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

81–229—PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–775 

COMBATING POVERTY: UNDERSTANDING 

NEW CHALLENGES FOR FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 5, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Haskins, Dr. Ron, co-director, Center on Children and Families, Brookings 

Institution, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 4 

Lein, Dr. Laura, dean, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann 

Arbor, MI .............................................................................................................. 6 

Brown, Kay, Director, Income Security, Government Accountability Office, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Brown, Kay: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Haskins, Dr. Ron: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Lein, Dr. Laura: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

COMMUNICATION

Center for Fiscal Equity .......................................................................................... 59 

(III) 

(1) 

COMBATING POVERTY: UNDERSTANDING 

NEW CHALLENGES FOR FAMILIES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Bingaman, Wyden, Nelson, Carper, Cardin, 

Hatch, Crapo, Cornyn, and Thune. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: David Schwartz, Chief Health 

Counsel; Diedra Henry-Spires, Professional Staff; and Callan 

Smith, Research Assistant. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, Staff 

Director; and Becky Shipp, Health Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Robert Kennedy once said, ‘‘As long as there is plenty, poverty 

is evil.’’ 

Nearly 50 million Americans are currently living in poverty. That 

includes 16 million children. In 2009, more than 31 percent of 

working families were in poverty. That is more than 10 million people. 

Our safety net is designed to give those in poverty a fighting 

chance. Temporary assistance for needy families, or TANF, is one 

of those bedrocks. TANF gives people access to job training and 

education, and it helps fight the evil of poverty. 

Today we will look at TANF and the new challenges facing 

Americans in poverty. Until the 1996 reform law, welfare was 

open-ended. But through reform, Congress gave the system direction. It now focuses on jobs and promotes self-sufficiency. Figuratively speaking, it aims to teach people to fish. 

TANF now helps some people by funding child care, transportation, and job search support. In 2005, the Deficit Reduction Act 

changed the way States managed TANF caseloads and counted 

participation in some programs. Those changes did not focus on 

serving families and helping people find jobs. Instead, some States 

used the changes to artificially reduce caseloads, and they used 

TANF funds for other programs. We saw this come to play during 

the Great Recession. 

TANF did not respond to the recession as many of us would have 

hoped. Other safety net programs expanded to make sure families 

2 

were properly fed and had access to medical care; TANF, however, 

did not. 

Some States actually cut caseloads. But people were not rising 

out of poverty. Fewer than 2 million families received cash assistance through TANF last year. That is far less than in previous 

years. 

We, of course, want to see the numbers of TANF recipients decrease, and we want it to be for the right reason—because people 

are finding work. We need to make sure it is not because people 

are falling through the cracks without assistance or without a job, 

and we need to learn from the lessons of the Great Recession. 

TANF works well when there are jobs open for people to fill. But 

when there are millions of people looking for work, the program 

does not respond as well as it should. Our goal should be to craft 

a system that works regardless of the economic climate. 

TANF expires on September 30. We have an opportunity to 

strengthen it as we work toward reauthorization. And we need to 

keep our core principles in mind through that process. 

The United States must have a strong social safety net, and it 

is not just for the sake of having one. The American people are our 

greatest national resource and, as a Nation, we cannot afford to 

leave anyone behind. Leaders cannot lead if they are hungry. Inventors cannot invent if they are homeless. 

So let us prepare for a full reauthorization of TANF. And let us 

remember that our Nation is only as great as the least among us. 

And let us move forward to fight the evil of poverty. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for holding this important hearing on poverty and the effect it has 

on children and families. 

With our economy still struggling, poverty remains a critical 

challenge for our Nation. The 2010 poverty rate of 15.1 percent was 

the highest seen in the past 17 years. 

The current economic recession is especially acute for children. 

In 2010, over one in five children were poor in this country. That 

is up from one in six in 2006. 

Poverty is also an incredibly complicated issue, one that the Federal Government can only address within the bounds of a Federal 

system that reserves most of these policy decisions to the States. 

Now, there will continue to be a robust discussion on the role of 

the Federal Government as it relates to poverty. One thing we can 

certainly agree upon, however, is that poverty is bad for children 

and, in some cases, is a risk factor for child neglect or maltreatment. 

It is that correlation between poverty and the potential for child 

neglect that I intend to focus on today. According to data assembled by the Center for Law and Social Policy, poverty is the single 

best predictor of child maltreatment. Children living in families 

with incomes below $15,000 were 22 times more likely to be abused 

or neglected than those living in families with incomes of $30,000 

or more. 

3 

Now, I want to be clear. Poverty does not cause neglect, and 

being poor does not mean that one is a neglectful parent. But poverty does add stress to already overstressed families and creates 

conditions that often are detrimental for children. 

Parents living in deep and persistent poverty are often tired, 

frustrated, and frightened, leading to short tempers, sometimes directed towards their children. Many parents in poverty suffer from 

substance abuse or mental illness and are unwilling or unable to 

get support for these problems. And subpar housing exposes children to real health risks. 

Unfortunately, the programs under the jurisdiction of our committee designed to address poverty do not work well together, even 

though they are essentially serving the same families. The most salient example of this is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. TANF is a block grant to States for their use in ending dependence on government benefits and, more broadly, to promote child well-being. 

Over time, the focus of TANF has shifted from working with jobready adults and preparing them for work to a funding stream 

largely dedicated to purposes unconnected to job readiness. Based 

on the spending and the composition of the caseload, one can argue 

that TANF, as a robust welfare-to-work program, has all but diminished and, in large part, been replaced by the emergence of 

TANF as a child welfare program. 

The authorization for the TANF programs expired at the end of 

fiscal year 2010. During the year leading up to the expiration of 

TANF and each subsequent year, the Obama administration has 

failed to propose a comprehensive reauthorization of these programs. 

If this committee decides to reauthorize TANF next year, members will need to decide whether or not to recalibrate the program 

back to a welfare-to-work program. Instead, if members acknowledge and accept that TANF spending and much of the cash assistance is directed to low-income children, then we need to address 

the fact that this TANF spending is largely unaccounted for and 

that TANF agencies do not coordinate their spending and services 

with child welfare agencies. 

I hope that the next few years will usher in much-needed reforms to the child welfare system. And as I believe we will learn 

today, the TANF block grant will have to be a part of that conversation. 

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you holding this hearing. I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And it is an important 

hearing, as far as I am concerned. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

I am now pleased to welcome our witnesses. Today we will hear 

from three: Dr. Ron Haskins, co-director of the Center on Children 

and Families at the Brookings Institution; Dr. Laura Lein, the 

dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan; 

and Kay Brown, Director of Income Security at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

4 

Thank you, all of you, very, very much for taking the time to testify, as Senator Hatch said, on something that is very, very important. And we all look forward very much to your testimony and encourage you to be candid, forthcoming, direct in your 5- to 6-minute 

verbal statements. But your prepared remarks will automatically 

be included in the record. 

So why don’t you begin, Dr. Haskins? 

STATEMENT OF DR. RON HASKINS, CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER ON 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Baucus, 

Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee, thank you 

very much for inviting me. It is a great privilege to testify before 

this committee. 

I am going to talk about four issues in 5 minutes. That makes 

me an issue-a-minute man. I am going to talk about poverty 

trends, spending on programs, major causes of poverty, and then 

what we should do about poverty. 

So issue one: the trends in poverty. I included a figure in my testimony that, to me, has two big surprises. One is, we have made 

virtually no progress against poverty since 1975, despite the fact 

that we are spending a ton more money. And secondly, the poverty 

rate among the elderly, which in most societies is the highest, 

—most likely to be poor—is lower than for children in our society. 

