program activities than the federal participation rates suggest. Many are engaged 

in activities that are acceptable at the state level but do not meet the work activity 

definition established by federal regulation. Many clients are in federally countable 

activities, but for fewer hours than required in the federal participation rate calculation, or remain in activities for longer periods of time than are countable under the 

federal limitations. There is no work participation credit provided for individuals 

who miss a few days of work and average 29.5 or fewer hours per week in a month. 

DRA mandates a change in the states’ focus from assisting families to their highest level of self-sufficiency to focusing on meeting work participation rates and 

avoiding penalties. We are currently restructuring our programs to meet the work 

participation rate and we are concerned an unintended consequence of DRA may be 

to encourage the break-up of families. Parents may be forced to give their children 

up to foster care or relatives to raise if they are no longer eligible for the assistance 

they need. 

CONSIDERATION 

Nevada fully supports the concept of transitioning TANF families from dependency to self-sufficiency, but suggests DRA fails to recognize the effort required to 

effectively address barriers and effect a permanent life style change in our hardestto-serve population. We ask that you consider the following requests. 

State MOE Funded Programs—The elimination of the state’s ability to use a 

state MOE funded program to insulate the hardest-to-serve population from strict 

federal work requirements forces the application of a Personal Responsibility Plan 

which cannot be achieved by the family and ultimately will result in a termination 

of TANF benefits. We ask that you consider returning some flexibility to the states 

and allow us to develop programs funded with state MOE dollars so we may provide 

assistance to our neediest families, while continuing to pursue the ultimate goal of 

their self-sufficiency. 

Two Parent 90% Work Participation Rate—We ask that you consider elimination of the 90% work participation rate for two-parent families. This rate has 

been recognized as unachievable and is proposed to be eliminated in the President’s 

2008 budget. 

Time Limited Work Activities—Under current statute, work activities defined 

under the Job Search/Job Readiness Category are limited to six (6) weeks in a 12- 

month period with no more than four (4) weeks consecutive. As this policy is currently applied, just one hour of an activity reported in a week exhausts one full 

week of this time-limited activity, although for work participation only one hour can 

be counted. We ask that you consider converting the limitation into hours so all 

hours of participation can be reported without exhausting the limitation with only 

a few hours of actual participation. 

Vocational Education is limited to no more than 12-months per TANF recipient. 

Currently as this policy is applied, just one hour of a reported vocational education 

activity reported in a month exhausts one full month of this time-limited activity 

although for work participation only one hour can be counted. We ask that you define the limitation based on hours or part/half/full time participation. Most vocational education is not full time and to meet the 30 hour requirement participants 

must also work or participate in other countable activities. It seems unfair to exhaust a full month of activity if the activity itself does not generate enough hours 

to meet work requirements. Defining this limitation based on part/half/full time participation would allow the same number of hours to be counted, but would allow the 

activity to occur over a greater period of time. 

Limitations on Counseling and Rehabilitative Services—The Interim Final 

Regulations defined many activities under the time-limited Job Search/Job Readiness category including: developing resumes, completing job applications, training in 

interviewing skills, instruction in work place expectations, life skills training, substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation services. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
50 

By defining so many activities in this time-limited category states cannot structure their employment programs in a manner that will both be successful in assisting the client achieve self-sufficiency and ensure the client will meet the work requirements so the state does not face penalties. 

For example, if a client needs substance abuse or mental health treatment, the 

issue will not be resolved in a four (4) week time period. A reasonable approach 

would be to provide some intensive up-front treatment, then move the client into 

employment or other structured work activity, but continue to require the client to 

participate in ongoing counseling and/or treatment to maintain the stability necessary to retain employment. The client should be allowed to count these required 

activities toward meeting their work requirement. 

While it has been suggested states are not prohibited from requiring clients to 

participate in ongoing treatment in addition to meeting their work requirements, requiring too many hours of activities for fragile individuals, who are heading fragile 

families just taking their first steps toward independence has been shown to be 

overwhelming and often results in failure. 

We ask that you consider allowing substance abuse treatment, mental health 

treatment and rehabilitative counseling to be defined in such a way as they can be 

countable for longer periods of time. There are ways to ensure states continue to 

stay focused on employment such as limiting the number of hours that are countable each month or changing statute to define this as a non-core activity that is only 

countable after the core activity requirements are met. Many of these concerns are 

reflected in the attached letter from the National Association of State TANF Administrators. 

These new TANF requirements will also place additional strain on our child care 

budgets. In order to support the efforts of our TANF families, child care dollars 

must be increased. A successful program will recognize and meet the real life needs 

of these families and provide realistic support to the expectation of attaining selfsufficiency. 

The DRA also took away the ability to match incentives in the Child Support Enforcement Program with federal dollars. Nevada supports reinstatement of these 

matching funds. Securing regular child support payments is another component critical to the success of these families attempting to transition from public assistance 

to independent living. 

SUMMARY 

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to share our concerns with you. 

The move in the Interim Final Regulations toward mirroring the real workforce in 

terms of holiday and excused absences as well as the clarification of the Fair Labor 

Standard Act is seen as a positive step. As the regulations currently stand, we often 

hold our recipients to higher work expectations than we hold the work force at 

large. We would like to see the trend to mirror the realities of the workforce continue by including reasonable accommodation for disabled individuals under the 

ADA and recognizing the provisions of the FMLA. 

Employment has been established as the primary objective of TANF, even for families with major barriers to employment. It has become clear that TANF programs 

have shifted from being a safety net for our most economically vulnerable families 

to a work program for low-income, mostly work-ready families. Unless there is flexibility provided in the TANF Program regarding state funded MOE programs and 

work activities and verification requirements to enable states to achieve the standards set by the WPR, states will be forced to restructure their TANF programs to 

assist only those families with the ability to meet the strict requirements or face 

severe financial penalties. The most needy families will fall by the wayside. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
51 

EXHIBIT 1 

EXHIBIT 2 

TANF Prior to 10/01/06 Deficit Reduction Act Changes 

• Caseload reduction credit reduces the required work participation rate [WPR] by 

the percentage reduction in caseload from 

1995 to current year 

• Caseload reduction credit that reduces the 

required work participation rate [WPR]is 

amended to be the percentage reduction 

from 2005 to current year 

• States can pay for assistance in cases 

through the required State Maintenance of 

Effort [ MOE] dollars, and those cases do 

not count in the WPR. 

• All cases including a ‘‘work eligible individual’’ as defined in Federal regulations 

count in the WPR, regardless of whether 

paid for by TANF Block Grant or State 

MOE 

• States have flexibility to define activities 

within the 12 areas specified in the TANF 

Federal statute. 

• Activities within the 12 areas specified in 

the TANF Federal statute are defined by 

the Federal agency through Federal regulations 

• States have flexibility on determining how 

to count hours in the WPR, how frequently 

and what documentation to secure. 

• How hours are to be counted, what documentation is required and how frequently, 

and how frequently activities are supervised is defined in Federal regulations 

• States determined whether to have internal 

review procedures and what those are. 

• States are required to have an internal review procedure which verifies work participation, documentation, and case status. 

Failure results in a new penalty against 

the TANF Block Grant. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.001
52 

EXHIBIT 3 

TANF WORKLOAD STATISTICS IN NEVADA AS OF JANUARY 2007 

Total TANF Caseload Containing a Work Eligible Individual: 2,557 

Total TANF Caseload Containing a Work Eligible Individual With Barriers * in the 

Hands of a Social Worker: 975 

Percentage of Caseload with Barriers: 975/2,557=38% 

Percentage of Caseload ‘‘Work Ready’’: 1,582/2,557=62% 

Required Work Participation Rate Equals 50%. Therefore, 1,279 cases [2,557/ 

2=1,279] must meet an average of 30 hours or more countable activities in a 

week. 

62% of the caseload is deemed capable of participating in full-time activities, 

which is an average of 30 hours or more per week. 

To achieve a 50% work participation rate, 62% of the TANF population must 

achieve the 50% rate. Thus, 1,279 of the 1,582 families must meet an average of 

30 hours or more countable activities each week. The State must therefore meet an 

81% work participation rate with that population to meet 50%: 1,279/1,582=81% 

* Barriers are defined as those families in which the parents have obstacles that 

interfere with or prevent the parents from engaging in full-time activities. These 

barriers may include: Disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act; temporary disability or chronic illness that meets definitions under the Family and 

Medical Leave Act; Parents who are pending a determination of disability by SSI; 

Mental health issues; Domestic violence issues; Substance abuse issues; and other 

situations that severely limit the ability of the parent to participate at the level required. 

EXHIBIT 4 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Ms. Harvey, 

you are from Georgia, and were singled out by the Federal repVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.005
53 

resentative as being the poster child of perfection. So, this is your 

moment. 

Mr. Lewis, if you wish to say something about Ms. Harvey, 

please. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce and to welcome Mary Dean Harvey, director of the Georgia Department of 

Human Resources Division of Family and Children’s Services. 

Thank you for coming to Washington to testify today. 

Ms. Harvey spent 17 years as a teacher in Omaha. In 1991, she 

was appointed director of the Nebraska Department of Social Services. She was president of the Boys and Girls Club of Omaha from 

1995 to 2002. Recently, she ran the Omaha Save School Health 

Student program, and now she is with us in the State of Georgia, 

the Peach State, where it’s a little warmer. 

Ms. Harvey, I may have some tough questions for you later, during the hearing, but that does not change my sincerity, and I welcome you here today. 

Ms. HARVEY. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MARY DEAN HARVEY, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF FAMILY 

AND CHILDREN, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Ms. HARVEY. Good afternoon, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Mary Dean 

Harvey, as Congressman Lewis indicated, director of the Georgia 

Department of Human Resources and Family, division of family 

and children’s services. I do thank you for this opportunity to speak 

to you about recent changes to programs assisting low-income families. 

For decades, the debate over welfare boiled down to one of two 

positions. Either you thought that the funding, if we had the right 

amount of funding and the right amount of enhancements, welfare 

might finally be good enough for families. Or, the other side of that 

coin was that you thought that welfare was too good of a deal, already. 

With the leadership of Congress in the nineties, national policy 

recognized the truth. Welfare was not good enough, is not good 

enough, and never will be good enough for any child, parent, or 

family. 

Our mission in State government is to find, in any given policy, 

opportunities to hammer away at poverty and dependency. Georgia 

has found ample opportunity in the DRA, but even before that, our 

governor, Sonny Purdue, made it clear that Georgia could not accept persistent dependence for any of its families. 

In that light, we have found the work participation rates to be 

not only reasonable, but modest. If you take a look and see what 

we have accomplished in Georgia, our participation rate has gone 

from 12.2 percent in 2000 to 68.1 percent today. Adult TANF cases 

are down 88 percent to just over 3,700. 

I would like to say that 37 of Georgia’s 159 counties have 0 

adults mandated to work, and an additional 88 counties have fewer 

than 10 folk mandated to work. Georgia is a large State with a 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
54 

strong economy, but no State could quickly grow itself out of poverty in that short of time. Instead, our strategy has been threefold. 

One, the first step was to put the numbers aside, forget the 

goals, and to engage our values. Ask ourselves, ‘‘What did we believe was good for families?’’ We believe that, in strong families, the 

parents work, that welfare is not good enough for any child, and 

that government should be a resource to family, not a substitute. 

When we put those values front and center, the numbers took care 

of themselves. 

Our second step was to stop treating all TANF families as if they 

were the same. We performed a kind of triage, what we call our 

‘‘pipeline,’’ categorizing adults as either ready to work, needing a 

little help, or being far from ready to work. 

Over time, as people move through the pipeline, the move from 

the far from ready to work to bringing home a paycheck. There is 

no question it was a daunting task. For some of them, it—we had 

to do in 4 years what the mommas, the churches, the schools, the 

communities had not done in 30. That was our task. 

I would submit to you that this daunting task cannot be tackled 

by having recipients awarded work participation credits for getting 

a massage or ready ‘‘The Great Gatsby.’’ Rather, what ought to 

count as work is actually working, or gaining the ability to do so. 

Our third step was to begin to constantly monitor our performance, so that we can guide our work, developing performance measures that reflected our values, having weekly meetings between supervisors and those case managers that did the work actually did 

pay off. 

We did all of these things without a significant increase in staff 

or budget, new legislation, or major policy changes. With this strategy, what we have done is the easy and the harder. Now we are 

working on the impossible, which, once we have done the rest, no 

longer looks so impossible. 

That would be the heart of my advice to any State worried about 

the new regulations under TANF, that they cannot be implemented, or what happens in one State can’t work for their families. 

We all have got to get beyond the point of saying that welfare is 

good enough for some people. 

A large part of reducing poverty has been making sure that both 

parents are supporting their children. For a mother or a father, for 

instance, who is a single parent raising a child, child support can 

make the difference between independence and welfare. 

The DRA has encouraged us to become more efficient. As a result, we have reduced the processing time for new cases, as was 

stated by Mr. Weller earlier, from a 71-day time that was our history, to same-day service. What that represents for families is twoand-a-half months of groceries, utilities, and everything else that 

raising a child entails. 

Our newest fatherhood grant expands an almost—already robust 

program to help parents in 12 rural counties get jobs. Even though 

83 percent of the participants come with a criminal record, and 89 

percent with no high school diploma, at the beginning of this 

month 70 percent of those who started the process are now employed, and 81 percent of those are paying child support. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
55 

As vital as the money is, child support is about far more than 

money. A boy who grows up without a connection to his father is 

300 percent more likely to become incarcerated. A girl is 164 percent more likely to give birth outside of marriage. Both are 71 percent more likely to drop out of high school. 

State governments have a vested interest in encouraging fathers 

to be fathers, not just to save money, but to save children. Both 

goals are so important that Georgia, in response to the DRA, included more State dollars, and most importantly, we re-engineered 

our programs to exceed demand. 

Where in the past we paid for paternity testing and other fees, 

now participants bear some responsibility for those tests, allowing 

us to recover about $7.2 million for the State. 

Our experience in Georgia has been that the DRA requires 

States to do things that we should already have been doing. For 

those of you who say it can’t be done, we are doing it. For those 

of you who say it might hurt families, I would simply ask, ‘‘What 

can hurt a family more than persistent dependence and low expectations?’’ States should stop selling recipients and themselves 

short. 

Thank you for affording me the time to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harvey follows:] 

Statement of Mary Dean Harvey, Director, Georgia Department of Human 

Resources Division of Family and Children, Atlanta, Georgia 

Good morning, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Weller, and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Mary Dean Harvey, Director of the Georgia Department of 

Human Resources Division of Family and Children Services. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about recent changes to programs assisting low-income 

families. 

It’s a privilege to speak with you today about Georgia’s experiences under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and our efforts, in conjunction with Congress, this Committee, and President Bush, to reduce poverty and increase family independence. 

For decades, the debate over welfare boiled down to one of two positions: you either thought that with a little more funding and the right enhancements, welfare 

might finally be good enough for families; or you thought welfare was too good of 

a deal already. 

With the leadership of Congress in the 1990’s, the established policy of our nation 

changed to recognize the truth: that welfare was not good enough, is not good 

enough, and never will be good enough for any child, any parent, or any family. 

By necessity, our definition of poverty relies on household income. That’s an unfortunate necessity, because income is merely a placeholder for the real issues that 

define poverty, such as whether a family can be independent, make its own choices, 

participate in meaningful work, and raise children who have a real opportunity to 

be better off than their parents. 

Our mission as representatives of state government is to take the policy agreed 

upon by our elected leaders and find opportunities to address the real defining characteristics of poverty—to hammer away at dependency and powerlessness. 

Georgia has found in the Deficit Reduction Act and subsequent regulations ample 

opportunity to effectively reduce poverty and increase family independence. 

Long before those policies were put into place, our Governor Sonny Perdue made 

it clear that Georgia could not accept persistent dependence for any of its families, 

and that our efforts under TANF should therefore be focused on guaranteeing that 

fundamental right that was once called ‘‘Freedom from Want;’’ not by merely providing a check and thereby camouflaging the problem, but by putting parents to 

work to end it entirely. 

In that sense, we’ve found the Federal goals for work participation to be not only 

reasonable, but in our estimation, modest. Further, we have rejected the use of various credits that would let us get by with a lower work participation rate to instead 

focus on actual work participation. 

We have seen great success. Georgia’s work participation rate has gone from 

12.2% in 2000 to 68.1% today. That kind of engagement with parents on welfare 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
56 

has brought our Adult TANF cases down 88% to just over 3,700. Thirty-seven of 

Georgia’s 159 counties now have ZERO adults mandated to work, and 88 other 

counties have fewer than ten. 

Georgia is a large state with a strong, dynamic economy—but I think anyone 

would agree that no state could simply grow itself out of that much poverty that 

quickly. Neither did we achieve impressive numbers by running off adults, as evidenced by the fact that our child-only cases have remained relatively steady during 

that time. 

Instead, our strategy has been three-fold. Our first step was to say ‘‘Let’s put the 

numbers aside and, instead, focus on what’s good for families.’’ That’s perhaps a surprising first step when those very numbers were what we were being asked to improve. But we didn’t look at it that way. We believed it was lives we were being 

asked to improve, and that the numbers would have to reflect that. And we were 

right. 

At DHR, we share with Governor Perdue a belief that strong families are ones 

where the parents work, that welfare is not good enough for any child, and that government should be a resource for families, not a substitute. When we put our values 

front-and-center, the numbers took care of themselves. 

Our second step was to stop treating all TANF families as if they were the same. 

We performed a kind of triage, what we call our ‘‘pipeline.’’ By working closely with 

them, we categorized adults as those who were ready to work, those who needed 

a little more help, and those who were far from being work-ready. Over time, those 

who were far from ready became those who needed a little more help; those who 

needed help became those who were work-ready; and those who were work-ready 

became those who are today bringing home a paycheck to support their own families. 

Each of these groups needed different kinds of resources and different levels of 

motivation. Some of them just needed to be pointed in the right direction and provided the proper motivation. For some of them, we were being asked to do in four 

years what mamas, schools, churches, and communities couldn’t do in thirty. There’s 

no question it was a daunting task. 

But I would submit, from our experience in Georgia, that this daunting task cannot be tackled by having a recipient awarded work participation credit for getting 

a massage or reading a list of selected American classics. Rather, what ought to 

count as work is actually working, getting the skills to be actually working, or removing some significant barrier to actually working. 

Our third step was to begin constantly monitoring performance so that we would 

have empirical data to know what was working, who was getting the job done, and 

where we had to focus our efforts to get better. We came up with performance measures that reflected our values and began weekly meetings between supervisors and 

case workers to talk about the status of each case, ask hard questions, and demand 

answers. 

We did all of these things without a significant increase in staff or budget, without new legislation, and with few changes to policy. 

With this three-point strategy, we have not only gathered the low-hanging fruit, 

but also that which required us to break out our ladders and reach into the higher 

branches. We’ve done the easy, the hard, and the harder. Now we’re working on the 

impossible. But the funny thing about the impossible is that, once you’ve done the 

rest, it no longer looks so impossible. 

That would be the heart of my advice to any state that would come before you 

and worry that new regulations under TANF cannot be implemented as they stand, 

or that what may work in other states won’t work for their families. 

Our national policy has finally gotten beyond the concept that welfare is good 

enough for ‘‘some people.’’ It’s up to us as states to do the same. 

A large part of reducing dependence and poverty in all states has been an increased focus on child support enforcement. And, indeed, a key part of our TANF 

strategy is to make sure that both parents are supporting their children. Quite 

often, that monthly support makes the difference between whether a mother and 

children are dependent on welfare or fully independent. 

In respect to child support, the Deficit Reduction Act has presented us with an 

opportunity that is somewhat foreign to many state governments: the need to examine the way we do business to get more efficient and to clear away the cobwebs of 

the past. 

Anyone who’s written by committee knows how a five-page document becomes a 

50-page one: everyone adds; no one takes away. Child support policy and practice 

has worked that way, but with a committee spanning generations. We’ve used the 

DRA as an opportunity to question those practices and eliminate the unnecessary. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
57 

As a result, we’ve reduced processing time for new cases from an average of 71 

days to same day service. In case you’re keeping score, 71 days equals two-and-half 

months of groceries, doctor’s bills, utilities, and everything else that raising a child 

entails. That for a single mother who may be a week’s pay from needing welfare 

at any given time. 

Georgia is using our newest fatherhood grant to help parents in 12 of our rural 

southern counties get jobs—or better-paying ones—so they can begin paying child 

support. This represents an enhancement of our already robust Fatherhood Program. Even though 83% of participants come to us with a criminal record and 89% 

with no high school diploma, at the beginning of this month, 60% of those who started the process were employed and 81% of those were paying child support. 

But as vital as that money is, child support is about far more. That’s why Georgia’s fatherhood program also focuses on access and visitation for fathers. A boy who 

grows up without a connection to his father is 300% more likely to be incarcerated 

as a young man. A girl is 164% more likely to give birth outside of marriage. And 

both are 200% more likely to have emotional problems and 71% more likely to drop 

out of high school. 

State governments have a vested interest in encouraging fathers to be fathers— 

not just to save money, but to save children. Both goals are important to Georgia—so important that, in response to DRA, 

we’ve re-balanced our books and re-engineered our programs to include more state 

dollars. And whereas in the past we picked up the tab for costs like paternity testing and processing fees, now we’re asking participants to bear some of that responsibility—recovering $7.2 million for the state. More than simply helping us balance 

the books, these user fees advance a core belief we at DHR hold about good government services: that they work best when they’re a partnership. By actively responding to the requirements of the DRA, rather than merely figuring how to ‘‘live under 

them,’’ we have built the capacity to not only meet demand, but exceed it. 

The partnership philosophy extends to the relationship between the Federal government and the states, requiring an active response from both sides. Our experience in Georgia has been that the Deficit Reduction Act has asked and required that 

we do those things we really should have been—and were—doing to start with. At 

the Georgia Department of Human Resources, our mission is to be a resource to 

families, not a substitute. Our estimation is that Congress, through the DRA, has 

made that a national policy. 

For those who say it can’t be done: we’re doing it. For those who say it might 

hurt families, I would ask: what can hurt a family more than persistent dependence 

and low expectations? States should stop selling recipients—and themselves—short. 

Thank you for affording me this time to speak with you. I’d be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Mr. Herger, 

would you like to introduce Mr. Wagstaff? 

Mr. HERGER. Sure. Welcome, Mr. Wagstaff. It is good to have 

you. While not a constituent of mine, you are certainly from our 

great State of California, and you’re a director of the Sacramento 

County Department of Human Assistance. Welcome. 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. Yes. Mr. Herger, I’m sure you won’t remember 

this, but you and I worked together in the mid-eighties on the 

original GAIN bill in California. So, it’s a long time ago. 

Mr. HERGER. I do. We were both very young men. 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. Exactly. Still are. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE WAGSTAFF, DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for including counties in today’s discussion 

on recent changes to programs assisting low-income families. 