So those are two exceptionally important facts. We need to buckle down and figure out what to do about poverty, and we ought to 

especially concentrate on children. 

Issue two: spending. Between the States and the Federal Govern- ment, we spend about $1 trillion on means-tested programs, and 

this number has increased almost every year since 1965. So the 

idea that we are not spending enough money is probably incorrect. 

We could be spending it poorly, it might not be focused on the poor, 

some of the programs might be unsuccessful, but we are spending 

a lot of money—about $13,000 per poor person. 

Now, a lot of that is on health care—critics will always mention 

that—about 45 percent of it. But Congress decided that is where 

they wanted to spend the money. So, unless you want to change 

that, 45 percent is spent on health care. But the Nation has made 

a great commitment to helping the poor, and it increases every 

year. 

The third issue: the causes. I think four are especially important. 

The first is work rates. We are in a long-term decline in work rates 

among males in the United States. The work rate among young 

males is down, especially young black males—and I am referring 

here to before the recession. I do not want to confuse this with the 

recession. These are trends before the recession. 

So we have a real problem with male employment in the United 

States for reasons that I do not think are very clear. 

For females, though, the opposite is true. Females have worked 

more. Everybody is aware that married women have joined the 

labor force since World War II, and in increased numbers. It has 

gone down a little bit now. But never-married mothers, the most 

disadvantaged, the poorest group of mothers, have had a spectacVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:18 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81229.000 TIMD
5 

ular increase in employment. And even today, after two recessions, 

the likelihood that they have a job is greater, about 20 percent, 

than it was before welfare reform. So that group is working a lot. 

Still, we need to boost work rates. 

Second, wages. These are astounding at the bottom of the distribution. Our wages at the 10 percentile and below in the United 

States, on average, are where they were 30 years ago. 

It is hard to make progress against poverty because we are always going to have 10 percent of the people below the 10 percentile. It is an astounding mathematical fact, as I point out in my 

testimony. And as long as wages do not change, no matter what we 

do about the minimum wage, it is a real problem to help people get 

out of poverty. If they work full-time at the minimum wage, they 

still will not be out of poverty. 

Family composition is the 5th horseman of the apocalypse. It is 

the biggest cause of poverty, in my estimation. We have had a huge 

increase in female-headed families. Their poverty rates are 4 or 5 

times the rate for married couple families, and the most disadvantaged are never married. About 70 percent—even more than 70 

percent of black children—about 45 percent of white children, and 

42 percent of all American children are born outside of marriage, 

and so their probability of being in poverty is very high. So family 

composition is a huge issue. 

And finally, education is a very big issue. I would say that our 

educational system, both at the preschool level, K through 12, and 

post-secondary, needs a lot of work. I would not say necessarily it 

is a failure, and I think the most promising is preschool. I will talk 

about that in a minute. 

So now let me talk about a few strategies to fight poverty. And 

I want to preface my remarks by saying I think personal responsibility is an absolute key here. 

Three of the four causes that I mentioned have a substantial 

component of personal choices. And, if people do not make better 

choices, no matter what you do in this hearing and what we are 

doing in Congress, we are still going to have a big problem with 

poverty. We have to do something about people’s decisions to drop 

out of school, about decisions to work, and about decisions to get 

married before they have children. 

So the first strategy that has worked—it is not hard to understand—is to give them money. That is what we do with the elderly. 

We did it especially in the 1970s, and we have a low elderly poverty rate, primarily as a result of Social Security, which is something that Congress did. 

That strategy will not work for young, able-bodied Americans, because Americans do not think that able-bodied people should get 

welfare. 

So the second strategy is to do everything possible to encourage 

and even force people to work and then subsidize their income. I 

would point out to the committee that this is a highly bipartisan 

solution: on the one hand, very tough work requirements; on the 

other hand, very generous work supports—earned income tax credit, Medicaid, child care, other programs. 

I would say we have passed at least 40 pieces of legislation over 

the period starting roughly in the early 1980s to make our system 

6 

of means-tested benefits more friendly to working families. In the 

old days, if you went to work, you lost everything, and that is no 

longer the case. So we need to emphasize work, and we need to 

maintain the work support system, the EITC, child tax credit, and 

so forth. 

Then the two other things I would mention just in passing are, 

one, education—I think we should focus on preschool. We have very 

strong data that a high-quality preschool could make a big difference. It is not very controversial for the Federal Congress to be 

involved in preschool, because it has been for so long. 

And I think our child care that we spend a lot of Federal dollars 

on is the heart of the problem, because it is of average quality or 

worse, and that is where we could really make some progress by 

increasing the average quality of child care. 

And finally, non-marital births. We have lots of strategies. We 

can reduce teen pregnancy. We have reduced teen pregnancy every 

year since 1991, except for 2 years. So we have a lot of strategies 

there. 

Even in the 20-somethings, we have a number of programs, including more coverage or comprehensive family planning services 

and mass advertising campaigns, plus the teen pregnancy programs I mentioned. If we spent more money on those three programs, we would reduce non-marital birth rates, and that would be 

a good start toward addressing poverty. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Haskins appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. That was very good. 

Dr. Lein, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LAURA LEIN, DEAN, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL 

WORK, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI 

Dr. LEIN. Thank you. I also want to thank Chairman Baucus and 

Ranking Member Hatch and members of the committee for inviting 

me here, and also for allowing me to join Ron Haskins and Kay 

Brown on this panel. 

I am a social anthropologist and social work educator, and I work 

on families in poverty and the institutions that serve them. And 

today—I do not want this to be a contest, Ron—I am going to try 

to highlight six themes about families from my experience and illustrate them with examples representative of the data I have 

worked with. 

Theme number one: both welfare-eligible and welfare-using populations are varied. Researchers in Washington State found five subgroups ranging from quick leavers who left TANF within a year 

and did not return to stayers who continued on TANF with barely 

a break. And these groups have fairly different needs. 

Second, both welfare support and the income from low-wage 

labor leave families struggling. Families cannot sustain themselves 

on welfare alone or on low-wage work alone, and those relying on 

these low incomes can experience what I call a cascade effect, when 

a relatively small problem triggers life-changing events. 

One Texas woman I interviewed had moved off welfare into work 

and out of public housing into her own apartment. She still deVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:18 Jul 12, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\81229.000 TIMD
7 

pended on subsidized child care for her two children. But when her 

2-year-old bit another child at daycare, he was asked to leave, and 

her child care subsidy lapsed when she could not find new child 

care within the 10 days allowed. She could not work regularly. She 

lost her job and her eligibility for a renewed child care subsidy. She 

could not pay her rent and was evicted. Eight weeks from the biting episode, she was jobless, homeless, and without child care to 

allow her to hunt for a job or to work. 

The third theme: TANF rates have remained stable in a time of 

recession, but disconnected households with neither earned income 

nor welfare income have increased. Estimates say that between 13 

percent and 20 percent of single-parent poverty households are disconnected at any one time. 

One Chicago woman, in a study by Seefeldt and Horowski, had 

worked all of her life and never been on welfare. As the recession 

deepened, her hours were reduced. Then she was injured on the 

job. Her employer contested her application for unemployment, and 

she was not yet eligible to apply for TANF. Her car was repossessed, making doctors’ visits for her injury and her job search almost impossible. She cut back on her own eating to purchase food 

and then prepare meals to sell for others. It was 4 months before 

she received unemployment benefits. 