I am Bruce Wagstaff, director of human assistance for Sacramento County, California. I am representing the National AssoVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
58 

ciation of Counties (NACO), as well as the County Welfare Directors Association of California. I am also the former TANF administrator for the State of California. I have submitted my full testimony for the record. 

With respect to the TANF program, the counties that administer 

TANF are proud of how we have implemented the 1996 Federal 

welfare reform law. We have changed an entire culture, moving our 

staff from check writers, adhering to strict process rules, into counselors who help clients move from welfare to work. 

The way in which we use our funding has also shifted from cash 

aid to supportive services. From caseload reductions to increases in 

work, to a decreasing reliance on cash assistance, TANF has been 

a success. 

Against this backdrop of success, States and counties had hoped 

that reauthorization would fix some of the issues that had been 

rightly identified as limiting State flexibility in the original law, 

but when the Department of Health and Human Services issued 

regulations, we were disappointed to see them heavily focused on 

process, rather than outcomes. The regulations include narrow definitions of work activities and process-heavy requirements for 

verifying and documenting participation. 

I would like to make it very clear that counties are not afraid of 

increasing participation to move recipients into work. In California, 

we began the work to increase participation before TANF was reauthorized, because it was the right thing to do for families and children. What we want is the ability to run our programs in the best 

way for our clients, our business communities, and our local situations. 

A majority of those on our welfare rolls today are engaged in 

some activity, including a mix of work, education, training, and 

treatment. It is important to note, particularly given the discussion 

you have heard today, that the Federal work participation rate captures only those families who are participating full-time in federally-recognized activities. It does not capture the tens of thousands 

of individuals participating part-time and/or in activities not recognized by the Federal program, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, and domestic violence services. 

The Federal rate is also a point-in-time snapshot. It does not recognize the many people who are engaged, but who are new to the 

program, leaving welfare soon, or in between formal activities. 

One additional issue to mention before I get into specific recommendations, particularly given the discussion today, is child 

care. These services are absolutely essential. Without them, the 

parents we work with would be unable to participate fully in welfare-to-work activities. We believe that, without any increases in 

the child care and development fund, or the TANF block grant, it 

will be harder and harder for States to provide child care to all recipients who need it. We would urge you to revisit this issue, and 

consider providing additional funds for child care for our participants. 

We understand that you will not be able to completely reopen the 

reauthorization discussion. However, smaller changes would increase flexibility, and return us to a system focusing on outcomes, 

putting clients to work, rather than process. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
59 

We propose the following specific changes which are fully detailed in my written testimony: give partial credit for partial participation; clarify and simplify work verification and reporting requirements; allow realistic participation in behavioral health activities; allow partial participation for persons with disabilities; and 

count job search, job readiness, basic skills in English as a Second 

Language as a component of any work activity. 

Finally, I would echo what Ms. Williams and other have said, 

that the statute be adjusted to adjust the implementation schedule 

and delay the October 1, 2007 deadline for work verification plans. 

As you heard, States are still in the process of talking to the Federal Government about those plans. All States got them in by September of 2006, as was required, but subsequent to that, the Federal Government issued guidelines that required every State to resubmit those plans. 

So, we would ask that we get at least a year, from the time that 

our plans are approved, before any penalties are subject to imposition. 

I want to also mention some comments on child support in my 

remaining time. Counties urge Congress to restore the DRA cuts to 

the child support program. The cuts will reverse State and county 

progress in establishing child support for families, and affect millions of children whose families depend on these payments. 

In order to improve child support, Congress established a competitive incentive program. Funds must be reinvested in the system, and States and counties could use the payments to leverage 

additional Federal funds. 

Effective October 1, 2007, States and counties will be prohibited 

from this practice. Losing the ability to leverage Federal dollars is 

of most concern to my colleagues who administer child support. The 

incentives have enabled States and counties to double their collection rate over the past 10 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand you are considering introducing legislation on this issue. Just yesterday NACO adopted a resolution 

supporting legislation to restore these cuts. 

Two other provisions I want to make quick reference to, with respect to the DRA on child support. First, the imposition of a collection fee discourages parents from participating in child support, 

and will increase the likelihood of families remaining on, or needing public assistance. 

Second, to encourage paternity establishment, the Federal Government provided a 90 percent match for those costs. The DRA reduced the match to 66 percent, which will reduce States’ ability to 

establish parentage. 

In California, the child support cuts will reduce funding by over 

$90 million a year. You have heard other States talk about this. 

Michigan reports $28 million in lost funds, Minnesota $23 million. 

It is so dire in Wisconsin that Lacrosse County is holding a raffle, 

where the proceeds will help fund the child support program. They 

are actually here today and gave me one of their raffle tickets. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. This concludes my formal remarks. Thank you, 

again, very much for including counties in this hearing today. As 

you consider your next steps in this congress, please do not hesitate 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
60 

to contact myself or our Washington, D.C.-based staff if you have 

further questions. Or, if you would like to visit local programs 

when you return to your districts. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wagstaff follows:] 

Statement of Bruce Wagstaff, Director, Sacramento County Department of 

Human Assistance, Sacramento, California 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family 

Support, thank you for including counties in today’s hearing on recent changes to 

programs assisting low-income families. I am Bruce Wagstaff, Director of Human 

Assistance for Sacramento County, California. I am representing the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA), as its Self-Sufficiency Committee Chairman. I am also the former 

TANF Administrator for the State of California. 

We particularly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today because 

many of the statutory changes and subsequent regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services are having a devastating effect on our ability 

to provide effective services to families and children in need. 

As background, NACo is the only national organization representing all county 

elected and appointed officials. More than 2,200 of the nation’s counties are members of NACo. CWDA represents the human service directors from each of California’s 58 counties. CWDA’s mission is to promote a human services system that encourages self-sufficiency of families and communities and protects vulnerable children and adults from abuse and neglect. 

The role of counties in administering federal low-income programs varies widely 

among states, and even within states. In California, for example, counties administer all social services programs, with oversight from the state. Others, such as 

Pennsylvania administer some, but not all of the programs at the county level, with 

others administered by the state. There are also a few states where some but not 

all of the counties administer one or more of the programs within this committee’s 

jurisdiction. With this diversity in mind, NACo asked numerous state associations 

of counties and county human services directors to send us their comments on the 

effect of the TANF regulations and the cuts to child support in preparation for this 

hearing. 

TANF 

As you are well aware, welfare as we knew it changed forever with the passage 

of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program more than a decade ago. 

The counties that administer TANF are proud of how we implemented the 1996 federal welfare reform law and our authorizing state statutes. We formed strong public-private partnerships, bringing together employers, community—and faith-based 

organizations and the other local and state agencies that serve our participants. We 

changed an entire culture, moving our staff from check-writers who adhere to strict 

process rules into counselors who assist clients in moving from welfare to work. The 

way in which we use our state and federal funding has shifted from a focus on cash 

aid to a focus on supportive services such as child care, transportation, and skills 

training. Instead of speaking of ‘‘entitlements,’’ we speak of ‘‘self-sufficiency.’’ From 

caseload reductions, to increases in work, to a decreasing reliance on cash aid, 

TANF has been a success. 

Against this backdrop of success, states and counties had hoped and anticipated 

that TANF reauthorization would fix some of the issues that had been broadly identified as limiting state flexibility in the original law. For the most part, the Deficit 

Reduction Act in and of itself did not severely limit states’ flexibility, nor did it expand flexibility as we’d hoped it might. When the Department of Health and Human 

Services issued regulations to implement the DRA changes, however, we were disappointed to see them heavily focused on process rather than outcomes—something 

we thought we had moved away from with the 1996 TANF statute. The regulations 

include narrow definitions of work activities, add parents who have reached their 

statutory time limits on aid into states’ work participation rate calculations, and implement process-heavy requirements for verifying and documenting participation. 

I would like to make it very clear that counties are not afraid of participation. 

In California, we began the work to increase participation before TANF was reauthorized, not just because we felt pressure from the federal government but because 

it was the right thing to do for families and children. For example, our state enacted 

a statutory requirement that every welfare-to-work participant have an engagement 

plan in place within 90 days of them entering the program; we did this three years 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
61 

ago, when the idea was under discussion in Congress. What we do want, however, 

is the ability to run our programs in the best way for our clients, our business communities and our local situations. 

Unfortunately, the regulations that have been issued will impede, rather than enable, our efforts. I am here today to ask you to be enablers, to help us in our work, 

and to improve upon some of the most problematic areas of the regulations. 

You might be surprised to hear that a majority of those on our welfare rolls today 

are engaged in some activity, including a mix of work, education, training, and 

treatment. States generally report lower participation numbers than this, however, 

because the federal work participation rate captures only those families who are 

participating full-time in federally recognized activities. It does not capture the tens 

of thousands of individuals participating part-time and/or in activities that are not 

recognized by the federal program, such as mental health and substance abuse 

treatment, domestic violence services, English as a Second Language programs, and 

services to assist with learning disabilities. Counting only those in federal activities 

for the minimum number of hours is misleading, because it may lead some to conclude that the rest of our participants are sitting around doing nothing—and nothing could be further from the truth. 

The federal rate is also a point-in-time look. It does not recognize the many people 

who are engaged in our programs, but who are new to the program, leaving welfare 

soon, or in-between formal activities. To illustrate why this matters, think about an 

emergency room. At any given time in the ER, there will be some percentage of people waiting and some percentage being served. However, if we observe the ER over 

the course of the entire day, we would hope and expect that 100 percent of the people are served. The federal work participation rate is a snapshot—it essentially 

looks at that one moment in the ER when a relatively small percentage of patients 

are being served, rather the much higher percentage served over the course of time. 

Our programs do face numerous challenges. For California counties, as with 

states and counties across the country, one major challenge is to address and remedy the problems of families that are a long way from being ready to maintain stable employment and move off welfare. These families often struggle with a host of 

personal issues such as poor education, limited skills, little or no work history, behavioral health issues, domestic violence, disabilities, and involvement with other 

public systems such as child welfare and law enforcement. Many of these families 

are engaged in work or other activities, but for less than the required number of 

hours. Many include a disabled adult or child, a victim of domestic abuse, or other 

situations that render them exempt from participation under California rules and 

who we believe should be exempt under the federal rules as well. This does not 

mean that we stop working with these families to get them engaged in appropriate 

activities; it is a recognition that the barriers for some are so great that expecting 

32, 35, or 40 hours of work from them, at least at certain points in time, is unrealistic. 

Another major challenge is to assist displaced or underemployed workers who lost 

their jobs during the recent recession. In many areas, unemployment rates soared 

during the past few years. Many of those who recently entered TANF or returned 

to the program after losing a job, already have marketable skills but need temporary assistance, possible retraining, and supportive services to boost them back 

into the workforce. 

We really do have a number of different subgroups within our program today, just 

as we did in 2001 when we first began talking with elected officials about TANF 

reauthorization. There are those who just need a quick hand-up to get back into the 

labor market, and those who are longer-term recipients who might have received 

welfare as children, for example, and are now in the program as parents themselves. 

Finally, there are those who are working and participating, but are not yet able to 

earn enough to get off of aid forever. Figuring out how to help all of these very different sets of families is extremely important and extremely complex. 

One additional issue I would like to mention before I get into a few specific recommendations for change relates to supportive services, especially child care, that 

states provide to working TANF families. These services are absolutely essential— 

without support like subsidized child care, the parents we work with would be unable to participate fully in welfare-to-work activities. These services are also costly. 

Quality child care does not come cheap. Without any increases in the Child Care 

and Development Fund (CCDF) or the TANF block grant, it will continue to be 

harder and harder for states to provide child care to all recipients who need it without sacrificing other necessary services and supports for families on aid. We urge 

you to revisit this issue and consider providing additional funds for child care for 

our participants. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
62 

The National Association of Counties and CWDA support maximum state and 

county flexibility in implementing the TANF changes. Unfortunately, the interim 

final rule issued last August and subsequent advisories issued by the Administration for Children and Families have not only reduced flexibility but have also increased program complexity. Comments we received from around the country were 

consistent in expressing concerns over the work reporting and verification requirements, the work participation rate calculations, and the limitations on allowable activities. 

We understand that you will not be able to completely reopen or overhaul the Deficit Reduction Act or the subsequent regulations. However, several smaller changes 

would increase state and county flexibility in meeting participation rates—returning 

us to a system focusing on the outcome—the participation rate—rather than process. Changes can be made without compromising the work participation requirements or the focus on moving families toward self-sufficiency. We propose the following specific changes: 

• Give partial credit for partial participation. Many recipients are participating for a portion of the required hours in federal activities. However, states 

receive no credit for partially participating individuals. At various times during 

the TANF reauthorization debate, partial credit proposals were on the table. We 

believe these proposals should be revisited, as they help to ensure that the efforts of states and counties to engage participants in as many hours as possible 

are recognized and recorded. 

• Clarify and simplify the work verification and reporting requirements: 

NACo believes that the documentation requirements for many of the allowable 

activities will pose an administrative burden and should be revised. These include daily reporting for job search and biweekly reporting for education related 

to employment, secondary school attendance, vocational education, and jobs 

skills training, among others. Simpler methods exist, such as negative reporting 

systems in which participants are presumed to be engaged in their assigned activity unless the program supervisor reports otherwise. 

• Allow realistic participation in behavioral health activities. The interim 

rules allow for some substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence services to be counted toward job search/job readiness activities for up to 4 to 6 

weeks. However, the rules essentially force states to count even one day of participation in these activities as an entire week. This is counterintuitive, and a 

departure from how such activities would likely be utilized in the regular world 

of work. States and counties should be able to count an hour of participation 

as one hour. Since these activities are limited to six weeks, essentially prorating 

one hour to count as a week of participation would short-change individuals 

with substance abuse or other behavioral health problems. States and counties 

should be able to count 240 hours a year of these activities for each individual. 

• Allow partial participation for persons with disabilities. States and counties 

should be allowed to count participation by individuals with disabilities based 

on the number of hours that their medical professionals deem appropriate for 

the individual, even if it is below 30 hours a week. This is consistent with the 

Federal Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Count job 

search, job readiness, basic skills and English as a second language as a component of any work activity: Today’s economy requires a well-trained workforce. 

Individuals with poor basic skills and poor English language skills will not be 

able to obtain meaningful employment. Counties, therefore, suggest that basic 

skills training, remedial education, and English as a Second Language count as 

job readiness activities and be an allowable component of vocational education. 

Job search and job readiness are critical components of self-sufficiency plans. 

The six-week restriction should apply only to stand-alone job search as a core 

activity. The limitation should not apply to job search and job readiness activities that are combined with other work preparation activities. 

• Do not penalize states that help children with a safety net. A number of 

states, including California, have chosen to give a reduced grant to children 

whose parents reach their time limits on aid but still meet other eligibility requirements, including having income below a certain level. The HHS regulations include the parents of these children in states’ work participation rates. 

Please do not put states in the position of having to decide whether to eliminate 

assistance for these vulnerable children. 

• Two Parent Work Participation Rates. NACo and CWDA would like to commend the administration for proposing to eliminate the two-parent work participation rate as part of their FY 2008 budget proposal. The 90-percent rate is unVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
63 

realistic and will penalize states that are otherwise doing a good job of engaging 

participants. 

Finally, we recommend that statute be enacted to adjust the implementation 

schedule and delay the October 1, 2007 deadline. States submitted work 

verification plans to the Department of Health and Human Services by September 

30, 2006 as it requested. However, HHS subsequently issued blanket guidance to 

states and required all states to revise and resubmit their initial plans, which are 

just now being sent back to HHS. It is our understanding that states will not receive direct feedback from HHS until April at the earliest. States and counties will 

likely have to make various changes at that point and work with HHS to secure 

final approval, giving us five months at most to retrain staff. This is a recipe for 

problems, inconsistencies and incomplete implementation. States and counties 

should be given at least one full year from the date that they receive final approval 

of their work verification plan to implement without fear of being penalized in the 

meantime. 

Child Support 

Counties urge Congress to restore the cuts to the child support program made 

under the Deficit Reduction Act. The cuts will reverse state and county progress in 

establishing child support for families and ultimately will affect millions of children 

whose families depend on the payments to meet daily living expenses. 

In order to improve the administration of the child support program, Congress established a competitive incentive program for good performance. Funds earned are 

required to be re-invested in the system. Additionally, the law was crafted to allow 

states and counties to use the payments toward leveraging additional federal investments in the program. Effective October 1, 2007 states and counties will be prohibited from this practice under the child support program. 

Losing that ability to leverage additional dollars is of most concern to my colleagues who administer child support. Those efforts and incentives have enabled 

states and counties to double their collection rates over the past ten years and thousands of families avoid the social service system as a result. Other federal initiatives, such as programs supporting marriage, also allow re-investment of federal dollars as match. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are considering introducing legislation on 

this issue. This weekend, NACo adopted a resolution supporting legislation to restore these cuts. 

Two other provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act are also troubling. The imposition of a collection fee discourages parents from participating in the child support 

program and will, coupled with the reduced collections, increase the likelihood of 

families remaining on or needing public assistance. When families do not receive 

child support, they need more help from public assistance programs. Some states 

and counties may choose to waive the fee and absorb the costs in order to encourage 

parents to participate and/or because it may be cost-effective than the costs of 

charging the fee. 

To encourage paternity establishment, the federal government has provided a 90 

percent match for those costs. The DRA reduced the match to 66%. This decrease 

reduces states’ ability to establish parentage. When children are deprived of the 

right to two parents, the door to Social Security, pension/retirement benefits and 

health insurance, opportunity for extended family ties (especially the critical father/ 

child relationship) and access to critical medical history and genetic information is 

closed to them. 

In California, the child support cuts will reduce funding to the state’s program by over $90 million a year. Efforts are underway in California to backfill the loss 

of funds, given the large return on every federal dollar invested. A federal restoration would help the state invest even more into this successful program. 

While California may backfill the loss, counties from around the country have told 

us that many states will not be able to do so. While time does not permit me to 

provide you with the detailed responses we received, here is a sample of what these 

cuts will mean to county programs. These cuts in administrative funding will compound the real losses in financial support provided to families. Michigan counties face a potential loss of $28 million. The loss in Minnesota is estimated at $23 million. Indiana counties face a shortfall of over $7 million. New 

York counties expect to lose $10 million a year. North Carolina Counties expect to 

lose $5.3 million in revenues. Ohio expects a reduction of $60 million a year. Pennsylvania counties may lose over $4 million in two incentive payments. Wisconsin 

will lose about $6 million in FY 2007, $1.7 million of which will be attributed to 

Milwaukee County. When the cuts take full effect next year, the projected loss for 

Wisconsin counties by 2008 is $25 million. It is so dire in Wisconsin that LaCrosse 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
64 

County is holding a raffle where the proceeds will help fund the child support program. 

These administrative losses will reverse years of progress in the collection of support for families by producing a ripple effect due to the way the incentive funds have 

bolstered county staff who pursue and enforce support orders. A good illustration 

is Ohio. The only way to compensate for the loss of funds would be to reduce staff 

by approximately 25 percent. Ohio collects almost $600,000 in child support per 

staff member. The Center for Law and Social Policy estimated that this would 

translate to a reduction in child support collections of $197 million in the first five 

years. Clearly, the ones who would suffer the most are the children. Similar scenarios are projected in counties in many other states. I will submit additional information from some of those counties in other states before the hearing record closes. 

This concludes my formal remarks. Thank you again for inviting us to testify and 

provide the county perspective. As you consider your next steps in this Congress, 

please do not hesitate to contact me or our Washington, D.C.-based staff if you have 

further questions or if any of you would like to visit local programs when you are 

back in your districts. At this time I would be glad to answer any questions you 

may have. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. In your testimony, one of the things 

that you posed for the Committee, I think, is the fact that we’re 

looking at five different programs. You wonder how in the world do 

people sitting at this dais make decisions about what makes sense 

for all of you. I couldn’t help but looking at the data, that the Georgia TANF program says that less than one-third of those people 

leaving TANF are going to work. 

Now, I—the rest of you—she does it in 1 day. How can possibly 

one State do it in 1 day to evaluate people for TANF, and others 

take as long as you do? I would like to hear what the response is, 

because you are saying that the game is now—I think Ms. Ford’s 

testimony was that it’s becoming a work, not an assistance program. It really is one of games of numbers for us. I am not sure 

that that’s necessarily in the best interest of the States. 

I would like to hear you talk a little bit about that. Any place. 

Ms. Williams? 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. I would be happy to start. I think a 

couple of things—and you rightfully pointed out you have five very 

different programs here—and for those of us that have been involved from the very beginning, that was the whole point of welfare 

reform, via waivers and then statutory changes. 

Let me just talk about in your State, in your home State, where 

I have the privilege of operating the program. First, we do do a lot 

of diversion when people first come in the room. So,—to apply for 

assistance. Talk about what’s really going on with their family. We 

don’t get credit for that, because they never come on assistance, but 

75 to 80 percent of those individuals don’t come on assistance, or 

stay off for at least 12 months. We track them. 

So, we do some of that 1-day service, and that first-day service. 

We don’t get credit for that, because they’re not on our rolls. That’s 

one of the things we think we should get credit for, if it’s for employment. 

Second, we do a very comprehensive assessment and evaluation 

of individuals, because we do want to find their barriers. We do 

want to know if they have substance abuse problems. We do want 

to know what their educational backgrounds and skill levels are, 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
65 

so that we can appropriately put them into activities for which they 

can best benefit, and are individualized for them. 

So, I will tell you, that takes us 30 days, because we do one as 

a part of ours, our community colleges do a part of the assessment, 

our job service agency does a part of the assessment. We want to 

take a comprehensive look at that. That’s the decision that the 

State of Washington has made, and we are free to make under the 

TANF program, to say, ‘‘We want to do a comprehensive assessment.’’ 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Until the present set of regulations, 

you will have to change it. 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. We are going to continue to do it, and 

we will run the risk that we won’t be able to meet all of those 

rates. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Hansell? 

Mr. HANSELL. Yes, thank you. I believe my colleague from 

Georgia said she did 1-day assessment for child support, is that 

correct? Not for TANF. I would be extraordinarily impressed if any 

of my colleagues did a 1-day assessment for TANF. 

Certainly, our experience in New York has been that the best 

way to move people from TANF to employment as quickly as possible is to do the most comprehensive possible assessment up front, 

which I think is what Robin is saying. What we want to do is make 

sure that we put exactly the right set of services in place for each 

client that is going to give them the skills, and overcome whatever 

deficits or barriers they have, so they can first succeed in a work 

program within TANF, and then succeed, hopefully, in working 

outside of TANF. 

So, it does require some more up front investment, but our experience is that, in the long term, it’s much more effective, in terms 

of moving people into work programs, and then ultimately, off of 

TANF into full-time employment and self-sufficiency, off of public 

assistance. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. How is it that she made all these 

cuts—or reduced her caseload in the last couple of years? Why are 

you unable to do that? 

Mr. HANSELL. Oh, we have done that. Our caseload has 

dropped, as I said in my testimony, 75 percent since the beginning. 

Just in the past year, our TANF caseload is down another 5 or 6 

percent. So, our caseload is continuing to decline—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Still continuing down. Is everybody 

continuing down? 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Ms. HARVEY. Mm-hmm. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Okay. 

Ms. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in Nevada also do extensive assessments to make sure that what we are dealing with 

with our clients, that we are providing them with the best opportunities for success. What our goal is, is to get them into jobs where 

they can have wage gain, so they’re not just getting a minimum 

wage job and going out there, but that they have got a job where 

they can anticipate that they are going to have wage gain, and 

they’re going to be self-sufficient into the future. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
66 

So, assessments are very, very important. We have social workers on staff that actually do—— 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Do you get any more credit for getting 

them into a job where there is a ladder up, or a dead end job? 

Ms. FORD. No. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. It’s the same credit? 

Ms. FORD. It’s the same credit, regardless, and they have got to 

be in a full-time activity of 30 hours or more. 

Yes, our caseloads are down. We are at the lowest rate per capita—see, that’s another thing. The work participation rate is based 

on raw numbers, it’s not based upon your per capita population. 

We are at the lowest per capita rate ever. Therefore, we have the 

most hard to serve in our population now. We still have to meet 

a 50 percent work participation rate. 

So, the people remaining on our rolls are the people that have 

the most significant barriers, and have the toughest time. Even if 

they don’t have barriers like disabilities or medical issues, they are 

not skilled in life skills, they are not trained, they are not educated. We have to make them attractive to employers. If they’re not 

attractive to employers, they’re not going to get employed. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I guess one of the things—I see my 

time is up, and I don’t want to overstep it too far—but one of the 

things that troubles me in listening to your testimonies about the 

participation of people with handicaps, where you’re waiting for another Federal agency to make a decision, it’s almost as though the 

States are caught between a rock and a hard place. 

In the one sense, they have come in for assistance, and in another place, they are waiting to get assistance or adjudication that 

will allow them some assistance, and you are being penalized for 

keeping them on the roll. You have to count them, even though it 

doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Is that a fair assessment of 

what’s going on? 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. Yes, Mr. McDermott, it is. Mr. McDermott, if 

I might add, from a county perspective, I can assure you, in terms 

of these time frames that we are talking about, that in my county 

and every other county colleague I have talked to, the interest is 

in moving recipients into work as quickly as possible, and to good 

jobs. 

The issue is that different clients have different needs, have different issues that have to be dealt with. What my caseworkers tell 

me nearly every day is that they need that flexibility to address 

that individual situation, to develop an individualized case plan 

that spells the best future for that particular client. 

So, that’s why we’re concerned when we say job search can only 

be 12 weeks, or behavioral health can only be 4 to 6. In many of 

our counties, we are dealing with methamphetamine crises. That 

treatment takes much longer than that to be dealt with, if that client is truly going to be able to get a job and keep it. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I did not let you speak, Ms. Harvey, 

or I did not give you an opportunity. Please, if you have got something you want to say back to these people, I would like to hear. 

Or, in response to what they said. 

Ms. HARVEY. No, I am in full agreement. An assessment is essential. Our average length of stay on TANF is 17 months. Our 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
67 

view—and I think, if there is a difference, is a philosophical one. 

It’s how we frame our house. Our house and our TANF work is 

framed by values. We believe that $264 a month and $267 a month 

is not sufficient. We believe that work is inherently good for the 

person. We believe that people should have a stake in their own 

future, self-determination, if you will. That is how we frame our 

work. 

Therefore, we have always—particularly in the last 2 years—construed TANF to be a work program, and not an assistance program. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller? 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Harvey, in your 

testimony, you talked about how you changed the culture of welfare 

in Georgia to focus on what’s good for families, providing individualized assistance, you monitor performance, and you demand accountability. 

When I was here in 1996 and welfare reform was enacted, that 

was a pretty basic philosophy of what was included in welfare reform. That was certainly the message I was hearing from my own 

taxpayers back home. They want to help folks, but they want accountability, they want personal responsibility, and they want to 

lift people out of poverty. 

It appears you believe that—in leadership, and that implementing the vision of leadership is really critical. It’s my understanding in Georgia the counties administer TANF through the 

program under the State, so each county has an office that administers—— 

Ms. HARVEY. That is correct. 

Mr. WELLER. I have a performance management report card for 

Fulton County Department of Family and Children’s Services from 

the employment services section. I was looking at this, and this 

chart is color-coded, and it shows in November of 2003, it looked 

like, on average, the work participation was 8 to 10 percent. 

Well, some changes must have occurred. If you look at this chart, 

you will see that changes must have occurred—and accountability, 

essentially—for the caseworkers. Then, over time, some went from 

8 percent to well over 50 percent. I noticed those who achieved that 

were promoted to supervisor. Those who were not successful went 

on to other things. 

What occurred? What management decision, or management 

change occurred to see these improvements in work participation 

rates by the clients under each of these caseworkers? 

Ms. HARVEY. Principally, it was direct leadership of my boss, 

Commissioner B.J. Walker, who came aboard about 2004, hired by 

Governor Purdue. Commissioner Walker has a philosophical belief 

that work is good, that families matter, that the best government 

is a supportive government, and not a substitute family. That 

drives everything. 

It drove it to the point that a person was put on the ground, representing leadership on the ground in counties, looking at data, 

looking at performance, looking at who the people are that they are 

working with, and actually engaging the workers in the whole discussion about how do we move these folks from where they are to 

where they can be, and need to be? 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
68 

So, our pipeline concept, which grew out of this, was actually created by workers themselves. They said, ‘‘A part of that assessment, 

we must do that assessment’’—— 

Mr. WELLER. The workers, not a caseworker? 

Ms. HARVEY. By the caseworkers. If I could add, Georgia is not 

my first experience with this. In Nebraska, we were a forerunner 

to the Federal Government, with a time clock and a cap on birth 

and all of that, when I served under Governor Nelson. I can say 

to you, the—one of the bigger stumbling blocks is the culture of the 

employees that you have to deal with. 

One, we had run a program for decades that was about checkwriting, that was about help, that was about assistance, but it was 

a different kind of help. I have seen generations of folk grow up 

on assistance. This is the first time in my life—and I just racked 

up 62—it’s the first time in my life I can imagine that we really 

are not preparing for generations of dependents, but we are actually talking about engaging folk meaningfully. 

Now, is there a perfect environment out there to get that done? 

No, there is not, but should that stop us from pursuing? I don’t 

think so. 

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, may I put this chart into the 

record? I ask unanimous consent. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection. 

[The provided material follows:] 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
69 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.015
70 

Mr. WELLER. Just to follow up—I realize my time is limited 

here—on child support, Ms. Harvey mentioned—and I think she’s 

very proud of that—they reduced from 71 days to 1 day processing 

of child support, and the impact of what that means. Can each of 

the other agencies represented here tell us how many days in your 

particular agency it takes to process child support claims? 

[No response.] 

Mr. WELLER. Those who know their answer. 

Mr. WAGSTAFF. Mr. Weller, for California—I have to check 

statewide data on that, and get back to the Committee. I don’t have 

statewide data with me. 

Mr. WELLER. Ms. Ford? 

Ms. FORD. I would be happy to provide additional data. I know 

we have child support workers in our TANF offices. So, when people come in to apply for TANF, they go over to our child support 

worker, and they get information. 

Mr. WELLER, but you don’t know the number of days? 

Ms. FORD. I can’t tell you exactly how many days, but I would 

be happy to get the information. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you. 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. I also don’t have that right with me, 

but I would be happy to provide that to you. 

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Hansell? 

Mr. HANSELL. I will do the same. Our child support process 

also includes judicial involvement, so it is somewhat outside our 

control, but we will get you that information. 

[The information follows:] 

Honorable Jim McDermott 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security & Family Support 

Congress of the United States 

U.S. House of Representatives 

B–317 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative McDermott: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of New York State before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support on the recent changes to programs assisting low-income families contained within the DRA of 2005 (DRA). As 

promised, I am writing to follow up in response to the question you raised at the 

hearing on March 6th regarding the amount of time it takes to put child support 

in place compared to Georgia’s ‘‘same day service’’ program. Your request for a letter 

from the Governor of each state represented at the hearing regarding documentation of citizenship prior to Medicaid eligibility for newborns is being sent under separate cover. Additionally, I would like to reiterate New York’s concerns and recommendations with regard to the child support and TANF portions of the DRA. 

Following your Subcommittee’s hearing, our child support director contacted his 

colleague in Georgia to obtain more information on Georgia’s ‘‘same day service’’ program. Our understanding of Georgia’s ‘‘same day service’’ program is that it is being 

tested in Carrolton County, Georgia and involves providing a walk-in applicant with 

information and services sufficient to build a case, perform locate of noncustodial 

parent and make a referral to a legal office for any necessary petition preparation 

prior to the applicant’s leaving the office that same day. To the degree that a child 

support applicant in New York is able to provide sufficient information on a noncustodial parent through our application/interview process, we too are able to provide same day service to the point of petition referral. In fact, later this year New 

York will be piloting an electronic filing initiative with our Family Court to bring 

same day service provision from intake through petition filing and court 

calendaring, so an applicant will leave the office having made an application and 

receiving a court petition hearing date the same day. Therefore, as you can see, New 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
71 

York also has a very streamlined child support process that will only become more 

efficient as we move forward with electronic filing. 

New York has demonstrated a great deal of success in helping families and individuals reach self-sufficiency, of which record child support collections is one mechanism. As I mentioned in my testimony, New York’s package of work supports also 

includes; the recent increase in New York’s minimum wage to $7.15 an hour; the 

strong New York State earned income tax credit; the increasing number of families 

who take advantage of Federal food stamp benefits; and the substantial investments 

we make in subsidized child care. However, our continued ability to help individuals 

move from temporary assistance to long-term work engagement will be undermined 

by some of the requirements related to child support enforcement and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program contained within the DRA 

and the regulatory interpretations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

Thank you for sponsoring H.R. 1386 repealing the DRA provision eliminating Federal child support incentive payments earned by states and reinvested in child support programs. New York has earned amounts ranging from $25 to $30 million annually in Federal incentives and sixty percent of these earned incentives are passed 

on to New York’s counties to reward their local performance efforts. Consequently, 

the loss of these funds will primarily be borne by New York’s county-run child support offices, will have a direct impact on the many essential services these offices 

provide, and could also jeopardize New York’s steady progress in increasing yearto-year collections. Your proposed legislation, H.R. 1386, will maintain the longstanding Federal commitment to child support enforcement, and is a solid fiscal investment in a program that has demonstrated much success over the years. 

We are just as concerned about a number of TANF provisions in the DRA that 

hinder our efforts to operate effective work programs. To reiterate the five major 

provisions within the DRA, or its interpretation by HHS, that undermine New 

York’s efforts to help individuals move to employment and economic self-sufficiency: 

rigid restrictions on job search and job placement activities; unreasonable limitations on excused program absences; irrational restrictions on the types of activities 

that could count toward the work participation rate requirements; lack of partial 

credit for engaging individuals in work activities; and the failure to exclude from 

the work participation rates the instances when a state has determined the head 

of household to be medically eligible for Federal disability benefits. It is imperative 

that your review of the DRA make changes that respect the progress all states have 

made in engaging individuals in work, and that will situate us for even better results in the future. Therefore, we urge you to make sure that these very important 

TANF issues are addressed, either through regulation or through statutory change. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee. As we 

move more and more individuals to self-sufficiency I look forward to working with 

you and your staff on these issues of paramount concern to New York and other 

states. If you or anyone from your staff should require information in addition to 

what I have provided here, please do not hesitate to contact me or the Director of 

Governor Spitzer’s New York Office, Derek Douglas. 

Sincerely, 

David A. Hansell 

Commissioner 

Mr. WELLER. If each of you could, share that with the Subcommittee. Ms. Harvey, could you explain briefly how you were 

able to reduce it from 71 to 1 day? 

Ms. HARVEY. Absolutely. I said to you we always look for opportunities to improve, and that is how we run our governmental entity. So, we engaged the university in taking our child support enforcement unit through the rapid process improvement plan. So, 

they trained them, they had them looking at all of their business 

processes from beginning to end, making critical decisions, to see 

what can I do better, differently, what can be eliminated. 

So, it wasn’t business as usual. Voila, the end product, in looking 

at using that one activity, case working with the case, we found 

that we could eliminate the 70 days. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
72 

Mr. WELLER. Well, that is a good point you made, that extra 

70 days of child support will certainly make a difference, whether 

paying for child care or a health care concern, or just school books 

for the child. 

Ms. HARVEY. Correct. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity of 

time. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis. 

Ms. Harvey, you know the heart of my congressional district is Fulton County. 

Ms. HARVEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA, but in Fulton County it is just—it 

makes up the city of Atlanta and other surrounding communities. 

There are more homeless people, more people showing up for 

meals. How can you say that the—that Georgia, that Fulton County, can be used as a model for the rest of the Nation? 

Ms. HARVEY. First of all, I would never say—I mean, I am not 

in the business of advocating a model, so I want you to know that 

right now. I can only tell you what our experience has been. 

In Fulton County, there are a multitude of problems, as there are 

in every metropolitan area, but I would believe that many of the 

homeless folk that you find, no matter where they are in the 

United States, are not the result—they are not former either AFDC 

recipients or TANF recipients, but there are some other issues 

driving that, but, sir, I would support you—— 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. These are families, these are children, mothers and fathers. 

Ms. HARVEY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Are you serving any of those people? 

Ms. HARVEY. Not through TANF, we are not. However, in looking at—and that is one of our beauties, is that we have an idea, 

I mean, we are so poised to look at good public policy, and I am 

proud to say our policy impact leader is here today—but one of the 

things we are looking at is how we can work with municipalities, 

how we can work with counties to combine what we can bring to 

the table with what they can bring to the table, in order to address 

those problems, many of which, for the adults, are mental health 

and orientation. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. You are saying that welfare is not 

good enough for any child. 

Ms. HARVEY. That is correct. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I agree with you, that every child deserves more, but welfare is certainly better than nothing, which is 

what an increase in the number of poor children in Georgia are 

getting. 

In 2003, only about 1 out of every 4 children living below the 

poverty line in Georgia receive cash assistance from TANF. In 

2005, that level dropped to less than 1 out of every poor kids receiving assistance. How do you account for that? 

Ms. HARVEY. Well, frankly—— 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Why do you call it—why are you saying it is so successful? If Georgia has been so successful, all of this 

money, all of these resources left over, why can’t we make someone 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
73 

take the resources and give it to Nevada, if we are being so successful? 

Ms. HARVEY. We still have issues in Georgia. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I hate to come down this way, but because poor people are working, does it mean that they are better 

off? 

Ms. HARVEY. I would submit that a working person is better off 

in many respects than a person who is not. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Down another period in our history, 

the days of slavery, everybody had a job, everybody worked. So, I 

don’t understand. You have working poor. 

Ms. HARVEY. Yes. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. People who work every single day. 

Ms. HARVEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. They cannot afford child care, they 

cannot afford the basic necessity of life. So, you are going to tell 

us that is better? Every person, make no difference how that person might earn? 

Ms. HARVEY. Most people—I would say 99 percent of human 

beings, adults today who become engaged in the work force, will 

earn more than $264 a month. If it’s $270, they are financially better off. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Mr. Chairman, I have a report here 

from budget and policy priorities, and it also mention the Census 

Bureau to show that the facts in the State of Georgia is different 

from what the witness is stating, and I would like to ask that this 

report be submitted for the record. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection. It is a report dated 

March 6, 2007. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

[The provided material follows:] 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
74 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.006
75 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.007
76 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.008
77 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.009
78 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.010
79 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.011
80 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.012
81 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.013
82 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.014
83 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Let me ask another question. What 

type of groups are receiving these fatherhood grants? 

Ms. HARVEY. In South Georgia, they are principally—— 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Are many in metropolitan Atlanta, 

and Fulton County? 

Ms. HARVEY. I am not aware that there are any fatherhood 

grants going on directly through this particular stream of funding, 

but I do know that I have had meetings, along with—who was here 

earlier—our State child support director. I have had meetings with 

people in Atlanta, and we are focusing principally on prisoners, 

when they come back into the system. There are some reforms that 

we have made around that, where we will put their arrearage in 

abeyance. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. The resources, to grant directly to an 

organization or groups—— 

Ms. HARVEY. No, sir. I didn’t have that kind of grant. Our child 

support office got one of those this year, and that’s the one that 

went to South Georgia to expand on what was going there, but we 

are working with the existing infrastructure in Atlanta. 

Unfortunately—well, not unfortunately—but one of our high-profile groups that we are working with are men and/or women, but 

principally men, who are getting to be released from prison, and 

bringing them back. The one thing we know is they have come out, 

and their arrearage has built up while they were in. 

So, the whole—the temptation is to go underground, as opposed 

to stand up to the plate and ’fess up. We want to meet with them, 

prior to release, and work with them to say we will hold the arrearage in abeyance, and it will not continue to accrue. ‘‘Let us work 

with you to get you employed and engaged with your child,’’ because we believe that intrinsic occurrence is as important as any 

dime that they can add into that household. 

Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Ms. Harvey. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Herger? 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much. Again, Ms. Harvey, thank 

you for the job you have done. Thank you for the role model you 

are for the rest of us. 

Ms. HARVEY. Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. I thank Mr. Wagstaff. It does bring back some 

memories back to those early eighties, and really what we were 

doing during that time, building this program, was in this same 

area, which was to look around the States, those who were able to 

go out in some unique programs, and try to model something that 

was working. 

It was very enjoyable, the trips we took—and very informative— 

to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; very different 

programs they had—as we modeled ours. 

So, Ms. Harvey, I think back. I have a very small business background. As a small business man, we were always looking out at 

who were excelling at what they did. What is it we could copy from 

them, and their good ideas, and then incorporate it ourselves? 

Similar to what we did then. 

I had the privilege of being Chairman of this Committee for 6 

years—incredible time that I value as one of the most rewarding 

times of my political career. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
84 

One of those concerns I had during that period of time is how 

easy it is to be able to see this culture, or a mindset, of just because you have people who seem to not be able to make it as some 

others were in society, were not able to find those jobs—and they 

all had different handicaps of one type or another—that somehow, 

having this culture that they couldn’t do it. Maybe we didn’t say 

that, but that was definitely the culture, that somehow they 

couldn’t do it, and we would see generations, three and four generations of not being able to do it, so to speak, that were locked 

into this welfare mentality. 

Again, as Mr. Wagstaff and I had the opportunity of trying to 

find those who broke this cycle, and then we heard again, ‘‘Well, 

we did the first 50 percent, but the last 50 percent, they were really the hard ones. We can’t do them, either.’’ 

Yet, as you go around, you would see these examples of programs 

where they did do it. They did go out and find these individuals. 

Yes, it took analyzing, what was the situation, what can we do 

with them, and preparing them, and just very fundamental preparation. 

If I could ask you—because you are, I think, an incredible role 

model, whether it’s in Nebraska or here in Georgia—what we can 

try to learn from you somehow. You have that unique ability to be 

able to make it work. For others, what would you say would be the 

first three steps that you would recommend to other States to better engage welfare recipients and work? 

I think you already mentioned engaging caseworkers, but if 

you—helping others who would like to have successes like you are 

having, what would you encourage them to do? 

Ms. HARVEY. Well, like with any business, I believe it starts 

from the value frame what is the value system? If the value of the 

leadership is that work is a good thing, then we find the ways to 

make work happen. If the value of the leadership is that the best 

family is a family with an engaged parent or two that’s employed 

in the work force, then you work to have that happen. 

You may have to throw away the old habits, because—and you’re 

not working for a 30 percent or a 20 percent, 50; our State goal is 

70 percent. So, you’re not working for any of that, but you’re working for strengthening families. 

So, one, let your value system drive it. Then, second, the use of 

data. We consume data in our State government in an unbelievable 

fashion. Folk who never looked at the aftermath of what they did, 

are now having to examine it on a weekly basis to say, with our 

pipeline, where they are moving. 

I have brought with me our most recent pipeline stats, to talk 

about where we are, statewide. We know how many and who is in 

every category. So, this is what our workers must use in order for 

them to move people from not job ready, to almost job ready, to job 

ready. They are evaluated on that particular outcome. So, use the 

data to inform your work. 

Then, thirdly, folk like me should get out of the way of people 

who do the work, actually. Our job is to set the vision. Our job is 

to communicate that vision. Sell it, if you will, and then give them 

the tools that they need to get the work done. Let them know how 

they are doing, cheer them on. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
85 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. I think it is 

fair to say that the caseload issue is both one end coming in, and 

one end coming out. If you drop your caseload by 80 percent, as you 

did in Georgia, it’s not hard to show the kinds of numbers that 

you’re not showing. I think that’s the thing that—you’ve got to ask 

yourself, ‘‘Where are all those people?‘‘ 

If only one-third of them went to work, where did the other 60 

percent go, or 70 percent go? That’s the real question that I think 

is unanswered by this discussion. I think we may not get to it 

today. 

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Yes? 

Mr. WELLER. I believe that our guest from human services from 

Washington State noted that their caseloads had dropped by 60 

percent. So, we have seen a drop in caseloads across the board, differing in each State. 

So, the question could be, we have seen a case drop in caseloads 

in various States across the board. Some of those States have actually provided a significant increase in work participation, while 

others have not, even though they have had a drop in work caseload. So, I guess there is a different way to look at that question, 

as well. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. There is more than one way to skin a 

cat and describe it. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Berkley, please? 

Ms. BERKLEY. Since all politics is local, I am going to direct my 

comments to Ms. Ford. 

Right now, in my congressional district, we have about 5,000 new 

residents a month coming into town, and that’s down from a high 

of about 7,000. I have a lot of extra people. I know that we talked 

about supplemental money to help the State of Nevada out, but it’s 

obviously not enough to cover the numbers of people that are coming in. 

Now, I think you do an extraordinary job, and I know that you 

have worked for Republican Governors ever since you took this job. 

I would hardly call either one of them a bleeding heart liberal, but 

I am sitting up here, and have the ability to make meaningful 

changes and help you to do your job well, which in turn, will improve the quality of life of the people that I represent. 

If you were sitting up here, rather than the questions I have for 

you, what would you be recommending that we do, that I do, so 

that you can do your job better, and help the people of Nevada get 

off welfare—and I don’t think there is anybody sitting up here that 

thinks that—that doesn’t believe work is good, and engaged families are critical to the success of future generations of this country—what do I do to help you? 

Ms. FORD. Thank you, Ms. Berkley. If I were sitting up there 

on the panel, I think the single most important thing is to give 

States flexibility on dealing with their most needy populations. As 

I said, that’s reinstating the ability to use the maintenance of effort 

dollars to create separate State programs, without having them 

count in the work participation rate. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
86 

We all agree, the most important thing is to get people to work, 

but the other thing that nobody has talked about here is there is 

a 5-year time limit on TANF, 5-year lifetime time limit across the 

country. So, some of the caseload reduction might be due to people 

reaching that 5-year limit. I mean, we don’t know. 