Theme number four: more families are living in extreme poverty, 

often leaving them debilitated by untreated medical conditions and 

extensive debt. Shaefer and Edin estimate that, as of the beginning 

of 2011, about 1.46 million United States households, with about 

2.8 million children, were surviving on $2 in cash or less in income 

per day per person in a given month. 

Theme number five: the jobs available for low-skilled or loweducated workers leave the working poor particularly vulnerable. 

Chicago researchers Lambert and Henly studied low-wage work in 

retail and hospitality. Successful applicants provide lots of availability. ‘‘I can work anytime between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. I might be 

assigned, say, around 25 hours per week, with the timing and number of hours varying each week. However, my employer expects 

that I can be available any hours between 8 and 8. Needing more 

money, I take on a second job. However, when that job conflicts 

with hours assigned by my first job, I am punished with reduced 

hours in my first job. They filed what they called the ‘full-time, no 

hours week.’’’ 

Unemployment and under-employment also affect the men who 

father children in low-income single-parent families, leaving both 

them and the families impoverished. 

Six, there are a number of policies that I think can work for families, and, in some ways, this echoes what we have just heard. 

While paid work is the core of family stability, it is enabled by 

work supportive services, including a robust EITC, TANF—particularly when used as a bridging program for families facing timelimited periods of need—access to child care and health care, a 

gradual diminution of welfare benefits as recipients enter work so 

that they receive supports necessary for their stabilization, and emphasis on best employment practices so that parents can work and 

parent simultaneously. 

8 

We also need to look at alternate programs for parents physically 

or mentally unable to work—their access to disability services and 

their access to supports, such as supported work placements and 

longer-term income and rehabilitative assistance. And we need programs that encourage and reward fathers’ fiscal and logistical involvement, child support programs that encourage that involvement, and training and placement programs for men. And overall, 

we need opportunities for program experimentation and evaluation 

to support low-income families and children. 

Thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lein appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Ms. Brown, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF KAY BROWN, DIRECTOR, INCOME SECURITY, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and 

members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss 

our work and the role of TANF in helping poor families. 

Over the past 15 years, Federal and State spending for TANF 

has totaled about $406 billion, representing a significant investment in efforts to promote self-sufficiency and combat poverty. My 

remarks, based on previously published GAO reports, will focus on 

the performance of TANF as a safety net, as a welfare-to-work program, and as a funding source for other services. 

First, on TANF as a safety net. The story of TANF’s early years 

is well known. The strong economy combined with the new focus 

on work contributed to a decline in the rolls of more than 50 percent. 

Many former welfare recipients increased their income through 

employment. However, much of the caseload decline resulted from 

fewer eligible families participating in the program, perhaps in response to TANF’s new rules, such as work requirements and time 

limits. We have been particularly concerned about a small, but possibly growing portion of families that were eligible for TANF but 

did not work, had very low incomes, and did not receive cash benefits. 

More recently, we had the first test of TANF during severe economic times. The relatively modest national caseload increase of 13 

percent, along with caseload decreases in some States, raises questions about the responsiveness of TANF. 

For example, we recently estimated that, among poor and near 

poor families that lost jobs in the recession and used up their unemployment benefits, 40 percent received food stamp benefits, yet 

less than 10 percent received TANF assistance. 

Next, on TANF and moving parents into work. TANF’s work participation requirement is the primary Federal tool to encourage 

States to prepare parents for work. States are expected to ensure 

that 50 percent of work-eligible families receiving cash assistance 

are engaged in certain federally defined work activities. 

However, States have generally engaged fewer families than envisioned, closer to one-third, with little change over time. Despite 

this, States can still meet their work participation requirement by 

relying on several policy and funding options. As a result of these 

9 

options, States do not have the incentive to engage more families 

or to work with families with complex needs. 

Lastly, on the use of TANF for a broad array of services. TANF 

plays a significant role in State funding of other programs and 

services for low-income families, as allowed under program rules. 

In fact, in fiscal year 2011, Federal and State TANF expenditures 

for purposes other than cash assistance amounted to 71 percent of 

the total. These purposes included child care, child welfare, earned 

income tax credits, and teen pregnancy counseling. 

However, we do not know enough about how these funds are 

used and who benefits. This information gap hinders decisionmakers in considering the success of TANF and what tradeoffs 

might be involved in any changes to TANF when it is reauthorized. 

In conclusion, the Federal-State TANF partnership makes significant resources available for families with children. With these 

resources, TANF has provided financial support to these families, 

helped many parents step into jobs, and provided States with flexible funding to support programs consistent with TANF goals. 

At the same time, there are questions about the strength and 

breadth of TANF as a safety net. Many eligible families, some of 

whom have very low incomes, are not participating. The focus on 

work participation rates has helped some families gain employment, but it may not provide States with incentives to engage the 

most difficult to serve. 

And finally, while States have used TANF to support a variety 

of programs, we do not know enough about this spending and 

whether this flexibility is resulting in the most efficient and effective use of funds at this time of scarce government resources and 

great need among the Nation’s low-income families. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, all of you, very much. 

My staff gave me a startling statistic, and I would like you to respond and indicate what you believe the solutions are. You have already touched on it a little bit. 

The statistic is, the Untied States ranks 34th out of 35 economically advanced countries on child poverty, just ahead of Romania— 

34th out of 35, just ahead of Romania on child poverty. 

I do not know the source of that. I am going to take it that it 

is accurate. I think it is a Census Bureau satistic. That is not good. 

And, Dr. Haskins, you have listed several causes. You mentioned 

that work rates are so low, wages are not keeping up, family composition is deteriorating, and we have a weak education system. 

And you also mentioned in your presentation that, although the elderly are doing a little better, the children are doing a lot worse. 

And this number seems to reflect that. 

Can we focus a little bit on the kids? How are we going to get 

more kids out of poverty? 

Dr. HASKINS. The first thing I would say is that we are going to 

need resources. We have a lot now, but we are going to lose some 

of them inevitably over the next 2, 3, 4, 5 years when Congress at 

last decides to deal with the deficit. 

10 

So I think in the long run, the number one thing we have to do 

is to at least slow the rate of growth in programs for the elderly 

and increase the rate of growth in programs for children, and especially programs that are focused on children’s development, like 

high-quality preschool programs. 

We have abundant data from very good scientific experiments 

that high-quality preschool can increase kids’ development and 

make them ready for school, and we may have a number of good 

studies that show long-term impacts on lower teen pregnancy 

rates, higher college admissions, and so forth. 

So that would be a place where we could invest. And, even if we 

could not get money from the programs for the elderly, by reducing 

the rate of growth—not cutting them, but reducing the rate of 

growth—we should be able to figure out a way to do it with the 

poverty resources. Of course, the committee structure of Congress 

is not exactly helpful in doing that. But that way would be much 

more productive to invest money there. 

Secondly, I think that the work strategy, as other witnesses 

said—you cannot get out of poverty in the United States if you are 

only on welfare, and you cannot get out of poverty in the United 

States, especially if you have two or more children, if you work in 

a minimum wage job. 

So we cannot command that the employers pay more than a minimum wage. We could do that, but we would lose some jobs if we 

did it. The better strategy is the one that we have adopted, which 

is to subsidize the earnings to low-income families. And our earned 

income tax credit, the child tax credit, our Medicaid program, even 

our food stamp program, all made important changes since roughly 

the mid-1980s all the way up until the last that I know of, where, 

during the recession, we made a number of changes in the EITC 

and the child tax credit that made it more generous to working 

families. 

So that is the strategy that works. That is the only thing I think 

that we have done that will produce a fairly short-term impact on 

poverty. 

So we have to increase work by single mothers and, hopefully, 

by males as well, and subsidize their earnings. We need to maintain that system. We have something that works. We need to expand it and stick with it. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we are 34th out of 35, what can we learn from 

other countries? What do other countries do that might be helpful 

here? 

Dr. HASKINS. Well, first, I have never seen that number before. 

There are lots of big debates in the scholarly world—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us assume it is close. What can we learn 

from other countries? 

Dr. HASKINS. It depends on what you count. Like, if you use an 

artificial poverty measure, it is crazy. The official poverty measure—all these programs that I just talked about are included in the 

official poverty measure. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is UNICEF. That is the source of this. 

Dr. HASKINS. That makes it even more doubtful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever it is, you are not condoning it. 

11 

Dr. HASKINS. No. I am not condoning it, but we ought to think 

about the problems that we have in the United States. There are 

some things we can learn from foreign countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to ask. Do any come to mind? 

Dr. HASKINS. We have done a number of things that they have 

done, and they have done a number of things we have done. 

For example, people tend to think of Europe as a bunch of liberal 

socialists. They had very strong work requirements, not only in 

their poverty programs, but also in their disability programs, and 

even they are trying to figure out ways to encourage the elderly to 

work, because they are following the principle that, in the 21st century, governments are not going to make it unless they have more 

people working and paying taxes and fewer people getting benefits. 

So I think they have learned something from us. We have 

learned from them the importance of a social safety net, and I 

think we do have a fairly reasonable safety net. 

I would point out to the committee that in 2009, even though 

TANF was abysmal—I admit that, and we should talk about that, 

and the committee should address it during reauthorization. But 

nonetheless, our other programs expanded, and poverty did not increase in 2009, despite the huge increase in unemployment, and it 

was almost totally because of government programs that kept people out of poverty. 

So that is a great achievement of our system, and I think part 

of that we learned from Europe about the importance of having a 

safety net. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it is just astounding. In fact, it is 

more than a tragedy that so many kids live in poverty. It just is 

an outrage. And I just think our country deserves a big black eye 

for not addressing it more efficiently. 

My time has expired. 

Senator HATCH. Dr. Lein? 

The CHAIRMAN. Although my time has expired, Senator Hatch is 

being very generous, suggesting that you be able to respond. 

Dr. LEIN. It is important that I think we can learn both about 

how to coordinate early childhood education from the approaches 

other countries have taken so that it is more universally available, 

and secondly, to recognize that the costs of health care and the 

damage done to families by injury and lack of health treatment are 

considerable and that bolstering health care, particularly for lowincome adults, can make a change in our poverty levels. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give an example of that coordination? 

Dr. LEIN. The kinds of coordination? So, in our country, we have 

basically three different systems that provide child care to impoverished adults—to impoverished parents for their children. We have 

the Head Start program, we have subsidized child care, and, in 

most locales, we have pre-kindergarten. 

Each of those is for different subgroups of children, and none of 

them is reaching all eligible children—— 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Dr. LEIN [continuing]. Unlike a system that has it more tied in 

to public schools as an accepted part of the schooling system or in 

a series, as they have in France, of places where you can take children, and, again, it is fairly universally available. 

12 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Haskins, the most recent data from the Department of 

Health and Human Services reveals that nearly 55 percent of 

work-eligible adults receiving assistance are engaged in zero hours 

of activity. 

I would like you to comment on that statistic. And also, do you 

believe it was the intention of members of Congress and President 

Clinton that, in over a decade and a half since welfare reform, 

more than half the welfare caseload would be doing absolutely 

nothing? 

Dr. HASKINS. Well, of course it was not. I worked on the welfare 

legislation when I was with the House Ways and Means Committee, and there is no question that there was bipartisan agreement that more people should work and that the cash welfare system should not just dispense cash, it ought to encourage employment, and it does that now. 

However, I think part of the problem is—it is astounding to me 

that, after 1996, the States ran programs that were very successful 

under almost every count. There was a problem at the bottom, and 

we can talk about that if you want to. I do not want to say welfare 

reform was a magic bullet, but it did a lot that people thought was 

impossible. 

We had a 40-percent increase in a 4-year period in the percentage of never-married mothers, the most disadvantaged group, who 

actually had jobs. So that was very successful and subsidized by 

EITC and so forth. 

But then in the Deficit Reduction Act, I think we really—I think 

we made a mistake. We tightened the screws on the States. I am 

not sure why we did that. The States were performing fairly well. 

And we put a lot of requirements in the DRA that I think are very 

difficult for States to meet. 

And, at the same time, I would even question—and I hope the 

committee looks into this carefully—the block grant structure, because as GAO points out—and they do have previous reports that 

show that money is being spent. We allowed the States to spend 

it any way they wanted to as long as it was on low-income families. 

They could not build bridges and so forth. 

So I think that is an issue, too. If we were to do the kind of 

things we are talking about here, that is, provide more work services for people who are really disadvantaged, those would be more 

expensive than what the States are doing now. They would have 

to get that money back, and they would have to get it back from 

their own State programs, and that is very difficult. 

This is what the committee should look into. So that is a big 

issue. 

And secondly, the work requirement is so stiff, and the counting 

is so green eye shade—I recently have had the experience of calling 

all the State TANF directors to find out how their programs survived during the recession, and it is amazing to me that over half 

of them have said that the paperwork burden for counting work 

and hours is so heavy and so difficult that it distracts them. 

13 

Now, that is a typical excuse that a bureaucrat makes, but I 

have heard it so often and it does make such sense, that I think 

there are issues here. And we could do something at the Federal 

level to do something about these work requirements. That there 

be more than 70 percent of the caseload or something should be 

achievable, if they are doing at least something, but they are not 

meeting the work requirements as they are spelled out in the current regulations and statutes. 

Senator HATCH. Dr. Lein, in your written testimony, you describe 

the need for fragile families to form connections, both ‘‘tight’’ connections to an informal support system and ‘‘loose’’ connections to 

community and civic organizations. 

What advice do you have for this committee on policies that 

could promote these types of connections? 

Dr. LEIN. I think there are two different kinds of approaches to 

take in looking at how you help families become seated in the larger society, where they can reach out for assistance and receive assistance in different ways. 

One is to support them in the kinds of tight networks, or networks that are likely to actually deliver help in emergencies. I 

think that is one of the reasons why I am very interested in programs that would encourage the non-residential fathers of these 

children to stay involved, to become more involved, rather than be 

distanced, in some cases, by the policies that we have in place. 

So I think there are ways of using public housing policies, child 

support policies, to encourage that involvement rather than, in 

some cases, discourage it. 

Senator HATCH. Ms. Brown, when States describe how they 

spend their welfare dollars, a significant percentage of dollars is 

spent on services and activities that are characterized as ‘‘other.’’ 

Can you comment on what these ‘‘other’’ activities are and what 

challenges for policymakers are presented by having so much of the 

TANF expenditures unknown? And what suggestions would you 

make for policymakers to achieve greater transparency on TANF 

expenditures? 

Ms. BROWN. We are actually doing some work right now to try 

to tease out all of the things that are spent through the TANF 

block grant that are not cash assistance. But we know in that 

‘‘other’’ category that a large portion of that is child welfare. It goes 

directly to services for prevention for agencies that are trying to 

serve high-risk children and families. 

I am sorry. I missed the second part of your question. 

Senator HATCH. It was: what suggestions would you make for 

policymakers so that we can get greater transparency on TANF expenditures? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I think the tricky part of that is, we have 

heard already that there is a risk of expecting too much reporting 

and too much detail, going too far, so that the States feel that there 

is a barrier or an encumbrance. 