Ms. BERKLEY. What happens to them when they hit that limit? 

Ms. FORD. They may still get food stamps, they may still get 

Medicaid, they may still get certain supportive services, but they 

no longer get TANF. They may not be self-sufficient. Nobody has 

talked about that 5-year time limit. To me, the 5-year time limit 

is the most important thing. The work participation rate is something artificial and arbitrary that has been set so that people can 

feel like we’re meeting—that we’re actually getting these people to 

work, and to self-sufficiency. 

Well, with the 5-year time limit, we have an incentive to get people to self-sufficiency, because otherwise, they’re going to fall on 

their local governments for support, or they’re just not going to 

have support at all, and become homeless. 

So, I don’t think that has been talked about at all, but that is 

one of my concerns. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I visited, recently visited, Martinez Elementary 

School, and discovered that they had brought a trailer on campus, 

because they have 114 homeless children attending Martinez, and 

they needed a place to get dressed and get washed, so that they 

could go to class. 

How—in a community like Las Vegas, with a booming economy, 

a robust, very robust economy, how do you account for this? What 

can we do, as a Government? Somewhere along the line, there is 

responsibility. I am a great believer in personal responsibility, but 

what can we do to give these people a hand up? Not a handout, 

but a hand up, so that we don’t have 114 kids getting dressed in 

a trailer in one of the most affluent districts in the United States 

of America? 

Ms. FORD. I am afraid I may not have an answer for that? I do 

not deal with the homeless population, I don’t administer housing 

programs, but it’s very, very difficult. What we need to do is be 

able to work with these families, and get them to self-sufficiency. 

If I can’t provide them the assistance they need to be able to coach 

them, and get them to that level, they’re just going to fall off my 

rolls. 

That is why I am saying it has become a work program, rather 

than an assistance program. Some of our neediest families and our 

neediest children can’t get our assistance, because they can’t meet 

the work participation requirements, and there is just no place else 

for them to go. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Let me ask—I know that some of the recommendations you have made is greater flexibility. I agree with 

you, of course. The five-year time limit, to increase that limit. 

Now, I know throwing money at a problem isn’t always a solution. Could you use more money? Would it help you to administer 

your programs? 

Ms. FORD. I would have a hard time saying no. 

[Laughter.] 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
87 

Ms. FORD, but—well, see, and that’s the other thing that I think 

needs to be recognized is, yes, the block grant is still stable-funded, 

but it has not been re-allocated since it was first created. It’s the 

same amount of money as it was back in 1996. 

Ms. BERKLEY. So, here is my question. In a State like Nevada, 

with a population increasing by 5,000 people a month, in my congressional district—and I am only 1 of 3—what does static funding 

do to a State like Nevada? 

Ms. FORD. It prevents us from enhancing our programs, and 

making them really meaningful to our neediest families. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I don’t 

know how—since I am new to this Committee, and new to this 

Subcommittee—but perhaps in the future, the Administration’s 

representative would be invited to stay so she could hear what we 

are hearing, because it’s very wonderful to sound so incredibly 

sanctimonious, but I don’t know how much interaction she has with 

the people that are being affected by these—by her budgets, and 

it might be a very good learning experience for her, as well as it 

is for Members of Congress. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will think about that. I am sure 

there are Members of the Administration staff here, listening. Mr. 

Porter? 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. We find a lot of witnesses like to leave 

as quickly as possible from different hearings on the Hill, but 

thank you, and thank you all for being here. 

I appreciate my colleague’s question on what we can do to help. 

Nevada, if you look where we were in 1996, we had 14,620 families 

that were receiving some form of cash assistance. In 2006, that’s 

somewhere around 6,548. I applaud the State of Nevada for its 

hard work in improving. Again, not to just talk statistics, these are 

real families with real challenges. 

When we look at the Nevada budget, it seems to me that we 

have about 20 million unspent dollars from 2005. Is there something we can do to help you be able to use those funds in Nevada, 

if these statistics are correct? 

Ms. FORD. Well, I am a little gun-shy to use that—what we call 

the reserve. After September 11th, our caseloads almost doubled. 

We were the most severely adversely affected State in the whole 

country. 

At that time, we had a $22 million reserve. We burned through 

that within about 6 months. I was then cutting programs. I was 

cutting transfers to counties to assist with emergency assistance 

and their child welfare programs, and I had to make quite a few 

cuts. 

So, we want to maintain at least a $20 million reserve at any one 

time, just to handle those contingencies, because we are so tied to 

the economy in Nevada, due to our tourism, that any downturn can 

really increase my rolls, because we are the safety net for those 

people. They do not have bank accounts and investments to fall 

back on. We are their safety net. So, I am very reluctant to spend 

that money. 

Mr. PORTER. That’s good. I want to make sure it was for a purpose, not because of some bureaucratic problem we have with 

Washington using the funds. So, I appreciate that. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
88 

Ms. FORD. Oh, no. I am very cautious about that money, because of what happened after September 11th. 

Mr. PORTER. Also, you mentioned the problem with the extending time. My understanding is that we can extend up to 20 percent 

of our current caseload beyond 5 years. Is that something that we 

have a problem in Nevada using, or have we used that? 

Ms. FORD. Well, I would like to clarify my comments. I am not 

advocating extending the 5-year time limit. I am just saying that 

there is that time limit out there. So, States have a built-in incentive to getting people to self-sufficiency, without having a work participation rate. We want to get those people out there. 

The 20 percent is for disabled, or hard to serve clients, that we 

can put them in and have them go beyond the 5-year time limit. 

They still count in the work participation rate. So, if we have 20 

percent of our caseload in that kind of area, then we have to make 

the work participation rate with 80 percent of our caseload, which 

means we have to meet about a 64 percent work participation rate 

with the remaining membership of our caseload. 

Mr. PORTER. I bring that up because I think it’s an area that 

we will look at, because of your comments. We want to make sure 

that you are able to extend that. 

I guess another question I would have, in looking at cash assistance to administrative expenses, in the States that are here today 

and in reality, I know each State has its different challenges. Nevada is about—almost 50 percent of our cash assistance—of cash 

assistance of $33 million, we have about $16 million in administrative expenses. If we look at Washington, it’s about 17 percent. New 

York is about 21 percent, Georgia 16 percent, California is about 

16 percent. 

So, I looked at New Mexico, which is a fast-growing State, with about $75 million going out in assistance, their administrative expenses are about 7 percent. Is it because of our massive growth 

that your administrative expenses are higher, or is there something 

we can do to help you in that area? 

Ms. FORD. Well, I am not clear—I would have to study those figures, frankly, to be able to respond, because I really—I don’t know 

where those numbers came from. We’re limited to 15 percent for 

admin in the TANF block grants. It may be you’re counting some 

of the program expenses, because program is not included in the 

administrative costs, but I would have to study those figures to be 

able to give you—— 

Mr. PORTER. I want to make sure they’re accurate, and if we 

can help you. This is why I bring them up. So, we can talk about 

that later. 

Ms. FORD. Absolutely, and I will be happy to look into it, and 

see where those figures come from. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I want to thank all the witnesses. I 

want to ask you to do one more thing for me, though. Yesterday, 

the Governor of Washington filed a lawsuit on the whole question 

of the proof of citizenship before children can receive Medicaid. 

I would like to have from all of you a response from your agency 

or your agency director or Governor, whatever, as to what impact 

that requirement will have on your ability to provide health care 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
89 

for newborns in this country. I think it’s a serious issue, and I 

would like to know if my Governor is alone in this, or if there are 

some others who might have some interest in it. 

So, we thank you all for coming, and we will perhaps be back in 

touch with some of you again to come another day. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions submitted by the Members to the Witnesses follow:] 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.002
90 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.003
91 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40306a.004
92 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of American Payroll Association 

On behalf of the American Payroll Association (APA), we ask you to consider the 

comments below, which are being provided in response to the request for public 

comment issued in the Federal Register on Jan. 24, 2007 [72 FR 3093]. 

About the American Payroll Association 

The APA is a nonprofit professional association representing more than 22,000 individuals and their companies in the United States and Canada. The APA’s central 

mission is to educate its members about best practices associated with paying America’s workers, including compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws. 

As part of this mission, the APA works with legislative and executive branches of 

government to find ways for employers to meet their obligations under the law and 

support public policy initiatives, while minimizing administrative burden. 

Approximately 70% of all child support is collected through wage withholding, 

amounting to more than $16 billion annually in the United States. Payroll professionals are intimately aware of the impact wage withholding has, through all levels 

of society, on the employees who pay this support and on the recipients of this support. 

$25 Fee to Be Assessed 

The proposed rule, in accordance with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA 

2005), would require that states impose an annual $25 fee during each federal government fiscal year on every case in which a child support recipient receives at least 

$500 in support through the IV–D system and the recipient has never received assistance under Section IV–A (Temporary Aid to Needy Families). The fees would be 

reported by the state IV–D agencies as program income. DRA 2005 provides four 

options for the states in imposing the fee: 

1. The state may retain the fee from the support it collects on behalf of the recipient. 

2. The state may recover the fee from the individual applying for services. 

3. The state may recover the fee from the absent parent. 

4. The state may pay the fee out of its own funds. 

While most states report that they will collect these fees without the assistance 

of employers, the APA is concerned that states seeking to recover the fees from certain custodial and noncustodial parents will do so through wage withholding not 

connected to a support order. If so, it raises a number of issues that we would like 

OCSE to clarify. 

1. Child support orders are subject to higher withholding limits than creditor garnishments (up to 65% vs. 25% of disposable earnings). Various fees that are collected as part of a withholding order enjoy the same higher withholding limit. 

Would an order to collect only the fee be subject to this same limit? No doubt, employers receiving such orders will come to varying conclusions. 

2. Will the standard Income Withholding Order (which is currently being revised) 

be amended to include a line for the fee? 

3. What priority will the fee have against current support, medical support, and 

arrearages? 

4. Many employers do business in more than one state, and some 30% of wage 

withholding orders cross state lines. To prevent employer confusion over whether it 

should follow the rules of the state issuing the order or those of the employee’s (noncustodial parent’s) primary work state with regard to this fee, we would like OCSE 

to clarify that the employer should follow the rules of the state issuing the order. 

This seems to follow the provision of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 

that says the employer must follow the rules as stated on the order that specify 

(among other items) the amount of periodic payment of fees and costs for a support 

enforcement agency. 

APA Concern Over Lack of Outreach to Employers 

In addition to the confusion that the fee will cause employers, the APA is concerned that the fee may actually be detrimental to employers’ relationships with 

state child support agencies. We understand that certain states will choose to pay 

the fees themselves because they believe that charging fees to support recipients is 

contrary to their mission. These fees cannot be considered operational expenses, 

which means they will be an additional burden on the states’ already burdened 

budgets. APA is concerned that employer outreach will suffer as a result. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
93 

Even the states that do pass on their fees to their residents appear to be facing 

great expenses to develop computer systems to account for the fees, and they will 

pass on the lion’s share of those fees to the federal government. In conversations 

APA has had with child support officials, accounting for this fee has been described 

as ‘‘a nightmare.’’ 

The cuts imposed by the Deficit Reduction Act are likely to tax the state child 

support agencies to such an extent that services to employers cannot help but suffer, 

as states are forced to reduce staff yet continue to meet federally imposed levels of 

service (such as a 90% paternity identification). This fee appears to add to that burden rather than alleviate it. 

APA and child support agencies at both the state and federal levels have spent 

years developing relationships that have proven mutually beneficial and beneficial 

to society. We are quite committed to maintaining this relationship but worry that 

states will find themselves unable to provide employers the level of service to which 

they have been accustomed. 

We appreciate your consideration of the issues we raise and look forward to your 

response. If you have any questions or would like clarification on our comments, 

please contact William Dunn at the address below. 

f 

Child Support Officer II 

Commerce, Ca 90040 

Committee on Ways and Means 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

My name is Shoushan Baghboudarian, I am a Child Support Officer in County 

of Los Angeles, my Department’s moto is to ‘‘better the lives of the Children of Los 

Angeles County’’, that is exactly what we work for, day in and day out, we deal with 

many cases where we get emotionally and physically drained due to the hardships 

that our case participants deal with, we do go that extra mile to reach out to the 

little ones, to make their lives a little better, to give them hope and to show them 

that there is light at the end of the tunnel and to never give up on their future. 

Los Angeles County is very short of Child Support Staff as it is, we can not afford 

further cuts in our budget, we are already extremely heavy on case loads as it is. 

You must understand the importance of our work, our vital work which families 

benefit from, financially and morally, their self esteem is at risk if they have to go 

to financial assistance programs, their dignity will be crushed, as well as their 

dreams for a better future, they are barley making ends meet now, they (Custodial 

Parents) have trusted us to locate and enforce Court orders against the non paying 

parents, these people can not and will not request assistance from the Welfare department, which is what will happen if you decide to cut our Budget. 

We have been helping our Custodial parents for years, they feel proud that they 

have done good, they have finally become self sufficient, they have their jobs and 

also depend on support checks due to financial hardships. The department will not 

be able to function as we have been, if more staff is laid off, we have been successful 

in locating delinquent parents and forcing them to take responsibility to support 

their children, in some cases, we have assisted in exchanging mail between non custodial parent, custodial parent and the children, we do try to go that extra mile 

when needed, but if our budget is cut, we will be over whelmed, which will result 

the case participants to have no choice but request family assistance as their payments will not come in timely manner due to shortage of staff, staff who monitor 

where delinquent parents work or have assets, generate wage garnishments, suspend government issues ID’s/Passports, etc. 

Our daily function is as important to Los Angeles County Children as air is for 

breathing, these facts might not be as important to some who do not have to depend 

on our departments daily function due to comfortable lives that God has blessed 

them with, but for the regular citizen, who’s lives will be altered, this is their lifeline, don’t cut that last string of hope that is left in their hearts, which is exactly 

what will happen if your bill goes through. 

I am urging you to reconsider, and I must insist to all those who wrote this unethical bill to take a moment and look at your children, it could be your child or someone you know, who might need this departments assistance some day. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
94 

I, whole heartedly support legislation that would rescind the scheduled cuts to the 

department that I work so hard for, in the Deficit Reduction Act. 

My Special thanks to Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller for all of 

their efforts. God Bless you. 

Thank you for your time, 

Sincerely, 

f 

Shoushan Baghboudarian 

Statement of RaeLynn Block 

Further budget cuts would result in further reduction of an already understaffed 

Los Angeles county child support agency. The staff is already overwhelmed and 

working at a pace that is exhausting and almost unmanageable. Due to this continual pace the people who are suffering most are the clients were are supposed to 

serve. Staff is unable to provide the sufficient time and attention to each specific 

case/client that is truly deserved to service them best. Staff are carrying entire 

workloads by themselves when to truly and efficiently work them the load should 

be split between two to three people or more, but due to shortage of workers one 

person must find the time to handle the entire workload. 

The enforcement of child support and health insurance orders are vital to the children and families that this agency serves. There are families struggling to keep 

afloat on one income and stay off of the welfare system and without our office collecting their child support that is exactly where they would end up. Children deserve the right to grow up in a home that is above the lowest of poverty levels and 

know that they will not struggle to make ends meet. This agency helps reduce the 

stress that a single parent feels not knowing if they will be able to pay their bills 

month to month by knowing that their child support will be coming in. Obviously 

not all parents pay their support like they should but if they did then there wouldn’t 

be a need for the services our agency provides. 

Our office has the means to locate non-custodial parents and their income to obtain the needed child support orders and subsequently enforce the collection of those 

debts. Our office has a client whose daughter is extremely ill and in and out of the 

hospital on a frequent basis. The father of that child has not paid support since the 

baby was born and she is now 3yrs old and the mother is not receiving public assistance. The mother works when she can but is unable to do so for the most part as 

the child requires full time attention. The non-custodial parent owns his own business and resides in a very expensive home. Our office was able to get a substantial 

child support order for the mother and set an arrears amount. The non-custodial 

parent is now paying his support regularly and made a lump sum payment to pay 

off his back-owed arrears of which the custodial parent received a large which she 

greatly needed. 

The children and families of Los Angeles County depend on the services our agency provides, as it may be the only chance they ever have of receiving any kind of 

support. Parents want to provide for their children and live a life that will make 

them proud and lead the children to a productive life as an adult. By reducing the 

budget and making further cuts to the child support enforcement agencies you 

would be reducing the efforts the staff will be able to make in collecting support 

for these families. This would have a negative affect on their life and possibly end 

up with them having to apply for and receive public assistance to make ends meet. 

The welfare system was put in place to help people who needed a hand up when 

they were down on their luck, but it seems grossly inappropriate for people to be 

‘‘down on their luck’’ due to the fact that their government won’t fund the needed 

agencies to help them. It doesn’t seem that the answer to the question ‘‘ Why did 

you apply for welfare?’’ should be ‘‘ Because the child support office doesn’t have 

enough staff to collect my child support.’’ 

We support legislation that would rescind the schedule cuts to Child Support in 

the Deficit Reduction Act and thank both Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller for their efforts. 

f 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
95 

American Association of Community Colleges 

March 20, 2007 

The Honorable Jim McDermott, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support 

Ways and Means Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman McDermott: 

On behalf of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and the 

1,202 community colleges it represents, I am writing to share our concerns about 

proposed regulatory changes for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) program, pursuant to the subcommittee hearing on March 6, 2007. Community colleges are deeply involved in providing education and job training as well as 

other services to individuals receiving TANF assistance. Community colleges can do 

much to help these individuals not only to secure jobs but to become economically 

self-sufficient. Therefore, we appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on 

these important rules. 

Policies limiting access to postsecondary education and training are counter-productive since there is a strong, positive correlation between educational attainment 

and income. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2004 the average holder 

of an associate degree earned $6,983 more annually than did a high school graduate. 

This fact should be reflected in TANF policy. 

AACC recognizes that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) imposes new requirements on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Our 

comments below are focused on the interim final rule published in June, 2006, and 

how that rule and the pending final regulations will impact postsecondary students. 

The interim final rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human 

Services imposes unacceptable new requirements on providers of vocational education and job training. It requires that vocational education be ‘‘supervised on an 

ongoing basis,’’ no less frequently than daily. Most individuals enrolled in vocational 

education courses are not attending classes every day nor are many courses even 

offered every day. 

If HHS intends to require that attendance be taken everyday on every vocational 

education course that a college offers, it would be imposing a major new regulatory 

burden on institutions that will not provide commensurate gains. Colleges currently 

monitor students to ensure that they are making ‘‘satisfactory progress’’ in their 

programs in accordance with the regulations established pursuant to the Higher 

Education Act. Since community colleges do not single out TANF recipients who enroll in classes, this new provision would force our faculty and staff to take the time 

before each class to take attendance on every student, whether or not any of the 

students were currently receiving TANF funds. Community colleges enroll more 

than eleven million students annually. Thus, this would translate to an extremely 

costly new requirement for the colleges. Surely the regulations promulgated by the 

Department of Education that govern the federal student assistance programs 

should be sufficient to ensure careful oversight and responsible monitoring of students by the colleges without imposing another cumbersome layer of reporting requirements. 

Currently, many students enrolled in postsecondary education certificate and degree programs take a combination of classroom and distance education courses. 

Some courses utilize both classroom and online instruction. Based on preliminary 

information, AACC is concerned that some states may interpret the new HHS regulations so narrowly that they may refuse to accept online instruction courses (or portions of courses) as countable toward the participation requirements, and that a significant percentage of recipients could therefore lose their eligibility. The Department of Health and Human Services should be directed to clarify the regulations 

to explicitly include online vocational education courses as countable activities. 

The preamble to the interim final regulations specifically prohibits counting as 

‘‘work’’ any time spent in preparation for vocational education classes. Preparation 

time is indispensable in order for a student to progress successfully through a college program. Although the regulation allows for counting monitored study sessions, 

this approach is impractical since it would entail significant additional institutional 

costs and would involve substantially increased child care costs for most TANF participants. 

This approach to micromanaging study time stands in stark and disappointing 

contrast to the federal student aid program regulations. Under the latter regulaVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
96 

tions, undergraduate students who are taking as few as 12 credit hours per semester are deemed to be ‘‘full time’’ students for purposes of calculating eligibility for 

student financial assistance, including Pell Grants, Federal Work-Study, and student loans. This reflects the widely accepted standard that for every hour of class 

time, a student is expected to spend at least two hours preparing. Preparation time 

is essential for vocational education students and we urge HHS to reconsider this 

policy to allow for at least one hour of preparation for every hour spent in class. 

In light of the fact that virtually all TANF recipients engaging in postsecondary 

education are working and raising children at the same time, this proposal to count 

at least one hour of preparation time as an allowable activity is a reasonable compromise. 

AACC supports the expansion of opportunities for adult basic education to help 

individuals acquire the necessary prerequisites to successfully matriculate in and 

complete vocational education programs. While the interim final rule for TANF recognizes the need for basic skills education, it limits its inclusion as an eligible work 

activity to ‘‘temporary’’ instances. More flexibility should be permitted to allow concurrent or consecutive enrollment in vocational education and basic skills education 

classes. Similarly, the interim final rule omits English Language Learners (formerly, English as a Second Language) programs from the definition of ‘‘vocational 

education.’’ English language classes, like adult basic education, are an integral part 

of, or precursor to, many vocational education programs. It would be helpful if 

TANF recipients were able to access these programs in advance of enrolling in more 

targeted vocational education programs. The same standards could be used for determining eligibility for these programs—the institution could certify that the 

English Language Learners (ELL) or adult basic education classes were necessary 

for the TANF recipient to complete a vocational education program. 

The timing of the new regulations poses a particular challenge for community colleges. It is our understanding that HHS intends to publish final regulations this 

summer and that the regulations will become effective October 1, 2007. Implementation of any significant computer systems modifications by the colleges, whether to 

collect additional attendance records or other reports, would require months of systems development and beta testing before they could become operational. And, systems changes required during an academic year, in contrast to t the beginning of 

a new academic year, are particularly disruptive and costly. Given the timing and 

the enormity of the task, colleges will struggle to be in compliance with this requirement, and unfortunately, it may result in denying access to critical vocational education programs for a large number of TANF recipients. 

Thank you for your attention to our comments on the TANF rules. If you have 

any questions about them, please contact David Baime, VP of Government Relations; or Laurie Quarles, Legislative Associate. 

Sincerely, 

George R. Boggs 

f 

President and CEO 

Statement of Vera Borsa-Valadez 

It is known, if Congress cut the budget for the Departments in Child Support 

Service, the workload for officers and workers will increase tremendously, which is 

already extremely intense. Los Angeles County Call Center, for example, receives 

an average of 3,500 calls per day, and cutting the budget will compromise the quality of the costumer service and put a big burden to workers that already are under 

huge pressure. 