But I do think that as long as—right now, 71 percent of the resources for the TANF block grant are not spent on cash assistance. 

I think it is really important that we have a better understanding 

of what those resources are spent on, and we are hoping that we 

can contribute to that with this work we are doing right now. 

14 

Senator HATCH. That is my point as well. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Bingaman? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Dr. Haskins, I understand a main point that 

you are making here is that the best thing that we can do with this 

TANF funding is to subsidize earnings. Is that accurate? 

Dr. HASKINS. That is one thing we should do, but I think training 

also plays a role. Job search has been shown again and again to 

be effective. We should have more effective job search programs. 

The distinction between job search, simply looking for a job— 

which usually includes some tutoring in how you conduct yourself 

and how you dress and so forth and having a nice resume—and 

training is, there is a continuum here, and we need more training. 

We need more preparation for some of these mothers to do well in 

the labor force, and the same thing after they get in the labor force 

to advance. That has been a very disappointing thing to me, that 

many of these mothers do not advance. 

So TANF should be used for that sort of thing. It is not just to 

subsidize income. The EITC, child tax credit, we have lots of subsidies of income. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I guess what I am trying to understand 

is whether it would make sense, in this reauthorization that is contemplated here in the next couple to 3 months, for Congress and 

for the Federal Government to essentially say, all right, this is a 

block grant, but you have to spend a certain percentage of this 

block grant—each State has to spend a certain percent of it doing 

a certain set of things. 

I guess, Ms. Brown, as I understand your testimony, you are saying that 29 percent of the dollars that States receive from the Federal Government is actually being spent in cash assistance. 

Ms. BROWN. That is correct. 

Senator BINGAMAN. So you have 71 percent that is being spent 

in other things, and you are trying to figure out exactly what all 

those other things are and how much of each. 

But, if there are some things that we think are high-priority uses 

and most beneficial uses of this money, should we not say to 

States, 50 percent of your money has to be spent either helping 

people get jobs—job training—or for cash assistance for people who 

are earning in the labor force, or some set of things? 

Dr. Haskins, do you have a point of view on that? 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes I do. I question putting more requirements on 

the States. We gave them a block grant. The idea was the States 

would be responsible and handle the money well. And now there 

is some indication, well, maybe they did not. Maybe they spent the 

money on child protection. This committee has jurisdiction over 

several open entitlement programs for child protection. 

So it makes sense somewhat to put more rules on the States, but 

more rules lead to more paperwork and so forth. I am not sure— 

I think it is more important to get the incentives right. 

Senator BINGAMAN. I think one of you testified that the caseload, 

the TANF caseload, has decreased in some States during the recession. 

15 

Now that, to me, is a sign that this thing is broken. I mean, if 

this is a program that is supposed to be helping these folks, you 

should not have folks dropping out of the program when the economy goes in the tank. 

So isn’t some change in the program essential as part of a rewrite here? 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes. Yes. I am not defending the status quo. I am 

just—I am worried about how you do it. Some States feel that people ought to work and they ought to look for work intensely and, 

if they do not find work, it is their fault. That seems to be the essence of their policy, even during the recession. And people do find 

employment during a recession. 

If we want to have the States spend more TANF dollars during 

the recession on TANF cash assistance, which is the way we originally thought of the program—we put a contingency fund in the 

original legislation. It was supposed to give the States more cash 

during the recession so that they would be able to pay more benefits. But somehow, in some States, the work message is so strong 

that the States are reluctant to do things to attract people back 

into the rolls. And plus, they say that encourages dependency. 

So you have a real philosophical conflict here, and, if you tried 

to do this, I could find 10 Governors to come in here and say, ‘‘No, 

don’t do that, it is an outrage.’’ That does not mean you should not 

do it, but I am just saying that there is a real difference of opinion 

here about what the real cause is of why people do not get TANF 

benefits. 

But, yes, I think you ought to look at that, and I personally 

would support something that would cause the States to be more 

responsive during a recession, because they were not very—many 

of them were not. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Dr. Lein, did you have a point of view on any 

of this? 

Dr. LEIN. I think, also, we need to look at how TANF operates 

in a period when there simply are not enough jobs. And the people 

who are going to be out there job hunting are going to find jobs in 

the informal economy. They are going to find jobs that may not 

count in TANF regulations, and it may take them longer to find 

jobs. 

Senator BINGAMAN. A period where there are not enough jobs 

may be the new norm. Certainly, we have had that circumstance 

now for several years since this recession started. 

Dr. LEIN. And so we need to take a hard look at what we want 

people to do if they are not finding jobs. And what they are doing 

now, I suspect, is—I do not think we know for sure, but I think 

one option is that they are not joining TANF because they know 

they cannot meet the requirements. 

Senator BINGAMAN. My time is up. 

Dr. HASKINS. Mr. Chairman, could I have 20 seconds to add 

something to this? It is extremely important. 

When this committee and the Congress passed the emergency 

fund during the recession, it gave the States $5 billion in TANF 

funds, and it gave them the option of basically creating jobs by subsidizing jobs even in the government and private sector, which had 

never worked before. 

16 

But the States created 260,000 jobs. And so, how did the Congress reward them? When the time for the emergency money came 

to an end, poof, it was gone, and the State programs were falling 

apart. 

But that shows you that the States are highly motivated to try 

to do things, including even the very complex issue of subsidizing 

jobs in the private sector—260,000 jobs is one great achievement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this very important hearing. 

Dr. Haskins, I have been following some of your work with your 

colleague Isabel Sawhill at Brookings, and I am intrigued by something I want to quote back to you. And that is, you said that if families follow three basic rules, that they are virtually assured that 

they will avoid poverty: complete at least a high school education, 

work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby. 

Based on an analysis of Census data, you conclude that people 

who followed all three of these rules had only a 2-percent chance 

of being in poverty and a 72-percent chance of joining the middle 

class. Conversely, these numbers for those people who violated all 

three rules would elevate their chance of being poor to 77 percent 

and reduce their chance of making it to the middle class to 4 percent. 

So, if it is that clear that those three things would raise the likelihood of success of people leaving poverty and joining the middle 

class, what can the Federal Government do to help? 

Dr. HASKINS. Well, first of all, we did something terrific in the 

1996 welfare reform legislation, because we really strongly encouraged work. And I think we have to maintain that message, because 

keep in mind the poverty rate among kids in single-parent families—and that is where the highest poverty rate in the country is— 

is still lower now after two recessions than it was before welfare 

reform, and that is primarily because those mothers are working. 

And the work rates are still about 20 percent higher than they 

were before welfare reform. So the work message—it was more 

than just welfare reform that did it, but the work message has gotten through. So that is the first thing. 

The second thing is, non-marital births are a huge problem in 

the United States, and we are trying, we are doing some things, 

but I think we could do a lot more. I have suggested things in my 

testimony. 

Our teen pregnancy programs, avoiding teen pregnancy, are 

quite good, and we are expanding those. The administration now 

is doing evidence-based funding—it is about $100 million a year, 

and I think that is extremely important. 

The House tried to kill it last year. The Senate saved it. The 

House tried to kill it the year before, and the Senate saved it 

again. 

I think that is an extremely important program, because we are 

still learning about how to reduce teen pregnancy. And there are 

several programs, national campaigns, at least two of which have 

good evidence about the importance of comprehensive sex education, especially addressed to males for the use of condoms when 

17 

they are engaging in non-marital sex where they do not want to 

have a baby, and expansion of Medicaid to women who are not covered so their birth control is free. Both of those have been shown 

to produce big benefits that outweigh their costs. 