It is important that all levels of society understand that the Departments in Child 

Support Service help to lift children out of poverty and make available health care 

to them. Through the Departments in Child Support Service non custodian parents 

as pressed to provide support to their children and this can make all difference in 

a child’s life and its family. Our work provides financial benefits for families that 

are already suffering from low income. Families depend completely on child support 

from a free service agency to put food on their table. 

Departments in Child Support Service are exceptionally important tools to locate 

non custodian parents, delinquent parents and forcing them to provide support to 

their children. It is astonishing the number of non custodian parents that simply 

deny the right of their own children to have a dignified life. They refuse to pay any 

support and make it very hard for custodian parties to receive any aid. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
97 

It is a very rewarding job. I am very proud to work for such important department, which makes a difference in a child’s life. Countless times custodian parties 

express their gratitude for the services received from our Department. Many times 

they wait for their support with extreme anxiety as this will be the single monies 

that the family will collect that month. 

It is not fair, that children in California, have to suffer and have their lives compromised with an unfair cut on the budget. Californians deserve a free service for 

Child Support, especially in low income families. 

I support the legislation that would repeal the scheduled cuts to Child Support 

in Deficit Reduction Act, and I thank Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller 

for their efforts to keep Child Support Services Departments working for low income 

families. 

f 

Statement of Li-Wen Chen 

Our work enrichs children’s life and helps them get out of poverty. Our work also 

provides the healthcare they would not otherwise receive. 

The budget cuts will increase our workload. Our office stops hiring temporary 

clerk this year. Our team with 11 case workers only has one clerical. If we don’t 

have enough staff to work on our cases, it will directly affect their life, their health, 

and their education. 

We need more budget to do better job for our children. 

f 

Statement of Buncombe County Department of Social Services, Asheville, 

NC 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–171) included a reduction in federal 

funding for child support enforcement administration that will adversely affect child 

support collections, increase the nation’s welfare burdens, and undermine one of the 

most effective federal/state programs. The mechanism for the cut is to deny States 

the option of matching federal administrative funds with federal incentive funds 

they have received as a reward for effective performance. This change reduces total 

administrative funding for child support by an estimated 15 percent across the next 

five years. On behalf of the Buncombe County Department of Social Services in 

Asheville, NC, we urge the Congress to reverse or substantially mitigate this funding reduction to avert the adverse effects of these cuts on custodial parents and 

their children in all parts of the nation. 

Here are our major concerns about the impact of these cuts. 

1. Reduced child support collections across the nation. The federal cuts are deep, 

and they will result in a major reduction in child support collections relative to what 

would have been collected otherwise. 

2. Harm well-being of children. Reducing federal funding for child support will 

have a direct and adverse impact on the economic and social well-being of millions 

of dependent children. A growing body of research has documented the positive effects of child support payments on child well-being. Children in families that receive 

child support have better academic achievement, drop out of school less, have higher 

levels of emotional health, and are less likely to engage in delinquent activities. 

Moreover, non-custodial parents that regularly pay child support are more likely to 

remain actively and responsibly involved in their children’s lives. 

3. Increase welfare dependency. Based on the most credible research, the $4.8 billion in five-year federal savings from the cuts will be offset by $1.67 billion in higher 

costs for the Medicaid, TANF, Food Stamps, SSI, and Public Housing Programs 

(Urban Institute, 2004). These higher welfare costs would negate more than a third 

of the apparent value of eliminating the administrative match for incentives. 

4. Undermine child support program improvement. Much of the steady improvement obtained in the child support program has resulted directly from the uniform 

federal performance standards and the substantial financial incentives provided to 

states. Eliminating the incentive match will reduce these financial incentives by 

two-thirds. This will greatly weaken a powerful mechanism for program improvement. 

5. Severely affect locally funded programs. The cuts will have a significant impact on our local county Child Support Program funding. We leverage incentive 

funds against administrative matching funds, which then together provide the bulk 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
98 

of our program funding. While, on average, elimination of the incentive match will 

reduce total federal/state/local child support program funds by an estimated 15 percent, this significantly under-states the impact on local funding in many states. If 

we are unable to secure local funding to make up for the anticipated federal cut, 

our program performance will be severely compromised. 

6. Interfere with effective pursuit of interstate child support cases. If the DRA cuts 

are allowed to stand, enforcement of interstate obligations will be impaired, along 

with enforcement of obligations where both parents reside in the same state. Indeed, 

because some jurisdictions afford lower priority to interstate cases when their administrative resources are inadequate, it seems likely that enforcement of interstate 

cases may suffer disproportionately if the DRA cut is not reversed. 

For these reasons, we hope that Congress will act to reverse these cuts so that 

the sustained record of improved child support performance can be continued. This 

would avoid the potential for significant harm to the large number of our nation’s 

children whose economic and emotional support may otherwise be disrupted by nonmarriage, separation, or divorce. 

f 

Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania 

March 6, 2007 

Representative Phil English 

United States House of Representaitives 

2332 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

I write this letter in my capacity as president of the Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania and on behalf of the nearly 3000 child support professionals 

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is written in the hope that Congress will 

reconsider and reinstate the funding cuts imposed by the Deficit Reduction Act 

(DRA) if 2005 on the nation’s child support enforcement program. 

In March 2004 Dr. Sherri Heller, then Commissioner of Office of Child Support 

Enforcement, praised both the efficiency and the effectiveness of this program. 

Again in 2006 the federal budget cited the child support enforcement program as 

‘‘one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government 

wide’’. In Pennsylvania nearly seven dollars in support is collected for every federal 

dollar spent on the program. It strikes me as odd that Congress would choose to 

endanger a program whose effectiveness and cost efficiency has been proven over 

time and whose work impacts the most needy of its constituents, our children. 

As I am sure you are aware Pennsylvania’s Child Support program, based on performance measures initiated by HHS, is one of the highest performing states in the 

nation and certainly is the highest performing of the so-called ‘‘Big8’’ states. Child 

support enforcement in Pennsylvania is a county run, state administered program. 

That is to say the greatest impact of the proposed DRA reductions will be felt at 

that county level by those workers who provide direct services to our clients. 

Because the child support enforcement programs are run by 67 different counties 

it is extremely difficult to quantify the impact of these reductions. The economic impact of the DRA in Pennsylvania has been estimated to be between $18 million— 

$54 million dollars most of which will be seen at the local level and which will definitely have a negative impact on our ability to maintain staff and our level of service. These cuts come at a particularly critical time as we work to fulfill the federal 

mandate to broaden our focus to the provision of medical coverage and medical support for our clientele. 

Accordingly, I would respectfully request your consideration in this matter and reinstatement of funding to the child support enforcement program. 

Sincerely, 

Larry R. Wolfe, President 

f 

Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania 

Statement of Brenda Gilreath 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the impact to programs assisting low-income families as a result of changes made by the Deficit Reduction 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
99 

Act. My name is Brenda Gilreath and I am the Deputy Director of the Child Support Program in Clermont County, Ohio. Clermont County’s population is estimated 

to be around 194,410. During Federal Fiscal Year 2006 this office served 42,663 individuals (27,704 adults and 14,959 children) associated with a caseload of 13,500 

which is considered to be a medium caseload size in the State of Ohio. It is important to note that within our 13,500 cases we are not only responsible for establishment and enforcement of child support orders, we administer medical insurance orders on 10,500 cases. Our Child Support Program has received national and state 

recognition for innovation and effectiveness. The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) has honored our program with Most Improved Program, 

Outstanding Program, and Program Awareness Excellence Awards. In addition, our 

program has been recognized by our state office and by various associations with 

performance awards for best practices, innovation and program awareness. We are 

proud of our overall accomplishments and the purpose of this program which benefits children and society while reducing costs associated with public assistance programs. The following County information is submitted: 

Calendar Year 2006 

Child Support Collections $36,601,225.38 

Tax Intercept Collections $1,447,868.78 

Criminal Non Support Collections $1,079,528.72 

Lump Sum Intercepts $138,108.13 

Drivers License Reinstatement Collections $308,463.07 

Federal Fiscal Year 2006 

Reimbursement to Public Assistance $370,194.18 

Collections on Former Assistance Cases $6,432,430.57 

IVE Collections (Children Services) $111,162.44 

Former IVE $46,447.55 

Medicaid Assistance $2,486,752.75 

Never Assistance Cases $23,962,008.64 

My testimony revolves around the impact of our ability to use performance incentives as local match. The impact is as follows: 

For Federal Fiscal Year 06 Clermont County earned $508,948 in performance incentives. Elimination of the federal match states receive on reinvestment of incentive payments in the program equates to a $987,958 loss in our spending authority. 

As of October 2006, our expenditures were exceeding our revenue. Since 2002, we 

have not filled 11 positions on our table of organization. Three of these positions 

have not been filled since October. The reason behind the overspending is a result 

of many years of stagnant funding coupled with increases in employee benefits including pay raises. Our program was already hurting financially prior to these cuts 

but we were dealing with it. The DRA cuts which equate to approximately of 20% 

of our revenue will result in drastic and devastating changes to our operations. The 

only way we will be able to balance our budget will be through staff reductions 

which will impact our performance and unravel a successful program that took 

many years to establish. 

I wish to take the opportunity to highlight some of our successes and ask that 

you take into account that these achievements are at risk due to the DRA cuts. 

A local partnership between Child Support Enforcement, the Prosecutors Office 

and the Court of Common Pleas was established in 1989 for the purpose of criminal 

prosecution for non support of dependents. Statistical tracking was developed in 

1996 which reflects 160 criminal cases and annual collections of $188,469.14 for that 

year. As of December 2006 month end our County has 488 criminal non support 

cases assigned to two community control officers who work solely on these criminal 

cases. Our collections in 2006 totaled $1,079,528.72. Efforts to enforce these child 

support orders through the civil judicial process and/or through the administrative 

remedies available through the child support program all failed until such time as 

these cases were pursued for criminal non support of dependents. These families 

would not have received these collections without this collaboration. 

Several years ago, Clermont County Child Support Enforcement and Juvenile 

Court established workflows which enabled immediate establishment and enforcement of Children Services IVE Caretaker cases. Clermont County is unique in Ohio 

and likely nationally on the administration of these difficult cases. Child Support 

attorneys attend all neglect, dependency and unruly hearings to provide testimony 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
100 

and to obtain immediate orders. For Federal Fiscal Year 06, Clermont County 

Ranked 3rd in the State of Ohio on IVE collections providing reimbursement for 

children removed from the physical custody of their parent (s) thereby reducing 

child placement costs for the state of Ohio. At present, the financial benefit to 

Clermont County as a result of exceptional IVE collections is unknown. IVE costs 

are unquestionably reduced by the offset of the collections but these collections are 

disbursed to the State of Ohio and thereby reduce State costs; not local costs. This 

collaborative effort involving Child Support Enforcement, Children’s Protective Services and Juvenile Court has been recognized as a model collaboration. 

Each year Clermont County sponsors a child support amnesty and a Most Wanted 

Roundup Campaign. During 2006, $69,281.19 was collected on Amnesty and 

$86,326.40 was collected on the Most Wanted Roundup. For those cases granted amnesty the agency saves in costs associated with pursuing enforcement. Both of these 

non mandated initiatives are at stake. 

In July of 2002, Clermont County Child Support Enforcement implemented a Career Opportunities Program, currently funded with TANF, to provide services to individuals who are unemployed or under employed and who were in contempt for 

failure to pay their child support. During civil contempt proceedings, individuals unemployed or underemployed are Court ordered to this program. Since inception, the 

program averages 750 Court ordered referrals per year with annual collections exceeding 1 million dollars. This program is non mandated and is jeopardized by the 

Deficit Reduction Act. 

To summarize my testimony, I have supplied statistical information for a medium 

size county; one which has been recognized for innovation and effectiveness; I have 

referenced only a few of our successes; and I will now expand further upon the impact of these cuts to our program. If the cuts to the child support program with the 

DRA become reality, we are looking at reducing staff and eliminating all non mandated activity. This will result in a bare bones operation. If these cuts become reality, we will experience reduced collections which will result in a reduction in reimbursement of Medicaid, TANF, and IVE Child Welfare. These cuts could increase 

costs for Medicaid, food stamps, day care, home heating subsidies and Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families. 

Reduced collections—this is money right out of the budgets of families who need 

the child support owed to them to meet their children’s needs. The child support 

program ensures that both parents support their children—so that taxpayers do not 

need to. 

The Child Support Program is one of the only federal programs that actually generates income and mandates personal responsibility. In the President’s 2006 Budget, 

the child support program is cited as ‘‘one of the highest rated block/formula grants 

of all reviewed programs government-wide.’’ The child support program is a cost 

avoidance and cost recovery program. An effective child support program recovers 

public money and provides services which reduce reliance on other public dollars. 

The child support program is administered differently throughout the nation and 

the impact of the DRA varies among states and specifically among counties such as 

Clermont that are responsible for delivering the services to our customers. 

Ohio’s child support program plays a key role in the lives of over one million families. In fact, our program is the second largest public program in Ohio. Only public 

education serves more children and families. 

Chairman McDermott and Subcommittee members—I urge you to take action now 

to repeal the cuts to the Child Support Program. The children we serve deserve the 

financial and medical support they are entitled to. 

f 

Goodwill/Easter Seals Minnesota 

St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 

March 19, 2007 

Congressman Jim McDermott, 

Chair Subcommittee on Income Security & Family Support 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman McDermott, 

I write to you today on behalf of Goodwill/Easter Seals Minnesota in strong support of your efforts to re-examine the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) and the 

detrimental effects it will have on low-income families across the nation. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
101 

Goodwill/Easter Seals Minnesota serves thousands of low-income people every 

year who are struggling to make ends meet and keep their families afloat financially. We work with families who are on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program as well as families impacted by the collection of child support. 

Our FATHER Project assists young, inner-city dads in overcoming the barriers 

that prevent them from supporting their children, economically and emotionally. We 

have worked closely with Hennepin County Child Enforcement staff to form a creative partnership that helps these young fathers establish paternity, address child 

support payment issues, and become better providers for their children. The modification of the DRA to prohibit States from receiving federal matching payments for 

incentives earned will have serious repercussions for counties throughout our state 

but especially our largest, Hennepin County, which includes the city of Minneapolis. 

The result will mean a $4.3 million loss in federal funding to Hennepin County in 

the coming year which will mean a severely diminished capacity to continue innovative programming at such locations as the FATHER Project in Minneapolis. In addition, the revenue lost from decreased child support collections will negatively impact 

children and will increase the reliance of families on other federal programs such 

as Medicaid, TANF, and Food Stamps. 

Goodwill/Easter Seals also has serious reservations regarding the changes to 

TANF and the new rules which restrict States from counting certain activities, such 

as education and training, toward work participation requirements. As a provider 

of employment training services, we know that training and education are important components of helping to not only place people into jobs, but help raise them 

out of poverty. 

I encourage you to look at these two components of the DRA and consider making 

changes that will help, rather than hurt, our most vulnerable families. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Wirth-Davis 

f 

President & CEO 

Wisconsin, Legislature 

Madison, WI 53707 

March 5, 2007 

Hon. Congressman Jim McDermott, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support 

Committee on Ways and Means 

1035 Longworth HOB 

Washington DC, 20515 

Dear Representative McDermott, 

Thank you for holding a hearing today to understand the impact of the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) on child support enforcement programs throughout the 

country. 

Wisconsin’s share of child support enforcement allocations from the federal incentive payments and matching funds for 2006 was $38,225,900. As a result of DRA, 

Wisconsin stands to lose nearly $6.4 million in 2007 and over $25 million in 2008. 

The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development estimates reductions in over 

$143 million in Wisconsin over the next 5 years as a result of these cuts. 

These cuts would be devastating to families across Wisconsin. County Child Support agencies throughout the state are instrumental in establishing paternity and 

in ensuring that those parents are responsible for their children. Without the dedicated men and women who work in these agencies, families will go without economic support, children will go without health care and demand for public assistance dollars will skyrocket. The services performed and the money collected for child 

support are invaluable to the health and stabilization of Wisconsin’s families. 

We ask the committee to consider repealing the portion of DRA that cuts child 

support enforcement dollars to the states. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Dave Hansen 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
102 

Statement of Lawrence Hill, Los Angeles,CA 

The Budget Reduction Act would create stress and pressure for families already 

on the poverty boarder line to make ends meet in food, clothing and health care. 

Many families would be forced to receive some kind of government subsidy such as 

welfare, food stamps and medical coverage. 

The funding cuts for the Child support program from the DRA would force the 

layoffs of many workers. 

The funding cuts from the DRA would create an already unmanageable caseload 

for the employees remaining. 

Los Angeles County child support program would suffer tremendously since it is 

now under funded and caseloads are unmanageable as documented in its collection 

rate. Enforcing and collecting child support from Non Custodial parents who earn 

a living in an under ground economy would become non-existent. 

I support legislation that would rescind the scheduled cuts to Child Support in 

the Deficit Reduction act and thank Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller 

for their efforts 

f 

Statement of Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services 

I am pleased to present this testimony in support of H.R. 1386 on behalf of the 

State of Illinois’ Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 

Recent Congressional legislation has resulted in a dramatic impact on the functioning of the child support program, with some key changes adversely affecting 

low-income families. The State of Illinois supports House Bill 1386, The Child Support Protection Act of 2007, restoring lost funding for a universally-acclaimed, costeffective program that indisputably keeps thousands of families from slipping into 

greater poverty. We believe it is crucial for Congress to repeal the three child-support funding provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) in order to maintain the program’s unparalleled success as a key poverty-fighting program. 

Congress’ 2006 passage of the DRA provided important new tools to assist state 

and local government agencies improve their collection rate, such as lowering the 

passport denial threshold, adding tax offsets for older children, simplifying distribution of support, and expanding medical support options. However, three funding provisions in DRA unmistakably undercut the IV–D program, offsetting much of the 

recent gains made by the child support agencies in the country: 

• Disallowing the match of state-earned incentive dollars with Federal Financial 

Participation (FFP) undercut a covenant between the federal government and 

states to promote efficiency and success. 

• Imposing a $25 fee for never-TANF cases in which annual collections are $500 

or greater created added difficulty for many parents living on the cusp of poverty and is requiring costly systems changes and added bureaucracy. 

• Reducing the genetic testing FFP for parentage testing from 90% to 66% sent 

the wrong message to families and states that parentage determination was not 

a top priority, and further financially burdened states reeling from the incentive-match loss. 

Loss of Incentive Match 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the DRA incentive match 

loss alone would reduce families’ income dependent on child support by $8.4 billion 

over 10 years. The CBO estimate assumes state legislatures and county governments will make up half of the lost federal funds, which was overly optimistic for 

Illinois, as for other states. With few states currently reporting legislative initiatives 

to replace all or most of the $937 million in lost FFY08 funding, the actual loss to 

families over ten years may be much more than the $8.4 billion that CBO forecast 

if one forecasts $4.58 collected for each dollar spent on the child support program, 

based on the average cost-effectiveness ratio found in FY05 preliminary data from 

the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. 

When Congress passed the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 

(CSPIA), Congress replaced an incentive program that emphasized TANF recovery 

by capping non-TANF collection incentives with a program that rewards efficient, 

results-oriented IV–D program efforts. Between the incentive and its match, about 

one in four dollars from all funding sources originate in the incentive performance. 

The match alone constitutes about one of six program dollars. CSPIA has led to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
103 

markable improvements in performance as states compete for their fair share of the 

incentive pie. 

In Illinois alone, the CSPIA has contributed to dramatically increased performance. With comparative data available on outcome measures and matchable incentive funding based on performance, Illinois’ collections for IV–D families has grown 

from $393 million in federal fiscal year 2000 to $702 million in federal fiscal year 

2006. During the same time period, cost effectiveness improved from $2.28 to $3.84. 

For Illinois’ 601,908 families served by the child support program, these performance improvements directly contribute to economic security and self-sufficiency. 

By imposing such drastic and draconian cuts on the child support program, IV– 

D programs will not provide the level of child support services poor and near-poor 

parents and children deserve. The cuts mean a rollback in everyday services, and 

fewer dollars available for initiatives involving automation improvements, hard-tocollect cases and cases with large arrearages, customer service and employer outreach. The negative impact could possibly extend to the millions of employers who 

interact with the child support program and 17.2 million children who live apart 

from their non-custodial parent. 

Today, over 60,000 child support professionals assist families. The DRA cut in federal support by disallowing the incentive match will very likely lead to a dramatic 

down-sizing of the workforce, which will result in much higher caseloads per worker 

and fewer tough cases being worked successfully. Illinois is not contemplating a 

workforce reduction, but will be affected by workforce reductions in other states. 

States must work together to establish and enforce support across state borders. 

The DRA cut not only diminishes the potential for collections for each state, but diminishes potential collections across state lines for interstate cases. 

Imposing the $25 Fee 

The imposition of the $25 fee on families who have never received TANF benefits 

and who receive $5 00 or more in collections in a year may result in hardship for 

many of the persons the program is currently designed to help, the near-poor who 

need the program’s support to maintain independence from means-tested programs. 

As custodial parents will likely bear the cost of the fee in most states, many borderline-poor parents trying to stay afloat will have to manage without some necessities 

to pay a fee minimal in fiscal impact to the federal government but much larger 

in impact to the affected parent. 

State IV–D programs will have to spend considerable sums developing plans to 

impose the fee, explaining the fee to parents and making adjustments to their systems, as the impact of the fee ripples through the distribution algorithms that support the disbursement technology. The cost of this change and its associated questionable policy implications make the $25 fee a poor mandate on states. 

Reducing the Genetic Testing FFP 

By reducing the genetic testing FFP from 90% to 66%, Congress is downgrading 

the priority status of efforts to provide legally-recognized fathers for children born 

out-of-wedlock. About 1.5 million children or 37% of live births in 2005 were born 

to parents not married to one another. Genetic testing is the key evidence to provide 

legal fatherhood status for an alleged or putative father, introducing a formal relationship between parent and child that will last a lifetime, including rights and responsibilities. To promote family stability, permanent two-parent contributions to 

the life of a child, and certainty regarding relationships and duties, Congress should 

repeal the reduction in FFP for genetic testing. 

Unprecedented Unanimity in the Child Support Community 

The DRA’s IV–D changes and subsequent legislative efforts to repeal the DRA’s 

provisions that hurt families have united the child support community as never before. The State of Illinois is united with representatives of national, regional, state 

and tribal child support associations in support of H.R. 1386’s repeal of the incentive-match disallowance, and the repeal of the $25 fee and genetic testing FFP reduction as well. We strongly believe that to prevent major disruption in collection 

efforts and to keep families out of poverty, Congress needs to make these changes. 

f 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
104 

Statement of Gregg Keesling, Indianapolis, IN 

I am writing to ask that Congress restore the child support funding cut by the 

Deficit Reduction Act in 2006. 

These cuts will negatively impact the ability of child support programs to work 

with low income fathers and undermine the progress of the last few years. 

In my work with formally incarcerated low-income fathers it has become quite apparent that many non-custodial parents require significant assistance. It is very difficult in my state to find work with a felony record. A recent Indiana University 

Purdue University Indianapolis study found that 70% of all jobs were cut off to felons, some jobs through legislation, others because of liability concerns. If we expect 

parents to support their children, they should at least have a fighting chance of obtaining work. 

Child support funding helps play an important role in assisting these parents to 

find work in the dwindling job market for felons. It should be noted more than 55% 

of all those incarcerated in the United States also have minor children under 18. 

Some 10 million children will have a parent incarcerated in their formative years. 

In the State of Indiana, our Supreme Court has recently handed down a far reaching decision related to how child support is imputed during incarceration. The court 

opined that ‘‘the child support system is not meant to serve a punitive purpose. 

Rather, the system is an economic one, designed to measure the relative contribution each parent should make—and is capable of making—to share fairly the economic burdens of child rearing.’’ The full Indiana Supreme Court decision is available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02220701rts.pdf 

In order to administer a child support system effectively and fairly, it requires resources without which, systems often become ineffectual and punitive. When parents are connected to work and family, they are less likely to return to prison. Child 

support policies should support legitimate employment, strengthen parental ties, increase the reliability of payments and reduce recidivism. The challenge of policy 

makers is to find solutions that are efficient, balance the equities and policies that 

reinforce the message that parents are responsible for their children—but that also 

deal with the reality of poor men’s lives and the critical importance of bringing them 

out of the underground economy, into civil society and to keep them out of prison. 

I am aware that both Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh support restoration 

of child support funding. Senator Lugar informed me in a letter dated November 

8, 2005 that he voted to support a Sense of the Senate resolution in opposition to 

cuts in the child support matching funds program. 

In the final analysis poor child support enforcement policy and policy implementation hurts children and families. Further it hurts taxpayers. In Indiana it costs over 

$25,000 per year to incarcerate an individual. Spending a little to help a parent secure a job and manage their child support obligations is a better use of taxpayer 

dollars than incarceration. 

f 

Statement of Ann Kochakji 

The Child Support Program provides a vital service in Los Angeles County that 

families depend on. Without adequate funding, we will be unable to continue aggressively collecting child support from parents, many of whom are well able to support 

their children but prefer to pass their responsibility on to their partner or the rest 

of society. 

Unfortunately, the honor system will not work with many of these parents and 

the families and ultimately the children bear the brunt of thousands of dollars uncollected support. 

Since our children are our greatest investment, funding for child support should 

be a priority and we urge you to consider this when you cast your vote. 

We support legislation, which would rescind the scheduled cuts to child support 

in the Deficit Reduction Act and thank Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller for their efforts. 

f 

Statement of Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department 

(To Be Provided) 

f 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
105 

Statement of Marathon County Department of Social Services 

I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Marathon County Department of Social Services and the Marathon County Social Services Board, on the adverse effects 

the DRA cuts will have on residents of Marathon County. 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (P.L.109–171) includes a number of significant changes to programs serving low-income families, especially TANF and 

child support enforcement. The DRA also modifies federal funding for various aspects of the child support enforcement program. 

The impact of the DRA’s elimination of Federal incentive match is listed below: 

National Level: 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that child support collections will decrease by $8.4 billion over the next ten years. 

More than 17 million children participate in the child support. Fewer children will 

receive child support from their non-custodial parents as state and local governments reduce staff. 

Federal costs for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other means-tested programs will 

increase because more families will use public assistance when non-custodial parents do not pay child support. 

A reduction in the amount of collections that states pay to the federal government 

to reimburse TANF grants can be expected. 

State and Local Level: 

Last year Marathon County Child Support collected over $19,000,000. for children 

and families, this amount would be reduced drastically. 

Marathon County will lose $325,740. in federal funding to support critical activities of the child support program, as well as severely diminish capacity to continue 

innovative programs. 

If the funding gap is not filled by state government, state and local child support 

agencies will be forced to reduce staff thereby reducing their ability to establish paternity, locate non-custodial parents and establish/enforce child and medical support 

orders for the 7,537 families served by Marathon County. 

Increased local, state and federal government spending in Medicaid, TANF, Food 

Stamps, and other means-tested social service programs will results. 

The imposition of a mandated $25 collection fee discourages parents from participating in the child support program. When families do not receive child support, 

they need more help from public assistance programs. The reduction in federal 

match for genetic testing would deprive children of the right to two parents, the 

door to Social Security, pension/retirement benefits and health insurance, opportunity for extended family ties and access to critical medical history and genetic information is closed to them. 

The child support enforcement program’s goal is to ensure that children benefit 

from a reliable source of financial and medical support from both parents. Very few 

programs serve more children and families than does the Nation’s child support enforcement program. Throughout its history, the child support enforcement program 

has enjoyed wide bi-partisan Congressional support for enhanced enforcement tools 

and funding at the federal and state level. This support is based on their alignment 

with the program’s anti-poverty/self-sufficiency philosophy and its success. 

In summary we asking for: 

Restoration of the authority to use incentive funds as match will ensure that child 

support enforcement services to more than 17 million children are not jeopardized. 

Repeal of the $25 annual collection fee will encourage parents to participate in 

the child support program and reduce the need to turn for help to public assistance 

programs. 

Restoration of the 90% federal match for genetic testing will ensure children the 

rights and benefits associated with having two parents. 

f 

Statement of Minnesota Inter County Association 

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this testimony is submitted on behalf of 

MICA—The Minnesota Inter County Association, AMC—the Association of Minnesota Counties and MACSSA—the Minnesota Association of County Social Service 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
106 

Administrators. These three Minnesota county associations support rescinding the 

child support cuts made in the 2005 Federal Deficit Reduction Act. 

Importance of Child Support 

Minnesota supports the right of every child to receive basic financial support. We 

believe that every parent has an obligation to support his or her child. To ensure 

that children receive the basic financial, medical and childcare support they deserve, 

the Federal government established a national child support program that mandates state-administered collection programs. Minnesota is one of a handful of 

states that have child support systems that are state supervised and county administered. The federal government, state and the counties fund our system. Minnesota 

is proud to be rated as a high performing child support state. (Attached is a Minnesota Child Support Fact Sheet.) 

The Federal Deficit Reduction Act enacted last year changes the way Minnesota 

draws down federal matching funds for the operation of our state and county child 

support program. Effective October 2007, the new federal regulations prohibit the 

state from using their federal incentive funds as a match for federal child support 

funding. 

Prior to the passage of this Act, Minnesota counties routinely earned federal incentives for their efficient and effective delivery of child support collection services 

that help many low, moderate and some higher income families. These federal incentives have been reinvested in the child support program to earn additional federal participation dollars. Minnesota earned about $12 million in incentives for good 

child support performance. Minnesota reinvested that $12 million in the child support program and the federal government, which matches every county/state dollar 

spent on child support with almost $2 additional dollars, gave us an additional 24 

million for the program. 

So, that means that the $8 million cut in federal funding to Minnesota multiplies 

into an annual cut of $24 million to counties to operate their child support systems. 

How will the loss of $24 million in federal funding impact Minnesota’s Child Support program 

• The counties will have to cut $24 million in child support expenses. 

• Statewide, we estimate that counties will have to cut 37.5% of their child support workforce. That’s 442 workers throughout Minnesota’s 87 counties. (To be 

more precise, the $24 million is equivalent to the cost of 442 child support workers.) 

• Fewer child support staff means fewer families will be helped in collecting child 

support dollars they can consistently count on receiving each month. 

• Fewer child support staff also means that fewer dollars will be collected. 

• Since 60% of families using child support are former public assistance recipients, counties anticipate that a significant number of families will lose their 

hard-won self-sufficiency. More Minnesota children will live in households in 

poverty. More families will have to rely on public assistance programs. Some 

children will lose their private health insurance coverage, and more families 

will not be able to purchase quality childcare. 

• Counties and the state have been instituting efficiencies. However, we anticipate a 37.5 % reduction in staff will result to a reduction in collections of 19% 

to 25%, which amounts to $66 to $150 million less in child support collections 

statewide. ($66 million is based on the CBO estimate that the loss of collections 

is equal to half the percentage of the administrative funding reduction. Taking 

the loss of the incentive FFP as a percentage of FFY 2005 county administrative 

costs, yields a 22 percent reduction. The CBO would estimate a resulting loss of 

11 percent in collections. Some may regard this estimate as conservative, but it 

is from a relatively credible independent source.) 

• Expect more complaints from the employers as understaffed child support agencies fail to update the income withholding system in a timely manner. 

• Expect the $24 million federal cut to multiply even further as Minnesota’s performance declines, resulting in the loss of federal performance incentives. If our 

performance fails to meet the 95% data integrity standard set by the federal 

government, our performance incentives will disappear entirely. Parents currently pay either a 1% fee on the amount collected or on the amount owed. 

Fewer collections equal less fee revenue.The Best Solution for Minnesota Families 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
107 

The Best Solution for Minnesota Families 

The Federal government rescinds the provision of the 2005 Federal Deficit Reduction Act that eliminates the match incentive dollars and thereby Minnesota continues to receive the $24 million in additional federal participation dollars. This 

would enable Minnesota to continue running a quality child support program and 

continue to earn about $12 million in child support Federal program performance 

Incentives. 

Minnesota will use the Federal funding to ensure that Minnesota Families continue to receive quality services for: 

• Locating parents. • Establishing paternity. Establishing and enforcing court orders for basic support, medical support, and child care support. • Reviewing and modifying orders for support. • Working with other states to enforce support when one parent does not live in 

Minnesota. • Collecting and processing payments. 

f 

Statement of National Association for State Community Services Programs 

Over the past several years and once again this year, the President has zeroed 

out the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program in his budget. However, 

recognizing the importance of the numerous self-sufficiency services provided by the 

CSBG Network, Congress has continued to support the program in word and in action by providing the CSBG program with funding. The National Association for 

State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), the national association representing state administrators of the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and state directors of the Department of 

Energy’s Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program, would like to thank Congress for its continued support of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and 

requests an appropriation of $700 million for the state grant portion of the CSBG. 

We are requesting $700 million in CSBG funding this year in order for the CSBG 

Network to continue addressing the long-term needs of those families affected by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, those families transitioning from welfare to work, and 

to assist low-income workers in remaining at work through supportive services such 

as transportation and child care. It is essential that the CSBG funding be increased 

for FY 2008. The across the board cuts to the CSBG funding over the past several 

years has decreased the ability of the CSBG Network to provide essential services 

to low-income Americans. 

BACKGROUND 

The states believe the CSBG is a unique block grant that has successfully devolved decision-making to the local level. Federally funded with oversight at the 

state level, the CSBG has maintained a local network of nearly 1,100 agencies 

which coordinate nearly $9.9 billion in federal, state, local and private resources 

each year. Operating in 99% of counties in the nation and serving nearly 15 million 

low-income individuals, members of more than 6 million low-income families, CSBG eligible entities, largely local Community Action Agencies (CAAs), provide states with a stable and guaranteed network of designated entities which are 

mandated to change the conditions that perpetuate poverty for individuals, families, 

and communities. There is no other program in the U.S. mandated by federal statute to respond to poverty. To fulfill that mandate, CAAs provide services based on 

the characteristics of poverty in their communities. For one community, this might 

mean providing job placement and retention services; for another, developing affordable housing. In rural areas, it might mean providing access to health services or 

developing a rural transportation system. 

Since its inception, the CSBG has shown how partnerships between states and 

local agencies benefit citizens in each state. We believe it should be viewed as a 

model of how the federal government can best promote self-sufficiency for low-income persons in a flexible, decentralized, non-bureaucratic and accountable way. 

Long before the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

block grant, the CSBG set the standard for private-public partnerships that work 

to revitalize local communities and address the needs of low-income residents. Family oriented, while promoting economic development and individual self-sufficiency, 

the CSBG relies on an existing and experienced community-based service delivery 

system of CAAs and other non-profit organizations to produce results for its clients. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
108 

WHAT DO LOCAL CSBG AGENCIES DO? 

Since CAAs operate in rural areas as well as in urban areas, it is difficult to describe a typical Community Action Agency. However, one thing that is common to 

all is the goal of self-sufficiency for all of their clients. Reaching this goal may mean 

providing day care for a struggling single mother as she completes her General 

Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate, moves through a community college course 

and finally is on her own supporting her family without federal assistance. Many 

CAAs administer the Head Start Program which helps meet the educational needs 

of low-income families. It may mean assisting a recovering substance abuser as he 

seeks employment. Many of the Community Action Agencies’ clients are persons 

who are experiencing a one-time emergency. Others have lives of chaos brought 

about by many overlapping forces—a divorce, sudden death of a wage earner, illness, lack of a high school education, closing of a local factory or the loss of family 

farms. 

CAAs provide access to a variety of opportunities for their clients. Although they 

are not identical, most will provide some, if not all, of the services listed below: 

• a variety of crisis and emergency safety net services 

• employment and training programs 

• transportation and child care for low-income workers 

• individual development accounts 

• micro business development help for low-income entrepreneurs 

• local community and economic development projects 

• housing, transitional housing, and weatherization services 

• Head Start 

• energy assistance programs 

• nutrition programs 

• family development programs 

• senior services 

CSBG is the core funding which holds together a local delivery system able to respond effectively and efficiently, without a lot of red tape, to the needs of individual 

low-income households as well as to broader community needs. In addition, CSBG 

funds many of these services directly. Without the CSBG, local agencies would not 

have the capacity to work in their communities developing local funding, private donations and volunteer services and running programs of far greater size and value 

than the actual CSBG dollars they receive. 

CAAs manage a host of other federal, state and local programs which makes it 

possible to provide a one-stop location for persons whose problems are usually multifaceted. Over half (52%) of the CAAs manage the Head Start program in their community. Using their unique position in the community, CAAs recruit additional volunteers, bring in local school department personnel, tap into faith-based organizations for additional help, coordinate child care and bring needed health care services 

to Head Start centers. In many states they also manage the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), raising additional funds from utilities for this 

vital program. CAAs may also administer the Weatherization Assistance Program 

and are able to mobilize funds for additional work on residences not directly related 

to energy savings that, for example, may keep a low-income elderly couple in their 

home. CAAs also coordinate their programs with the Community Development 

Block Grant program to stretch federal dollars and provide a greater return for tax 

dollars invested. They also administer the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program as well as job training programs, substance abuse programs, transportation programs, domestic violence and homeless shelters, as well as food pantries. 

For every CSBG dollar they receive, CAAs leverage $5.40 in non-federal resources 

(state, local, and private) to coordinate efforts that improve the self-sufficiency of 

low-income persons and lead to the development of thriving communities. 

WHO DOES THE CSBG SERVE? 

National data compiled by NASCSP show that the CSBG serves a broad spectrum 

of low-income persons, particularly those who are not being reached by other programs and are not being served by welfare programs. Based on the most recently 

reported data, from fiscal year 2005 CSBG serves: 

• More than 2.9 million families with incomes at or below the poverty level; of 

these customer families, 30% are severely poor as they have incomes at or below 

50% of the poverty guidelines. In 2005, the poverty level for a family of three 

was $8,046. 

• More than 1.3 million families headed by single mothers. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
109 

• More than 1.7 million ‘‘working poor’’ families with wages or unemployment 

benefits as income; collectively, they make up 40% of all program participants. 

• More than 370,000 TANF participant families, 19% of the average monthly 

TANF caseload. 

• More than 3.7 million children. 

• More than 2.8 million people without health insurance. 

• Almost 1.8 million adults who had not completed high school. 

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CSBG NETWORK 

Due to the unique structure of the CSBG, the CSBG Network has earned a reputation for its: 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE: CAAs are utilized by federal and state emergency personnel as a frontline resource to deal with emergency situations such as floods, 

hurricanes and economic downturns. They are also relied on by citizens in their 

community to deal with individual family hardships, such as house fires or other 

emergencies. 

In fact, during and after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the state CSBG offices and 

local CAAs quickly mobilized to provide immediate and long-term assistance to over 

355,000 evacuees. This immediate assistance included, but was not limited to, transportation, food, medical check-ups, housing, utility deposits, job placement, and 

clothing. State CSBG offices and CAAs across the country coordinated their relief 

efforts with other agencies providing disaster relief assistance such as FEMA, Red 

Cross, and other faith-based and community-based organizations. 

State CSBG offices, through their local network of CAAs, continue to provide the 

long-term assistance evacuees will need as they relocate and re-establish themselves 

through self-sufficiency and family development programs. These programs offer 

comprehensive approaches to selecting and offering supportive services that promote, empower and nurture the individuals and families seeking economic self-sufficiency. At a minimum, these approaches include: 

• A comprehensive assessment of the issues facing the family or family members 

and of the resources the family brings to address these issues; 

• A written plan for becoming more financially independent and self-supporting; 

• A comprehensive mix of services that are selected to help the participant implement the plan; 

• Professional staff members who are flexible and can establish trusting, longterm relationships with program participants; and 

• A formal methodology used to track and evaluate progress as well as to adjust 

the plan as needed. 

LEVERAGING CAPACITY: For every CSBG dollar they receive, CAAs leverage $5.40 

in non-federal resources (state, local, and private) to coordinate efforts that improve the self-sufficiency of low-income persons and lead to the development of 

thriving communities. In FY 2005, every CSBG dollar was matched by $15.90 

from all other sources. 

VOLUNTEER MOBILIZATION: CAAs mobilize volunteers in large numbers. In FY 

2005, the most recent year for which data are available, the CAAs elicited more 

than 51 million hours of volunteer efforts, the equivalent of almost 24,880 fulltime employees. Using just the minimum wage, these volunteer hours are valued 

at nearly $266 million. 

ADAPTABILITY: CAAs provide a flexible local presence that governors have mobilized to deal with emerging poverty issues. 

Moreover, the CSBG Network has also earned a reputation for being: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
110 

ACCOUNTABLE: The federal Office of Community Services, state CSBG offices, and 

CAAs have worked closely to develop a results-oriented management and accountability (ROMA) system. Through this system, individual agencies determine 

local priorities within six common national goals for CSBG and report on the 

outcomes that they achieved in their communities. 

LOCALLY DIRECTED: Tri-partite boards of directors guide CAAs. These boards 

consist of one-third elected officials, one-third representatives from the private 

sector, and not less than one-third of the members are representative of the lowincome persons in the neighborhoods served by the CAA. The boards are responsible for establishing policy and approving business plans of the local agencies. 

Since these boards represent a cross-section of the local community, they guarantee that CAAs will be responsive to the needs of their community. 

The statutory goal of the CSBG is to ameliorate the effects of poverty while at 

the same time working within the community to eliminate the causes of poverty. 

The primary goal of every CAA is self-sufficiency for its clients. Helping families become self-sufficient is a long-term process that requires multiple resources. This is 

why the partnership of federal, state, local and private enterprise has been so vital 

to the successes of the CAAs. 

EXAMPLES OD CSGB AT WORK 

Since 1994, CSBG has implemented a Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) system. Through ROMA, the effectiveness of programs is captured through the use of goals and outcomes measures. Below you will find the network’s nationally aggregated outcomes achieved by individuals, families and communities as a result of their participation in innovative CSBG programs during FY 

2005: 

• 3,870,900 low-income individuals, families, and communities experienced reduced poverty conditions 

• 92,804 participants gained employment with the help of community action 

• 20,160 participants obtained ‘‘living wage’’ employment with benefits 

• 113,646 low-income participants obtained safe and affordable housing in support of employment stability 

• 601,961 low-income households achieved an increase in non-employment financial assets, including tax credits, child support payments, and utility savings, 

as a result of community action ($100.4 million in aggregated savings) 

• 2,355 families achieved home ownership as a result of community action assistance 

• 143,793 low-income people obtained pre-employment skills and received training program certificates or diplomas, completed Adult Basic Education or GED 

coursework and received certificates or diplomas, and/or completed post-secondary education and obtained a certificate or diploma 

• 3,864,234 new community opportunities and resources were created for low-income families as a result of community action work or advocacy, including ‘‘living wage’’ jobs, affordable and expanded public and private transportation, medical care, child care and development, new community centers, youth programs, 

increased business opportunity, food, and retail shopping in low-income neighborhoods 

At the end of the day, the CSBG Network represents our abiding national commitment to care for the less fortunate and in recognition that we are stronger when 

we do so. The CSBG and CSBG Network, in addition to other non-profit faith-based 

and community-based organizations, are a critical complement to the public sector’s 

efforts towards helping to lift low-income Americans and their communities out of 

poverty and into self-sufficiency. 

In fiscal year 2005, the CSBG Network assisted approximately 21% of the persons 

in poverty that year and almost 15 million low-income individuals who are 

members of more than 6 million low-income families. Renewed funding for the 

CSBG Network is one of the best ways to ensure that America has an experienced, 

guaranteed and trusted network to assist its most vulnerable families in achieving 

and maintaining self-sufficiency. 

f 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
111 

Statement of National Child Support Enforcement Association 

Recent Congressional legislation has resulted in a dramatic impact on the functioning of the child support program, with some key changes adversely affecting 

low-income families. 

As representatives of national, regional, state, local child support associations listed below, we stand united in support of House Bill 1386, The Child Support Protection Act of 2007. HR 1386 will restore lost funding for a universally-acclaimed, costeffective program that indisputably keeps thousands of families from slipping into 

greater poverty. We believe that repealing the provision of the Deficit Reduction Act 

(DRA) of 2005 that would end the ability of states to use performance incentives 

as match for federal funds is critical. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss the performance incentive match and two other child support funding provisions of the DRA. We hope that our response to your invitation to testify will provide information to allow you to make changes that will maintain the program’s unparalleled success as a key poverty-fighting program. 

In December 1974, Congress passed Title IV–D of the Social Security Act, creating 

the federal/state/tribal child support program (IV–D program). Since then, Congress 

has nurtured this bipartisan program through the passage of numerous bills that 

strengthened the tools needed to establish legally-recognized fathers for children 

born out of wedlock and to ensure that children receive the support to which they 

are entitled. Last year, Congress severely jeopardized the continuing success of the 

nation’s Title 

IV–D agencies by legislating funding changes that irreparably harm the program. 

Congress’ 2006 passage of the DRA provided important new tools to assist state 

and local government agencies to improve their collection rate, such as lowering the 

passport denial threshold, adding tax offsets for older children, simplifying distribution of support, and expanding medical support options. However, three funding provisions in DRA unmistakably undercut the IV–D program, offsetting much of the 

recent gains made by the child support agencies in the country: 

1. Disallowing the match of state-earned incentive dollars with Federal Financial 

Participation (FFP) undercuts a covenant between the federal government and 

states to promote efficiency and success. 

2. Imposing a $25 fee for never-TANF cases in which annual collections are $500 

or greater hurts many parents living on the cusp of poverty and requires costly 

automated systems changes and added bureaucracy to administer. 

3. Reducing the genetic testing FFP for parentage testing from 90% to 66% sends 

the wrong message to families and states that parentage determination is not 

a top priority, and further financially burdens states reeling from the incentive-match loss. 