So I think that is another thing that the Federal Government 

can do. I would like to see us expand work requirements, but this 

is very sensitive. I am sensitive to the point that Senator Bingaman made about work in the United States: we have the lowest 

percentage of people employed that we have had in decades, probably, maybe even forever. 

And maybe that is the future. Who knows? We are not recovering 

from this recession very well. But there are still a lot of people getting jobs at the bottom. So we should do everything we can to encourage employment. I think we should look at the food stamp program and at the housing program, because they both have weak to 

nonexistent work requirements, and that concerns me. I think we 

might be able to make some progress there. 

Senator CORNYN. When I was Attorney General of Texas, I was 

responsible for child support enforcement under the title 4(d) program, which, of course, assigned to the State Attorney General the 

responsibility to enforce the child support obligation, establish paternity where necessary. 

But could you speak, Dr. Lein—I know you have had a distinguished career at the University of Texas as well. 

Dr. LEIN. Absolutely. 

Senator CORNYN. But I would be interested in hearing from each 

of the witnesses or any of the witnesses who care to comment about 

what should the Federal Government continue to do when it comes 

to enforcing the child support obligation and assisting the States? 

I will just close, before I ask you to answer, with a quick story. 

I was in El Paso, TX and got out of an airplane, and a gentleman 

approached me and told me, ‘‘You put me in jail when you were Attorney General.’’ I did not really know what to expect next. [Laughter.] 

But actually what happened was, he told me that—he said when 

we sued him to force him to pay his child support, his wife had previously denied him access to his child, and the judge, at the same 

time he ordered him to pay child support, ordered his ex-wife to 

allow him to see the child. 

And so this child was a 2-time loser: he did not get the financial 

support and did not get the love and support of both parents. 

Ironically, this story ended on a happy note. He told me once the 

judge ordered that, he said, ‘‘You know, we are back together again 

now.’’ It had a happy ending. 

There are not enough happy endings in this scenario. But could 

you comment on—as we approach that function, the child support 

enforcement function—what do we need to do differently? What do 

we need to continue to do that we are doing right? If you would 

address that, please. 

Dr. LEIN. Sure. And Texas has been interesting, because they 

have done some very interesting experiments on encouraging payment of child support. And those experiments include things like 

punishments on the one side for not paying, but also a lot of assistance, in some of the experiments, for finding the job, for getting 

18 

placed again in your community and in jobs, particularly if you 

have been jailed or imprisoned in the interim, and I think the child 

support payments need both of those. 

You cannot just punish non-paying fathers if they cannot get jobs 

and they cannot earn, but you also do not want them to earn without giving them a sense that it is really required that they pay over 

to their children. So I think setting up those kinds of programs can 

do both. 

I think, also, other than having a threshold, we should have 

some of the money that the father pays go over to women who are 

on welfare—even if they are still drawing welfare—so that almost 

immediately that family system sees the benefit of fathers paying 

into their system, rather than setting up a system where both parties to it might feel they are better off if the father pays under the 

table, which takes it out of the State oversight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Nelson, you are next. 

Senator NELSON. I am going to pass. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate this hearing. 

Dr. Haskins, it is nice to be with you again. I served on the Ways 

and Means Committee and went up against Dr. Haskins 16 years 

ago and lost most of my arguments and provisions, but joined the 

majority in supporting the TANF legislation 16 years ago. And I 

think it was the right decision to change the program and make 

it focused on getting people out of poverty and getting them employed. But I do think we have to acknowledge some concerns. 

Senator Bingaman already mentioned some of those issues. In a 

recession, we would expect States to be able to respond by putting 

more cash out there when the job market is more difficult. But we 

know that during this recession, States did not have that option in 

many cases. They just did not have the fiscal capacity to do what 

we would have liked them to do. They would have had to cut other 

programs, and they were not prepared to do that. So I do think it 

does raise an issue as to how TANF works during recessions. 

Secondly, we can all point with pride to the number of people 

who are off of cash assistance. But I think we also have to acknowledge that during the same period of time, using the mid-1990s as 

our base, the number of children in poverty has actually increased 

in America. It is over a million more children in poverty. And our 

objective was to get people out of poverty. So I think we need to 

figure out more effective ways in order to do this. 

I also want to talk a little bit about the issue, Dr. Haskins, you 

have raised on the requirements on our States. This was supposed 

to be a partnership with the States, giving them the ability to innovate and move forward. And I think, in many cases, we have not 

let that happen. 

There was testimony in the Ways and Means Committee recently 

by Shauna King-Simms from Kentucky, who talked about how the 

30-percent participation rate for those in vocational education has 

restricted that State in what it wants to do to get people employed. 

19 

We all know that education is critically important. The 1-year limitation is a problem—there are many programs that are 2 years. 

I just visited some in the community colleges in Maryland who 

are in 2-year vocational education programs, and yet a person who 

is participating in the program would be prevented from going beyond 1 year during their lifetime. So I think there are some restrictions. 

And I would also point out one of the debates we had back 16 

years ago was whether the test should be how many people go off 

of cash assistance or how many people end up among the employed, and we opted for getting off of cash assistance as the test 

rather than using those who are employed. 

I guess my question to the panel is—I think the States have 

demonstrated the capacity to innovate and to use this program in 

a most flexible way to meet the needs of the people in their own 

State. But they are asking for more flexibility. Why shouldn’t we 

give it to them? 

In a way, I like the Republican view originally of giving flexibility to States. Why shouldn’t we give them the ability to come forward with a demonstration program that would allow the test to 

be getting people employed rather than off of cash assistance, or 

why can’t they have the ability to go beyond 30 percent on participation, where they have demonstrated that they have been able to 

achieve the other goals that we have set out for them in welfare 

reform? 

So, as we consider the reauthorization of TANF, should we not 

be considering ways to give the States additional flexibility, allowing them—holding them accountable to a final result, but giving 

them more flexibility in order to achieve it? 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes, we should. I think we were right in 1996, because the States were not focused on work. They made excuses 

about, oh, well, these mothers are not capable of working and so 

forth. So we really changed the whole culture of welfare. And I 

have visited several offices in your State, and you can see that they 

are organized around work. They call themselves work offices. The 

word ‘‘welfare’’ has been cast into the depths. 

So I think there have been a lot of big important changes. And 

under those circumstances, my own opinion—I am not very popular 

among Republicans for this view, but my own opinion is that we 

should give more flexibility to the States. And I think the relentless 

increase and tightening the screws on requirements as, for example, in the DRA, has produced unexpected results, and they are not 

helpful to either the mothers or to the States. 

So I think we ought to look at this very carefully. I think, for example, in the case that you raise of education—now, the fact is that 

a lot of these families, even when they try to go to school, they drop 

out quickly. A lot of them, it is the furthest thing from their mind. 

But still there are families on welfare that could profit from education, especially a tailored, short program that was 6 months and 

led to a welding certificate or something. Those kind of things, I 

think the States should not be limited in doing. We need to look 

at that very carefully and I think make changes, I agree. 

Senator CARDIN. Do other panelists want to respond? 

20 

Ms. BROWN. I think there are two things that you mentioned 

that are important. One is the idea of encouraging the research 

and trying to find innovations and supporting States in those efforts. 

The second piece is the incentives. As long as TANF is a block 

grant and the States do have those flexibilities, the four goals are 

very, very broad, and thinking about whether those are still the 

four goals that you would want the program to address is important, because a lot of the resources that are going away from cash 

assistance and jobs are because of those broad goals. 

And the final point is incentives. I think I agree with Dr. 

Haskins that the way that State performance is being measured 

now is not really helpful, and there are probably a number of different ways that you could consider new incentives, including outcomes that you mentioned. 

Senator CARDIN. My time has expired, so I am at the mercy of 

the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are other Senators who do wish to speak, 

so I will go down the list here. Thank you very much. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Haskins, you remember that the change in 

the law was to end welfare as we know it. And looking at your poverty rates, figure number one, after the enactment of that law, the 

poverty for children went down; for seniors, it basically stayed 

about the same; for all people, it went down a little. But all of 

those trend lines have gone back up recently. 

What happened? 

Dr. HASKINS. We have a lower percentage of non-marital birth 

mothers and single mothers working. Their work rates have declined less than most other demographic groups, but they work 

less. And now we have created a system where, if you do not work, 

you cannot get out of poverty. 

So that is exactly what happened. But I would point out to you 

that the work rates among low-income mothers are still higher 

than they were before welfare reform, and the child poverty rates 

among kids in never-married families and all single-parent families 

are lower than they were before welfare reform. 

So the strategy is still working somewhat. When the economy 

gets going, I think it is plausible to assume that those mothers will 

go back to work, especially if the States have the kind of programs 

that Senator Cardin described. 

So I am somewhat optimistic that, as the economy recovers, poverty will drop again among this group. But keep in mind, poverty 

among single-mother families and among black children—with 

single-parent families at such a high proportion—reached its lowest 

level ever, and it is still much lower than it was before welfare reform, and it is because of work. 

Senator NELSON. Wasn’t the earned income tax credit supposed 

to be part of the relief for this? And why, with the institution of 

that, would you still have—— 

Dr. HASKINS. If mothers work close to full-time, even at, say, 8 

or 9 bucks an hour, between the earned income tax credit, the child 

tax credit, food stamps, they will be above poverty if you include 

all those benefits. 

21 

I gave an example of this in my testimony. I think it is a triumph for American social policy that the combination of work, 

which Republicans really preferred in welfare reform, and benefits 

that are contingent on work, those two things, are a highly bipartisan solution. That is what we have created, and as long as we can 

help mothers work, then the system will work. 

Let me point out one more thing. The EITC has a vicious little 

characteristic. If a mother loses a job, she not only loses her earnings, she loses her EITC. So it is a double-whammy, and that is— 

I do not know what to do about that, but that is a very serious 

problem. 

The EITC is a great thing. It is one of the best programs we 

have. But it is really a problem when someone loses a job or loses 

hours. 

Senator NELSON. That is a very good point, Mr. Chairman and 

Senator Hatch, a very good point. 

Dr. Lein? 

Dr. LEIN. And I just wanted to point out, following up on that, 

that what we are seeing is an increase in the variability of jobs, 

so that people have jobs with variable hours. There is a great deal 

of under-employment, as well as unemployment, so that people are 

under-employed, and, as their wages sink, other kinds of benefits 

sink as well. 

Senator NELSON. But at least, even if they are under-employed, 

as Dr. Haskins points out, they have a chance to get the earned 

income tax credit. 

Dr. LEIN. They have a chance to get the earned income tax credit, but the sum will start dropping them into poverty again. 

Senator NELSON. Final point. Let me ask you about the muchmaligned stimulus bill. One of the biggest parts of that, other than 

tax cuts, by the way, which often is overlooked, but one of the big 

parts of the stimulus bill was to help out the States with Medicaid 

and also education. 

And I know in my State, a huge amount of money went back to 

the States for 2 years to help them with Medicaid. But after 2 

years, it cut off. And then the States did not pick up the responsibility after that. And so you have this huge falling off the cliff after 

2 years. 

What do you think about all that, and how does that tie into 

this? 

Dr. LEIN. I think one of the problems that that causes is that, 

for low-income families, I think medical debt is becoming a part of 

their financial life, and families who have tried to orchestrate that, 

if they do not have access to Medicaid or to the child health insurance program, end up in debt and often in surprising debt in very 

large amounts. 

And I think one of the concerns we have, as medical insurance 

does not become more widespread, is that more families are going 

to be hampered by the degree to which they are carrying medical 

debt. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

22 

I want to welcome our witnesses. It is very nice to see you, Dr. 

Haskins. And when I was privileged to be Governor of Delaware 

and in the National Governors Association, on this issue he was 

one of the top advisors for us in the House and, frankly, for Governors as well, and I appreciate very much the great work that you 

have done, and continue to do. 

And I welcome our other two witnesses as well. 

I still have a chance to go into schools all over my State, and I 

am sure my colleagues visit schools throughout their States. I like 

to do assemblies in high schools, and sometimes when I do—and 

in middle schools, as well—I will mention this to them: if a young 

woman, age 16, becomes pregnant, drops out of school, does not 

marry the father of her child, there is an 80-percent—eight-zero 

percent—likelihood that they will live in poverty. 

If that same 16-year-old girl does not become pregnant, graduates from high school, waits to at least 20 to have a child, and 

ends up marrying the father of her child, there is an 8-percent likelihood that they will live in poverty. Those were numbers from 

probably a decade or so ago, but my guess is they are probably not 

far off. 

I remember holding and hosting, as Governor, a 1-day summit in 

Dover, DE—we had it at the Sheraton Hotel—and we invited every 

high school in Delaware to send two kids, a boy and girl, and to 

help us think out loud about teen pregnancy. And we spent the better part of the day together. 

The young people did not know it, but they actually helped me 

draft what we wanted to do on welfare reform in our State. And 

they basically said, it starts with a State-wide campaign on teenage 

pregnancy and the change, the incentives, and what we really 

think about teenage pregnancy. 

They also said it was important that we not only help people find 

a job, but that we help make sure they do not become parents before they are ready to become parents. We all believe we should 

make sure they have some of the skills that they need that will 

help them find a job, and that we should provide resources to reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy, that we ensure people 

have the skills that they need to find a job for which there is an 

opening; better ensure that they have the ability to find that job, 

get to that job, make sure that they have child care for their kids 

if they need that, to make sure that they have health care so they 

do not just lose their time out on Medicaid. 

But the idea, again, as you all know, sort of the grand compromise is to make sure that people are better off going to work 

than they are just staying on welfare. That is pretty smart, and 

those kids were pretty smart in helping me and others to figure 

that out in my State and probably in other States as well. 

I would like to know what has been going on with teen pregnancy rates in this country over the last decade or so. And I understand that actually there is some encouraging news out there. And 

I would like to know what is going on, if you know, and to what 

extent the ways we have moved foward from welfare to work, trying to make sure that people are better off when they are working, 

how that might have affected teen pregnancy rates. 

Do you want to start, Dr. Haskins? 

23 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes. Thank you. You may recall that we had something like 15 provisions in the 1996 welfare reform bill that were 

intended to have an impact on family structure—teen pregnancy, 

non-marital birth rates. We set aside I think it was $25 million for 

cash awards to the States that could reduce their non-marital birth 

rates. And I do not think any of that had much impact. 

However, we have had success in teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy rates have fallen every year since 1991, except for 2 or 

maybe 3 years. Those are recent years, and they have picked back 

up again. 

The Congress has done a lot, in cooperation with the administration, to try new programs that are based on hard evidence that 

they will work, and we are spending about $100 million on those 

evidence-based programs. 

So I think we are continuing to do what is required. Here is the 

big problem, I think, and it is hard to figure out exactly how to address it. And that is, if you look at the non-marital birth rates for 

the young ladies just above the teen years, so in their early 20s, 

those rates, as the teen poverty rate goes down, those rates go up. 