Loss of Incentive Match 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the DRA incentive match 

loss alone would reduce families’ income from child support by $11 billion over 10 

years. The CBO estimate assumed state legislatures and county governments would 

make up half of the lost federal funds. This projection now seems overly optimistic, 

since no state has secured the budget authority to replace the estimated $937 million in lost FFY08 funding. This will have devastating impacts on many local child 

support offices as well as state-level IV–D offices 

When Congress passed the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 

(CSPIA), it created an innovative incentive program that rewards efficient, resultsoriented IV–D program efforts. About one in four dollars that are currently used to 

fund the child support program come from CSPIA incentives and matched FFP dollars. The match alone represents about one of six program dollars. To suddenly reduce federal support for the program while maintaining all of the current state program requirements constitutes an unfunded mandate. Congress made a pact with 

state and local child support agencies when it passed CSPIA: Congress agreed to 

invest in efficient, successful programs and in return the states agreed to accept a 

cap on annual incentive dollars, which did not exist before CSPIA. CSPIA has led 

to remarkable improvements in performance as states compete for their fair share 

of the incentive pie. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget recently recognized the IV–D program as the highest-rated social services and block-grant formula 

program, awarding the child support program a 90% score through its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The great strides made in the years since Congress 

passed CSPIA are jeopardized by the DRA incentive match loss. 

Because of the drastic cuts mandated by the DRA, state and local agencies will 

no longer be able to provide the level of child support services that poor and nearpoor parents and children deserve. The cuts mean a rollback in everyday services, 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
112 

and fewer dollars available for initiatives involving automation improvements, hardto-collect and large-arrearage cases, customer service and employer outreach. For 

the 17.2 million children who live apart from their non-custodial parents, the negative impacts will be enormous. 

Today, over 60,000 child support professionals assist families. The DRA mandated 

cut in federal support for the child support program will very likely lead to a dramatic down-sizing of the workforce, resulting in much higher caseloads per worker 

and fewer cases being worked successfully. 

Imposing the $25 Fee 

The imposition of the $25 fee on families who have never received TANF benefits 

and who receive $500 or more in collections in a year may result in hardship for 

many of the persons the program is currently designed to help: the near-poor who 

need the program’s support to maintain independence from means-tested programs. 

Custodial parents will likely bear the cost of the fee in most states. This means that 

many poor parents trying to stay afloat will have to manage without some necessities to pay a fee that provides minimal upside benefit to the federal government 

while imposing downside harm on struggling families. 

State IV–D programs will expend considerable resources developing plans to impose the fee and explaining the fee to parents. Still greater expenditures may be 

required to make adjustments to their automated systems, as the impact of the fee 

ripples through the distribution algorithms that support the disbursement technology. The cost of this change and its associated questionable policy implications 

make the $25 fee a counterproductive mandate on states. 

Reducing the Genetic Testing FFP 

By reducing the genetic testing FFP from 90% to 66%, Congress is downgrading 

the priority status of efforts to provide legally-recognized fathers for children born 

out-of-wedlock. In 2005, about 1.5 million children, or 37% of live births, were born 

to parents not married to one another. Genetic testing is the key evidence to provide 

legal fatherhood status for an alleged or putative father, introducing a formal relationship between parent and child that will last a lifetime, including rights and responsibilities. To promote family stability, permanent two-parent contributions to 

the life of a child, and certainty regarding relationships and duties, Congress should 

repeal the reduction in FFP for genetic testing. 

Unprecedented Unanimity in the Child Support Community 

Opposition to the DRA’s IV–D funding changes and support for subsequent legislative efforts to repeal the DRA’s provisions that hurt families have united the child 

support community as never before. The undersigned representatives of national, regional, state, and local child support associations support H.R. 1386’s repeal of the 

incentive-match disallowance, and the repeal of the $25 fee and genetic testing FFP 

reduction as well. We strongly believe that Congress must make these changes to 

prevent major disruption in collection efforts and to keep families out of poverty. 

f 

Statement of NCSL 

Reauthorization of TANF 

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) accomplished a long-sought reauthorization of 

the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. However, the types 

of changes made to TANF in the DRA could easily compromise very successful state 

programs. Since its creation in 1996, the TANF program has moved families from 

welfare dependency to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law, which NCSL supported, established a model bipartisan state-federal partnership, the hallmark of which was flexibility that enabled each state to design a welfare program tailored to the needs of 

its TANF recipients and local conditions. State legislators were involved with reforming welfare even before the passage of the original 1996 law, and they share 

your commitment to seeing all recipients fully engaged in productive activities that 

will help them achieve self-sufficiency. However, states need the flexibility to decide 

which services will help the families on its caseload become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, the DRA and the subsequent Interim Final Rule made the TANF program 

less flexible. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
113 

Work Requirements 

Two Parent Families 

One of the biggest concerns of states was not addressed in reauthorization, despite the fact that it was included in congressional and administration proposals. This is a technical fix that Congress must make. Ninety percent of the two parent families on a state’s caseload must be working, as compared 

to 50 percent of families headed by single parents. HHS officials have stated that 

they do not believe this is a reasonable standard. Two parent families on welfare 

are typically families with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency—for example, refugee 

families, or a parent caring for a disabled family member. A legislative change to 

the work requirements for two parent families is the only way to ensure that these 

requirements are not counterproductive to our efforts to strengthen families. NCSL 

would strongly support such action. 

What Counts As Work 

The way that work activities are defined in the Interim Final Rule directly affects 

the ability of states to offer services that are tailored to help each family or recipient 

on the TANF program. NCSL is very concerned that mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and rehabilitation activities are countable only under the 

six weeks of job search/job readiness. Given that these barriers to work are so prevalent in the welfare population, recipients need to have adequate time to deal with 

them. Such activities represent an important part of an effective engagement strategy for recipients. Hours spent in such activities beyond the narrow time frame of 

job search and job readiness should also count, and should be allowed in other categories such as community service, job skills training related to employment or education directly related to employment. If such activities are counted under the job 

search and job readiness category, given the strict limitations on job search and job 

readiness, states should not have to consider a few hours or day of such activity as 

an entire week. 

Education 

Despite successful state programs that allow TANF recipients to work towards a 

B.A., HHS chose to use a very limited definition of education that would not allow 

states to count recipients in such programs in the work rate. We are pleased to hear 

that HHS may reconsider the definition of education leading to employment. Many 

states have successfully used a very focused post-secondary education in a programs 

focused on employment that lead to degrees that allowed recipients to access high 

paying jobs. Education is already limited to 12 months, and there is no reason to 

further restrict state flexibility in this manner. 

Basic Skills Education 

The definitions in the regulations limit basic skills education and English as a 

Second Language (ESL) to tightly integrated components of on-the-job and vocational education, making it very difficult for states to offer such programs in combination with other activities or on a stand alone basis. Many participants require 

substantial basic education or ESL participation if they are to prepare adequately 

for employment and have a chance to move toward self-sufficiency through work. 

For example, better English skills might make a recipient employable in a trade he 

or she is otherwise qualified to pursue. In such cases, it makes sense for that training to be available to the recipient—and it should be a countable activity. Work 

place basic skills, computer training, and ESL should be part of on the job training 

where they are deemed necessary to prepare the participation for the job. 

Individuals With Disabilities 

Even when states work hard to engage people with disabilities in productive activities and employment, the effort of these participants may not count under the 

rules of the TANF program. States receive no credit for the work effort of these recipients. Because of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerns and because a 

state may have determined either through state statute or the federal SSI or SSDI 

application process that a recipient is disabled, a state may not want to sanction 

that recipient. States need the option, on a case by case basis, to exclude adults 

from the work rate they have determined to be disabled or who are awaiting determination of their SSI or SSDI claim. And those recipients who are pending SSI/ 

SSDI cases should be taken into consideration as a factor in the ‘‘degree of noncompliance’’ determination by HHS when states are penalized for not meeting the 

work rate. In addition, while we appreciate the provision that if an SSI applicant 

is approved a state can retroactively remove them from the rolls up until December 

31st, NCSL has asked HHS to either extend that retroactivity to the final deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
114 

mination of the state’s work participation rates by HHS to allow for the lengthy SSI 

application and decision-making process, or extend retroactivity for two quarters, 

until March 31st, to better align with wage data released at the beginning of the 

new year. We urge Congress to ensure that states have flexibility to work with 

individuals with disabilities. 

State Legislative Calendars 

NCSL urges Congress to delay the effective date of new TANF requirements. 

States need to have time to carefully consider changes to their programs in order 

to comply with the law, including reallocating funding and changing state statutes. 

Making changes to increase work participation rates is not a straightforward matter 

of implementing administrative changes. Instead, it requires state policymakers to 

reconsider state TANF goals and fit continued achievement of these goals with the 

new federal requirements. State officials can then make statutory, budget and administrative changes that would enable them to meet the federal requirements. For 

example, Vermont’s TANF program is in state statute. Vermont must modify its 

Reach Up program by modifying that statute (33 V.S.A. section 1101 et seq), which 

specifies the work hours required, deferments from participation, and separate state 

programs. Ohio also has a fairly specific TANF statute that includes some definitions of work activities, as does North Dakota. In several states, two parent families 

cannot be moved into programs supported by state general funds without legislative 

action. When the Interim Final Rule was released in August, only 11 state legislatures were still in session, and most of those legislatures had already completed 

work on their budgets. They were unable to immediately address changes to their 

program that require legislative actions. Even though states are now in their 2007 

legislative session, almost all of them will again be out of session in September, 

when the Final Rule is expected. And additional guidance on the work plans is not 

expected until next month, when states legislatures are well on the path toward adjournment. States are faced with having to make changes in their program that may 

not reflect final requirements. NCSL urges Congress to delay date for implementation of new requirements for a year after the publication of final regulations. 

Child Support Incentive Funding 

NCSL strongly supports legislation introduced in the House and the Senate repealing the provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that prohibits states from 

using child support incentive funds to match federal funds for the program. When 

this action was taken, the Congressional Budget Office identified the cut as an 

intergovernmental mandate that exceeds the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act. 

States have used incentive funds to draw down federal funds used for integral 

parts of the child support enforcement program. The funds have allowed states to 

establish and enforce child support obligations, obtain health care coverage for children, and link low-income fathers to job programs. The cut ignored the fact that 

funds for child support enforcement are used effectively and responsibly. In fact, the 

child support enforcement program received a Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) rating of ‘‘effective,’’ and continues to be one of the highest rated block or 

formula grants of all federal programs. 

Consistent child support helps save children from being raised in poverty. Reductions in child support administrative funds inevitably lead to lower child support 

collections, leaving families less able to achieve self-sufficiency. We urge you to undo 

this ill-considered action. 

Conclusion 

NCSL urges you to take steps to preserve state flexibility in the critically needed 

programs that serve low-income children and families. State legislators believe that 

states have made good use of federal child support and TANF funding, and that 

states will continue to work to help families escape poverty. A copy of our letter supporting repealing the DRA provision that prohibits states from using child support 

incentive funds to match federal funds is attached. If you wish to discuss NCSL’s 

comments, please contact Sheri Steisel (sheri.steisel@ncsl.org) or Lee Posey 

(lee.posey@ncsl.org). 

f 

Statement of New Jersey Department of Human Services, Trenton, NJ 

08625 

I want to thank Chairman McDermott and distinguished members of the Income 

Security and Family Support Subcommittee of the Committee of Ways and Means 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
115 

for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony on New Jersey’s concerns with 

the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005. 

BACKGROUND 

The remarkable success of the Work First New Jersey program in placing thousands of adults in jobs that have resulted in their self-sufficiency has largely been 

a result of the State’s ability to design work activities that fit the individuals we 

are serving and the types of jobs that are available in our State. New Jersey’s TANF 

caseload has dropped from 112,000 families in 1995 to 42,000 families at this time. 

While I support increased work, training, and educational opportunities for adults 

on TANF, it is very important that the State be granted sufficient flexibility to meet 

the new challenges presented in the DRA. 

New Jersey also recently transferred the administration of its work activities to 

the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development in order to marshal the resources that are available under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

These resources will be especially important to meet the higher work participation 

rate, but this will be difficult unless we have the flexibility to match the work activities of TANF with WIA to create a seamless system. 

Another key to New Jersey’s success in moving families from welfare to work has 

been the provision of support services to adults with multiple challenges. In New 

Jersey, almost 800 TANF clients are currently participating in a substance abuse 

treatment program. Another 200 clients are receiving mental health services in combination with a supported work program. Currently, these individuals do not count 

as part of the federal participation rate; however, the caseload reduction credit has 

allowed New Jersey to continue providing these vital services. 

With regard to the Child Support Program, I want to express my concern about 

the devastating effects of the funding reductions within DRA which, if not restored 

in the FY 2008 budget, would greatly impede our ability to ensure the well being 

of New Jersey’s children and families. The federal incentive match and reimbursement for genetic testing costs are key components in New Jersey’s effort to expand 

and improve the child support enforcement program. Our mission to provide for the 

well-being of children and families, while simultaneously reducing federal and state 

public assistance costs, will be undermined by the cuts. This will diminish the New 

Jersey’s ability to deliver public value and provide effective child support enforcement services to its citizens. As a result, fewer New Jersey children will receive 

child support from their non-custodial parents as our agency will be forced to reduce 

staff and eliminate innovative programs. 

Research shows that the gains made in reducing families’ dependence on government programs such as Medicaid, TANF, and Food Stamps through increased collections of child support have decreased government spending in these programs. Conversely, this reduction in funding for the child support program will lead to greater 

numbers of families having to turn to government assistance. 

As a result of the enactment of the DRA in 2006, New Jersey incurred unfunded 

mandates in TANF totaling $13 million annually to increase the number of adult 

clients required to participate in work activities, $10 million in child care annually 

to expand the availability of child care slots for adults enrolled in a mandated work 

activities, and $5 million in client work verification mandates. These unfunded mandates come at a time when New Jersey has seen both its TANF and Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF) block grants frozen since their inception in 1997 under 

the landmark Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA) legislation and we are finding it extremely difficult to accommodate the 

aforementioned federal mandates given New Jersey’s budgetary constraints. Since 

1997, New Jersey has lost $114 million in spending power under our TANF block 

grant total of $404 million after adjusting for inflation. 

TANF PROGRAM 

I request your consideration of the following suggestions that will allow the states 

the best opportunity to meet the required work participation rate and help individuals move to employment and economic self-sufficiency. 

• Two-Parent Households—The work participation rate for two parent households 

should be reduced from 90% to 50%. We believe that the 50% rate is a more 

realistic percentage for this group that has many challenges. Based on New Jersey’s experience, most two parent households have multiple barriers (i.e., mental health, substance abuse) that would make the 90% percent participation 

rate virtually unobtainable. 

• Penalty Free Phase-in Period—It is suggested that the requirements for states 

to meet the 50% participation rate and to verify participation in work activities 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
116 

be phased-in. New Jersey will need additional time to amend state statutes and 

to put systems in place to meet the new mandates. • Work Activities for Persons with Disabilities—Many of our participants with disabilities may only be able to work part-time. We believe that if a person is 

deemed to be participating in an authorized vocational rehabilitation program, 

then they should be considered as meeting the full 30 hours of TANF participation. • Job Referral and Placement—Job placement is the main goal of all work activities under TANF and needs to be integrated within all activities. The regulations restrict the use of the job search full-time activity to four consecutive 

weeks, or up to six weeks in a year. NJ believes Job Referral and Placement 

should not be counted as Job Search and should be an integral part of all work 

activities, e.g., vocational education, leading toward gainful employment. • Job Search and Job Readiness Assistance—The regulations stress that these activities can only be counted as weeks. Since job readiness, substance abuse 

treatment, rehabilitation services and mental health treatments often could be 

beneficial if combined with other work activities, we recommend that states be 

given the option to count these activities in hours instead of weeks. • Vocational Education—New Jersey recommends that the federal definition be 

broadened to include higher education activities on a limited basis for TANF recipients who need one-year or less of college level courses to complete the requirements for a baccalaureate or associates degree. • Education directly related to employment in the case of a recipient who has not 

received a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency—We 

believe that this definition should be broadened to include students who have 

a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency, but who are 

assessed in reading or math to be below the 8th grade level. • New Supervision, Documentation, and Verification Requirements—The requirement to report attendance/participation information ‘‘biweekly’’ is logically inconsistent with the ‘‘monthly’’ timeframe of the primary data reporting requirement. We suggest that references to attendance reporting requirements as ‘‘biweekly’’ be recast in terms equivalent to ‘‘no less frequently than semi-monthly.’’ • Exemption for Veterans or Social Security Disability Applicants—States should 

be allowed to exempt individuals who are applying for veterans or Social Security disability benefits from work participation requirements, without taking a 

penalty against the calculation of the state’s TANF work participation rate. As 

these individuals await determinations of their eligibility for disability benefits, 

they should be able to receive TANF benefits without being required to participate in work activities, especially since such work participation might jeopardize their eventual eligibility for disability benefits. 

• Medically Determined Disability—States should be allowed to take partial credit 

for individuals who are fulfilling some, but not all, of the 30 hours of work requirements for the work participation rate, if these individuals are medically 

determined to have a disability that limits their work ability. 

• Counting adult basic education as a work activity—States should be allowed to 

count adult basic education, including English as a Second Language classes, 

as an allowable work activity. 

CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 

With regard to the child support enforcement program, there are three vital areas 

to which we request attention: 

• Restore the authority to use incentive funds as State funds, eligible for federal 

financial participation matching, which will ensure that child support enforcement services to more than one million New Jersey children will not be jeopardized. 

• Repeal the $25 annual collection fee, which will encourage parents to participate in the child support program and reduce their need to turn to public assistance programs. 

• Restore the 90% federal match for genetic testing, which will ensure children 

the rights and benefits associated with having two parents. 

Elimination of the Federal Incentive Match 

As a result of the elimination of the federal incentive match, New Jersey will lose 

over $34 million in federal funding to support critical activities of the child support 

program, which will also severely diminish capacity to continue innovative programs 

that enable us to increase our performance, address fatherhood issues and work 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
117 

with the Departments of Labor and Workforce Development and Corrections to develop additional means to assist individuals in meeting their child support obligations. 

If the funding gap is not filled by state government funds, state and local child 

support agencies will be forced to reduce staff, thereby reducing their ability to establish paternity, locate non-custodial parents and establish/enforce child and medical support orders for the one million children and families served annually by the 

New Jersey Child Support program. Collections to New Jersey’s children and families will be significantly reduced. This will disproportionately affect low income and 

working poor families. 

Imposition of Mandatory $25 Annual Collection Fee 

The imposition of a collection fee on never-TANF cases acts as a disincentive to 

parents from participating in the child support program and will especially impact 

the working poor and highly vulnerable families who are barely managing to stay 

off of public assistance. When families do not receive child support, they are more 

likely to seek assistance from state public benefit programs. As a result, state costs 

for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other means-tested programs will likely increase, 

thereby undermining the goals of welfare reform to help families achieve economic 

self-sufficiency. 

Elimination of the Federal Match for Genetic Testing 

Since the use of genetic testing began in the child support program, the federal 

financial participation rate has been 90%, due to the importance of paternity establishment to children. Proper identification of a child’s father is vital not only to enable the establishment of a positive relationship, but also to ensure access to Social 

Security benefits, inheritance rights and medical information. In fact, paternity establishment is the bedrock upon which child support and child welfare rest—a legal 

obligation to support a child can not be imposed until the child’s paternity has been 

established. 

This reduction of the matching rate for paternity establishment is contrary to 

Congressional interest in establishment of paternity and the resulting responsibilities and rights flowing from the relationship. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share with you New Jersey’s concerns with some of the provisions of the DRA. We agree that self-sufficiency should 

be the primary objective of the TANF program, and that states should attempt to 

have as many individuals as possible participating in work activities. However, the 

program should not be perceived by the states as just trying to meet the work participation rate requirement rather than trying to help as many individuals as possible receive the necessary training and supports that will give them the best opportunity to succeed. It is important to consider our suggestions which will provide us 

with more flexibility so that we can continue to improve in what we believe has 

been a very successful program for nearly 10 years. Also, please consider our suggestions regarding the Child Support Program. The program has been a great success, as the statistics bear out. Now, however, the DRA threatens to diminish some 

of that success and make the children, already one of the most vulnerable of our 

society, even more vulnerable to poverty and its attendant problems. I believe that 

this Congress must re-emphasize its commitment to our children by taking action 

to repeal the provisions that threaten the health of the child support program. 

f 

Statement of Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency, Columbus, Ohio 

43215 

The Ohio CSEA Directors’ Association is a member organization of the 88 County 

Child Support Enforcement Agencies in Ohio. The County Agencies provide direct 

services to over 1.3 million children and their families. We wish to express our very 

strong support of House Bill 1386, The Child Support Protection Act of 2007, restoring lost funding for a universally-acclaimed, cost-effective program that indisputably 

keeps thousands of families from slipping into greater poverty. We believe it is crucial for Congress to repeal the inability to utilize earned incentives as local match. 

In 2005, nationally, the program collected $23 billion to serve 16 million children 

and families. There is a return of $4.58 on the national investment. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the inability to use earned incentives as local 

match will result in an $8.3 billion drop in collections for children. This projection 

is based upon the premise that states and counties will fill at least one half of the 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
118 

funding loss created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. Therefore, the actual loss 

in collections could be much greater. In Ohio, we collected over $2 billion for more than one million children. Our return on investment was $5.66. It is estimated that collections for Ohio families will 

be reduced by over $197 million in the first five years after the reduction in funding 

takes place. This will lead to added expenses in many other social service programs 

such as day care assistance, food stamps, housing and utility assistance, TANF and 

many others. This will add to the vulnerability of over one half of our cases in Ohio. 

Currently, 13% are receiving TANF and 40% have received TANF assistance in the 

past. Child support collections and medical support enforcement assist these families in maintaining self sufficiency, which is the goal of all of us. 

In the mid 1990’s Ohio’s program was struggling to improve performance and to 

implement an automated system. Currently, our program is performing at a very 

high level and has completed implementing our automated system. We continue to 

strive to improve even further. Additionally, we are working very hard to incorporate new initiatives which will result in better services and outcomes for Ohio’s 

families and other key partners that assist with our program. Ohio’s total collection 

ranks 3rd nationally and our performance under the incentive allocation has also 

been 3rd. Therefore, the recent decision by Congress to disallow the usage of earned 

incentives as local match has a critical impact on Ohio’s families. 

While our performance has improved tremendously, our current funding sources 

have either stagnated or been reduced. As you are aware, Ohio’s economy is struggling as many manufacturing operations are closing or moving elsewhere. Therefore, 

placing expectations on the State and/or County Governments to fill the gap is very 

unrealistic. If funds are available, it would be wonderful to utilize them to provide 

new and additional initiatives and services, rather than replace existing funding 

sources. Additionally, any funds used to replace lost federal funding will be taken 

from other local critical programs that help children, families and the elderly. 

In Ohio, the total potential loss in funding availability if not filled by local funds 

within the State is $60 million. This funding has been utilized 99% at the County 

level that provides the direct services to our families. $60 million represents approximately 28% of our total county expenditures in FFY2005. Ohio collects approximately $600,000 per staff member. A reduction in funding of 28% will result in a 

very large loss of available staff to establish parentage, cash and medical support 

orders and enforce these orders, let alone the impact on answering phones and pursuing new initiatives to continue improving our program. 

A study conducted by the Urban Institute found that the child support program 

cost $4 billion in 1999, but saved more than $4.9 billion in direct budgetary reductions in federal and state outlays in the public assistance programs, including 

TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI and subsidized housing. In addition, the child 

support program recouped $2.3 billion in TANF and Foster Care costs. The Child 

Support Program in Ohio and Nationally is receiving very positive recognition due 

to its cost effectiveness, goal oriented status and accountability. In fact, the program 

received a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rating of ‘‘effective’’ and continues to be one of the highest rated block or formula grants of all federal programs. 

With all of the very positive aspects of this program outlined, it is difficult to understand why Congress would cut funding and negatively impact children in Ohio and 

Nationally. 

We request that Congress support HR 1386 and continue providing opportunities 

for Ohio to improve our program and outcomes for over one million families. Thank 

you in advance for your consideration and support on this critical issue. 

Please feel free to contact Kim Newsom Bridges, our Executive Director, for more 

information regarding this testimony and Ohio’s Program. She can be reached at: 

e-mail kim@ocda.us 

f 

Statement of Racine County Child Support Department, Racine, WI 

I am writing this letter to ask you to use your office to restore federal funding 

for the national child support program. As part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 

$1.5 billion dollars in federal funds were cut from the national child support program. For our county this means a reduction of $490,169.00 for the County 2008 

budget. 

The child support budget funds child support workers and court personnel to hear 

child support cases. According to new estimates that I have seen, the reduction set 

forth above means that one-third to one-half of the county child support staff, incluVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
119 

sive of court staff, will be reduced. Quite frankly, this means the end of the child 

support program in Racine County. The caseloads for the remaining staff will be too 

large (approximately 4,300 per worker) to handle properly. Federal incentive goals 

and mandates for child support establishment and enforcement will not be met. 

For every $1.00 spent on the child support program, Racine County collected 

$9.87 in child support and child support arrears. The money collected either went 

directly to a child’s caregiver or back to government as compensation for public assistance. The import here is that for every dollar collected, either less public assistance was needed or it was not necessary at all or the government offset the cost 

of public assistance by recouping those costs through direct compensation. Given the 

proposed federal funding cuts for the child support program, I expect the state will 

experience an increase in demand for public assistance and a decrease in the money 

collected to recoup public assistance expenditures. 

Below is a fact sheet for your review showing benefits of the child support program and the impact the budget reduction will have on the Racine County Child 

Support Department. If you have any questions about this correspondence you may 

contact me directly at 262–636–3247. 

WISCONSIN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 

DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT TALKING POINTS 

January, 2007 

1. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 creates major cuts to the Child Support 

program 

• County child support allocations from Federal Incentive Payments and Matching Funds in Calendar Year 2006 was $38,225,900 statewide; as a result of 

DRA, these funding sources will decrease: 

i. By $6,360,800 in CY 2007, a 16.6% decrease 

ii. By $25,250,900 in CY 2008, a 66.1% decrease [i] 

• DWD estimates reductions in child support collections of over $143 million in 

Wisconsin over the next 5 years as a result of the cuts [ii] 

[County option: Racine County faces a decrease in federal funding of $0 in CY 

2007, and $490,169 in CY 2008. In terms of staffing, this translates to a loss of 0 

positions in 2007, and 21 positions in 2008. As a result, caseloads per FTE could 

be as high as 4300 cases in 2008.] 

2. It makes financial sense to invest in the Child Support Program 

• County Child Support Agencies establish legal fatherhood for children born outside of marriage; until paternity is established, putative fathers have no legal 

obligation to support their children. 

In 2006, county agencies established paternity for over 15,000 children in the 

State of Wisconsin.[iii] Potential staff cuts and the resulting increase in caseloads 

will have a serious impact on the counties’ ability to timely effect paternity establishment. 

[County option: Racine County established paternity for approx 1300 children in 

2006.] 

• The program in Wisconsin handles over 457,000 support cases per year; in 2006 

payments of $940,153,416.00 were made through the Wisconsin Support Collection Trust Fund [iv] 

[County option: The Racine County Child Support Agency has a caseload of 18,811 

cases] 

• Statewide, approximately $6 are collected for every $1 spent on the program [v] 

[County option: Racine County Child Support collects $9.87 for every dollar spent 

on the program] $31,247,241.04 WI $3,166,421 2007 Budget expenses 

• Consistent collection of support stabilizes families, reducing demand on—and 

the cost of—public assistance programs 

A study by the Urban Institute, commissioned by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, concludes that for every dollar of child support that is distributed 

for TANF cases, there is a forty-cent cost avoidance ratio that offsets other federal 

benefit program expenses, such as Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid, SSI and Housing. 

The ratio is nineteen-cents for every dollar collected in non-TANF cases. Child supVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:36 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 040306 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\40306.XXX 40306

smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
120 

port collections produce a cost avoidance that results in increased family self-sufficiency. [vi] 

• Child Support is the only program in the State systematically enforcing health 

insurance orders for children, reducing the cost of medical assistance programs 

There are over 350,000 children in the Child Support Program’s caseload in Wisconsin, for whom the county and tribal child support agencies are the health insurance watchdog: establishing and enforcing parents’ legal obligation to provide health 

insurance when it is available from their employers at a reasonable cost. 

3. DWD’s Bureau of Child Support and County Child Support Agencies 

are taking steps to mitigate the effects of DRA 

• Child Support Summit—WCSEA and its members committed to increasing efficiency and effectiveness through centralization, regionalization and standardization 

• Problems: despite mitigation, there is a real potential for a downward spiral in 

performance: reduced funding leads to decreases in program performance, which 

reduces performance funding, further decreasing performance, etc. Additionally, 

failure by the State to meet the federally required maintenance of effort reinvestment in the child support program may result in both federal incentive reductions and TANF penalties [vii] 

4. WCSEA seeks support from Wisconsin’s Legislators 

• Support federal legislation to reverse the child support cuts in the DRA 

• Support Governor Doyle’s proposal to invest $2.9 million in FY2008 and $5.5 

million in FY2009 to backfill the federal cuts while we pursue reinstatement of 

the federal funding; these funds qualify for the 66% federal match, so they will 

yield an additional $16 million in federal matching dollars over the biennium. 

This investment is appropriate because: 

• ‘‘For two biennia, the state has relied on federal incentive funds in lieu of GPR 

for state operations, and as the exclusive source of state funding for counties 

under s.49.24. This arrangement is no longer sustainable. . . .’’ [viii] 

• The State will receive GPR from the DRA-imposed $25 annual collection fee on 

non-aid CPs for collections over $500 

• The State will obtain additional revenue from the Governor’s proposed increase 

from $35 to $65 in the annual receiving and disbursing fee 

[i] Legislative Fiscal Bureau Analysis of Federal Child Support Matching Funds 

for Child Support Incentive Payments Under the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005, 8/28/06 

[ii] DWD Secretary Roberta Gassman’s 3/27/06 letter to Wisconsin’s Congressional 

Delegation 

[iii] BCS 2006 statistics from Kids Information Data System (KIDS) 

[iv] BCS 2006 statistics for WiSCTF 

[v] Secretary Gassman’s 3/27/06 letter. 

[vi] This study can be found at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/cost_avoidance/. Applying the findings of this study to Wisconsin’s support collection numbers from 2006, significant cost avoidance savings result: 

2006 Collections Dollars Distributed Savings per $1.00 Cost Avoidance 

Savings 

Present Assistance 

cases 

$20,316,408 x .40 $8,126,563 

Former Assistance 

cases 

$220,863,260 x .19 $41,964,019 

Never assistance cases $361,752,320 x .19 $68,732,940 

$602,931,988 $118,823,522 

The Urban Institute study attributes the following percentages of total cost avoidance savings by program *: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
121 

Food Stamps 37% x $118,823,522 = $43,964,703 

TANF 29% x $118,823,522 = $34,458,821 

Medicaid 23% x $118,823,522 = $27,329,410 

SSI 6% x $118,823,522 = $7,129,411 

Housing 6% x $118,823,522 = $7,129,411 

*Percentages are rounded, so they total 101% 

[vii] DWD 2007–2009 Biennial Budget, Re-Estimate Child Support Funding, p. 

271 

[viii] DWD 2007–2009 Biennial Budget, Re-Estimate Child Support Funding, p. 

267 

f 

Statement of Leah Ross, Culver City, CA 

I have heard about the plan to reduce federal funding for child support enforcement and am writing to protest this action. I am a Child Support Officer for the 

County of Los Angeles, California. Our department is a powerful and effective tool 

for keeping families out of poverty, and helping them to get off government aid. I 

work in the Call Center for Child Support and talk to moms and dads every day 

who have opened a case with us. With our enforcement tools and their help, we 

track down non-custodial parents and manage to keep a tremendous amount of 

money coming in to help them raise their families. 

I have talked to parents who are on the edge of poverty, living from one paycheck 

to another. Our help keeps them from going over the edge. 

I have talked to parents who say they just got off welfare because we found out 

where the non-custodial parent works and attached his or her wages. Our help gets 

them off welfare. 

I have helped track down health benefits for a distraught parent whose child 

needed medical care and was turned away at the doctor’s office. Our help gets those 

children coverage and help gets them off government-sponsored health insurance. 

Also, I am there to help the non-custodial parent. When he doesn’t understand 

his bill or has problems with paying, we let him know his options so that he can 

pay a reasonable amount. 

When we get his attention with one of our enforcement methods, such as drivers 

license suspension, we help him figure out the best way to get it back and start paying his obligation. 

We get calls every day from parents, employers, escrow companies, other agencies 

or people who just called our number because they didn’t know where else to turn. 

We help each and every one of our callers in a professional and caring manner. 

Don’t make our job even harder, or worse yet, impossible, by cutting funding to this 

valuable agency. We are an agency that brings in the dough. What is the saying? 

‘‘Show me the money.’’ Well, we do it every day, sending checks to families so they 

don’t fall into homelessness and penury. We are an agency that saves you money. 

Do not hobble this valuable resource. Keep us funded. I support legislation that 

would rescind the scheduled cuts to Child Support in the Deficit Reduction Act, and 

thank Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller for their efforts. 

f 

Statement of Faredeh Samuels 

I, Faredeh Samuels, employee of the Los Angeles County Child Support Services 

Department, am opposed to the scheduled budget cuts to the Child Support in the 

Deficit Reduction Act. These cuts will increase the already extremely heavy workload that the department is experiencing. The CSSD helps improve the lives of children by providing them with financial and healthcare needs. CSSD has been more 

successful then ever before in locating delinquent parents and forcing them to support their children. If these budget cuts are approved, it will cause a negative impact the lives of children in Los Angeles County. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
122 

I support legislation that would rescind the scheduled cuts to Child Support in 

the Deficit Reduction Act, and thank Chairman McDermott and Senator Rockefeller 

for their support. 

f 

Statement of Washington County, Wisconsin 

Support for Adequate Funding of Wisconsin COunties for the Provision of 

Child Support Services 

WHEREAS, Wisconsin Counties are mandated to administer Child Support Enforcement Programs on behalf of the State and Federal Government; and 

WHEREAS, Washington County, along with the 71 other Wisconsin Counties, 

provides child support services to its residents, including paternity establishment, 

obtaining, enforcing and modifying child support orders and locating non-custodial 

parents; and 

WHEREAS, the State of Wisconsin traditionally ranks high in its collection and 

enforcement of child support orders due in part to the quality performance of Wisconsin Counties; and 

WHEREAS, Federal Aid covers 66% of all administrative costs of the enforcement 

programs, which means that the Federal Government matches local expenditures at 

a rate of roughly $2 for every $3 spent; and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, approved by Congress and 

signed by the President in February, 2006, reduces Child Support Enforcement 

funding by no longer allowing counties to use Federal Performance Incentive Funding as local match to offset the cost of operating their Child Support Agencies; and 

WHEREAS, this change goes into effect with the beginning of the Federal Fiscal 

Year on October 1, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, the full impact of this change takes place in 2008 when Washington 

County would have to either make substantial program cuts to make up for the inability to claim incentive matching funds, or find local funding of approximately 

$95,000 to maintain programs at 2007 levels; and 

WHEREAS, Washington County believes it is the State’s responsibility to fully 

fund its mandated programs, especially if it continues to place local governments 

under levy limits; and 

WHEREAS, decreased Federal funding may mean reductions in Child Support 

Enforcement staff, less child support collections made on behalf of single-parent 

families, and greater reliance on Income Maintenance Programs; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Washington County Board of 

Supervisors that this Board requests that the Governor and the State Legislature 

recognize that it is in the best interest of Wisconsin residents to have the Governor 

and the Legislature work cooperatively to ensure that adequate state funding is included in the State Budget for distribution to Wisconsin Counties to offset the reduction in Federal revenue; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Congress is urged to re-evaluate the impact 

of the Deficit Reduction Act and restore funding for child support services. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Clerk is directed to provide a 

copy of this resolution to the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Senators Herb 

Kohl and Russ Feingold, each legislator in the State Senate and Assembly representing Washington County constituents and Michael Morgan, State Department 

of Administration. 

VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR PASSAGE: Majority 

APPROVED: 

/s/ Kimberly A. Nass 

Kimberly A. Nass, County Attorney 

Dated 02/14/07 

Introduced by members of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE as filed with the County 

Clerk. 

/s/ Thomas J. Sackett 

Thomas J. Sackett, Chairperson 

Considered 02/13/07 

Adopted 02/13/07 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
123 

Voice Vote: Ayes 28 Noes 0 Absent 2 

(Advisory resolution to provide adquqte funding for child support services.) 

f 

March 23, 2007 

Honorable Jim McDermott, Chair 

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support 

Dear Congressman McDermott and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit a written statement for consideration by 

the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the above referenced 

hearing. 

YoungWilliams PC is a Mississippi corporation in the business of partnering with 

public sector child support agencies. Our clients are state and local governments. 

We operate child support projects in a number of states including Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Carolina. Our company is very actively engaged 

in the child support community, and has membership in several organizations including the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA), the Eastern 

Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA), and the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC). Several of our employees serve 

on the board or committees of these associations and many of our staff members 

are involved in state and local child support organizations. Three members of our 

management team have served as state child support directors in Florida, Montana 

and Nebraska. We are passionate about the child support enforcement program, and 

committed to its mission of enforcing parental responsibility and collecting support 

on behalf of children. 

We know first hand the benefits of the program to the children and families who 

depend upon it. Many of these families are former or borderline welfare recipients. 

Over the last ten years, child support collections have skyrocketed, and more families than ever are receiving regular support payments. This has enabled families to 

become self-sufficient rather than welfare dependent. One often overlooked aspect 

of the program is that it also establishes and enforces private medical support coverage, diverting many children from Medicaid and SCHIP programs funded by taxpayers. The total amount of savings and reimbursement to Medicaid has not yet 

been quantified, but it saves millions and millions of dollars. No other program does 

so much good while reducing the burden on other government programs. 

The Deficit Reduction Act will seriously impede further progress of the program. 

In fact, it may cause the program to backslide especially when performance incentives may no longer be used for federal match after October 1, 2007. Even though 

some states might be able to partially or completely fill this funding void over the 

short term, the health of the system as a whole is dependent upon the health of 

each and every state and territorial Title IV–D (child support) program. This is because the program has a large interstate component. In today’s society, a substantial number of children have parents who live in two different states. Over 17 million children are served by the national IV–D program. When compared to the 2000 

U.S. Census Report, approximately one quarter of the nation’s children are in the 

child support caseload. Many of these children can only be served through interstate 

cooperation. When one state IV–D agency becomes backlogged, the whole system is 

affected. In the recent past, there have been ‘‘black holes’’ in the system, where 

cases were referred from one state to another, and languished there. Without adequate and steady program funding, this could happen again. 

Federal match on incentives has long been a part of this program, and in fact, 

it was a deliberate decision of Congress to match incentives with federal financial 

participation. Reinvestment of this match into programs has significantly contributed to the progress IV–D programs have made. This has created better outcomes 

for children in terms of regular financial support and improved access to medical 

care. The program has also become more holistic in the services it provides. New 

programs that reach out to fathers and incarcerated parents have been developed 

to help these populations find work, reintegrate and become better able to financially and emotionally support their children. The child support community has developed strong partnerships with employers, like YoungWilliams, who are legally 

bound to participate in income withholding and new hire reporting. Employers are 

a crucial part of the national child support system, and through withholding income 

of employees owing child support, contributed to 70% of the total national child support collections. Employers also withhold medical insurance premiums when employees are ordered to provide medical support, and insurance is available through 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
124 

1Wisconsin’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau Analysis of Federal Child Support Matching Funds for 

Child Support Incentive Payments Under the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 8/28/06 2Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) Secretary Roberta Gassman’s 3/27/ 

06 letter to Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation 3Wisconsin’s Bureau of Child Support (BCS) 2006 statistics from Kids Information Data System (KIDS) 

the employer. The child support community has also forged effective relationships 

with hospitals to provide unwed parents of newborns the opportunity to acknowledge paternity at birth. Many of these efforts and others would be jeopardized if 

funding is reduced. 

The IV–D program is not only socially responsible, but fiscally accountable. The 

national IV–D program received an OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

score of 90 percent, representing the highest rating among all social services and 

block grant/formula programs. This tool was developed to assess program performance and accountability. In federal fiscal year 2005, the program collected over $23 

billion. For every $1.00 invested in the program, $4.58 was collected for families. 

States are financially rewarded or penalized based on their performance in five key 

areas: paternity establishment, support order establishment, current support collections, arrears collections and cost effectiveness. This approach is working. 

For the reasons mentioned above, we strongly urge the Subcommittee and Congress to support restoration of funding to the IV–D program by repealing the cuts 

in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. These cuts include the reduction of federal financial participation for paternity (DNA) testing from 90% to 66%; the implementation of a $25.00 fee for collections; and the most devastating one of all, elimination 

of federal match for incentives. 

Thank you for your consideration. I hope that I have adequately conveyed the adverse impact the DRA budget reductions will have upon the IV–D program’s ability 

to serve current and future generations. I’d be pleased to respond to any requests 

for additional information regarding our company’s perspective on this important 

issue. 

Sincerely, 

Rob Wells 

f 

President 

Statement of Wisconsin Child Support Enforcement Association 

The WCSEA represents Wisconsin’s county and tribal child support agencies in 

their mission to efficiently and effectively establish paternity and establish and enforce support orders for Wisconsin’s families. We present this testimony to illustrate 

the devastating impact that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 will have upon our 

agencies and the children we serve. 

1. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 creates major cuts to Wisconsin’s Child 

Support program 

County child support allocations from Federal Incentive Payments and Matching 

Funds in Calendar Year 2006 was $38,225,900 statewide; as a result of DRA, these 

funding sources will decrease: 

• By $6,360,800 in CY 2007, a 16.6% decrease 

• By $25,250,900 in CY 2008, a 66.1% decrease1

Wisconsin estimates reductions in child support collections of over $143 million in 

Wisconsin over the next 5 years as a result of the cuts.2

2. It makes financial sense to invest in the Child Support Program 

County Child Support Agencies establish legal fatherhood for children born outside of marriage; until paternity is established, putative fathers have no legal obligation to support their children. In 2006, county agencies established paternity for 

over 15,000 children in the State of Wisconsin.3 Potential staff cuts and the resulting increase in caseloads will have a serious impact on the counties’ ability to timely 

establish paternity for these children. 

The program in Wisconsin handles over 457,000 support cases per year; in 2006 

payments of $940,153,416.00 were made through the Wisconsin Support Collection 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING
125 

4 BCS 2006 statistics for Wisconsin Support Collection Trust Fund (WI SCTF) 

5DWD Secretary Gassman’s 3/27/06 letter to Congressional Delegation. 

6This study can be found at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/ 

cost_avoidance/. Applying the findings of this study to Wisconsin’s support collection numbers 

from 2006, significant cost avoidance savings result: 7Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development 2007–2009 Biennial Budget, Re-Estimate 

Child Support Funding, p. 271 

Trust Fund.4 Statewide, approximately $6 are collected for every $1 spent on the 

program.5 This is a highly cost-effective program for the families who rely upon it. 

Consistent collection of support stabilizes families, reducing demand on—and the 

cost of—public assistance programs. A study by the Urban Institute, commissioned 

by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, concludes that for every dollar 

of child support that is distributed for TANF cases, there is a forty-cent cost avoidance ratio that offsets other federal benefit program expenses, such as Food Stamps, 

TANF, Medicaid, SSI and Housing. The ratio is nineteen-cents for every dollar collected in non-TANF cases. Child support collections produce a cost avoidance that 

results in significantly increased family self-sufficiency.6

Child Support is the only national program that systematically enforces health insurance orders for children, reducing the cost of medical assistance programs. In 

Wisconsin alone, there are over 350,000 children for whom the county and tribal 

child support agencies are the health insurance watchdog: establishing and enforcing parents’ legal obligation to provide health insurance when it is available from 

their employers at a reasonable cost. 

3. We are taking steps to mitigate the effects of DRA, but despite mitigation there is a real potential for a downwad sprial in proformance 

Reduced funding leads to decreases in program performance, which reduces performance funding, further decreasing performance, etc. Additionally, failure by a 

state to meet the federally required maintenance of effort reinvestment in the child 

support program may result in both federal incentive reductions and TANF penalties.7 The impact of hits against both programs would compound the devastating 

effects of DRA on low-income families. 

4. WCSEA encourages you to support legislation to reverse DRA’s child 

support cuts 

The child support program directly impacts thousands of families—reducing poverty and reliance on welfare, and supporting personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. We encourage you to support legislation to reverse the devastating cuts imposed by DRA, and allow us to continue to fulfill the critical role we play in the 

lives of Wisconsin’s children and families. 

2006 Collections Dollars Distributed Savings per $1.00 Cost Avoidance 

Savings 

Present Assistance 

cases 

$20,316,408 x .40 $8,126,563 

Former Assistance 

cases 

$220,863,260 x .19 $41,964,019 

Never assistance cases $361,752,320 x .19 $68,732,940 

$602,931,988 $118,823,522 

The Urban Institute study attributes the following percentages of total cost avoidance savings by program*: 

Food Stamps 37% x $118,823,522 = $43,964,703 

TANF 29% x $118,823,522 = $34,458,821 

Medicaid 23% x $118,823,522 = $27,329,410 

SSI 6% x $118,823,522 = $7,129,411 

Housing 6% x $118,823,522 = $7,129,411 

*Percentages are rounded, so they total 101% 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with HEARING