It is almost as if young ladies can only avoid pregnancy for so long, 

and I think there is some truth in that, having interviewed a number of these mothers. 

It is not necessarily—in fact, in most cases, it is not a mistake. 

They want a baby. Their prospects for marriage are not great. 

Their choices among men are problematic, because many of them 

do not work. And so they decide, ‘‘Well, I have a baby with this 

guy, but I sure wouldn’t marry him,’’ and they have a baby with 

a guy. 

So we need to focus on 20-year-olds, too. It is not just teenagers. 

And there, I think, Medicaid can play an important role by covering family planning services, and the mothers are anxious to do 

that. They do it if it is offered. 

It is not going to solve a huge part of the problem, but it is one 

solution. So that is something to really focus on, non-marital birth 

rates among 20-somethings. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Mr. Chairman, could I ask either of the 

other witnesses just to briefly comment on the same issue, please? 

Thank you. 

Dr. LEIN. And I think it is also worthwhile to think about focusing on men and on young men, the potential fathers of these children, and what we are doing about their job prospects, what kinds 

of services they have available to them, and what kinds of health 

care and advice they have access to, because they are undoubtedly 

less served than the women in the same age bracket. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. I was just going to mention one other point, which 

is that we are still learning and need to learn a lot more about the 

concept of marriage promotion. There have been some recent studies that have just been released that are not very encouraging. 

And so, if we are talking about promoting marriage, I think we 

still have a long ways to go in figuring that out—— 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. For low-income families. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

24 

Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for holding this hearing and giving us a chance to have this discussion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, 

I think the focus that you and the staff have been putting on poverty and particularly the opportunities to address these antipoverty issues in a fresh and creative way makes a lot of sense, 

and I very much appreciate it. 

Dr. Haskins, you have been doing yeoman work in this field for 

a long time, and I am really looking forward to being—— 

Dr. HASKINS. But I am still so young. 

Senator WYDEN. You are. [Laughter.] 

We will put you in the youth caucus as well. And I am looking 

forward to pursuing economic mobility issues with you as well in 

the days ahead, and I will have a question on that in a moment. 

Now, I want to take what we have done in Oregon and get your 

sense sort of on one of the opportunities for reform. My home State 

has focused primarily on education and trying to find ways to keep 

families together. Those are our special kind of priorities. Now, this 

approach coincided with the recession, which hit my State particularly hard. 

Between December 2007 and December of 2009, nationwide caseloads went up 12 percent, but Oregon’s went up 40 percent. Twoparent caseloads alone went up over 214 percent. So now we are 

looking at the prospect of $27.5 million in Federal fines for not 

meeting the work participation rates. 

So the question I have is about your sense of a policy change. In 

an economy with fewer jobs than job-seekers, would it not make 

sense to give the States more credit for moving a public assistance 

recipient into a job rather than simply moving them off the rolls, 

because it seems to me, if we take that as kind of a fundamental 

proposition, we could look at a variety of new approaches, like perhaps giving the States a waiver to start trying some demonstration 

projects in this area? 

What is your thinking on that point? 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes. I think it is a good idea. It is a reasonable 

thing to do. I am worried about the way you actually measure it. 

It would give the States something new to report. What it is compared to is an issue. 

So there are a lot of issues about how to measure it, but I think 

basically it is a sound idea, as long as we did not lose the focus 

on work. A lot of people get jobs during a recession. 

What you say about the number of people looking for a job and 

the ratio to number of jobs available was worse in this recession 

than any time since the Depression. So that is a consideration in 

how you are to find a job. 

But people still find jobs even during a recession. So, again, it 

is like the original TANF program, the balance between a reasonable policy and a policy that does put pressure on people to work. 

As long as that is maintained, then I think your idea is a good one. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, it is that balance that I am interested in, 

and I think Senator Cardin has made a number of good points on 

this. And that is why the approach of trying particularly to let 

25 

States that have been creative—and as you know, Oregon has been 

consistently in terms of human resources—get a waiver to try some 

of these approaches, I think would be attractive. 

Let me ask you a little bit about the economic mobility issues. 

As you know, I am going to be one of the co-chairs of the caucus 

which is going to kick off here very shortly in partnership with 

Pew. 

Now, you have touched on a number of policy recommendations, 

but why don’t you, if you would not mind, just give us a couple of 

recommendations with respect to the economic mobility work that 

you have been pursuing, because I think this is hugely important. 

We are seeing, of course, these major regional differences, which I 

gather our colleagues have touched on before I came in, as well. 

Why don’t you, just for purposes of the rest of my time, give us 

a sense of a couple of recommendations that you think are particularly important on the mobility issue? 

Dr. HASKINS. Let me mention two. The first one is everything we 

have been talking about in this hearing room today, because the 

way to increase mobility, one big way to increase it, is to start at 

the bottom. Those are the people who are most disadvantaged. 

If you look at the data on earnings and almost any measure of 

income, the bottom is what has really been stagnant. In fact, the 

bottom would have been even worse than stagnant, would have declined, if it had not been for Federal benefits. 

So the Federal transfer of payments for wealthy or more advantaged people to low-income people has actually meant that, even 

over the period of the last 2 or 3 decades, the bottom has actually 

moved up, unlike what you are likely to read in the New York 

Times. And a big part of that is that so many people at the bottom 

work, especially single moms. 

So the purpose of TANF is verified by the importance to increasing mobility in the United States. Start at the bottom, help them 

first. 

The second thing is that I think we need to figure out a much 

better way to get kids into junior colleges and colleges. We are 

working on that. And I would not fault social policy at either the 

Federal or State level, but we need an even more intense and a 

smarter focus on it. 

The reason is that low-income kids are still at a disadvantage. 

They are less likely to enroll either in 2- or 4-year colleges, and 

they are more likely to drop out despite the fact that they are less 

likely to enroll. 

So the difference in achieving a 2-year or 4-year degree between 

kids from the bottom and kids from the top is enormous, and that 

is something we ought to focus on, especially because we have very 

good data from universities, long-term data, where we can compare 

the income of kids to their own parents. That is how long these 

kids have been followed, over 40 years. 

And it shows that, if a low-income kid from the bottom 20 per- cent, roughly below $20,000, if they get a college degree, their 

chances of staying in the bottom are cut by more than half, and 

their chance of making it to the top is increased by a factor of four. 

Name any other intervention that would increase something by 

a factor of four. So this is an extremely important problem. We just 

26 

simply have to figure out a better way to get kids in junior college 

and college, especially low-income kids. And a big part of it is making the high schools better. I know that is hard, but that is a big 

part of it. 

Senator WYDEN. Well said. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding the hearing today on an important subject. Thank you all for 

taking your time to share your insights with us. 

Let me ask this of Dr. Lein and then maybe Ms. Brown as well. 

Why do you think that the utilization of the TANF program has 

decreased? 

Dr. LEIN. I think there are several contributing factors to it. I 

think it is hard to use, and it is particularly hard to use if you really do not think you are going to get a job and you are not going 

to be able to meet those work requirements. So I think some people 

just opt out for that reason. 

I think a lot of families are doing things, and feel they have to 

do things in that network sense, that make TANF harder to do. 

They have other people living in their household. They are drawing 

on their networks in ways. They are engaged in the informal labor 

market, trying to make ends meet, and it does not mesh well with 

the TANF program. 

And I think, unless they are in a program where they see some 

movement up through education and training, it also appears that 

they are not going to be helped to be placed in jobs that would actually dramatically change their situation. So I think there is that 

part of it. 

The second thing that families tell us is that the TANF payments 

are actually only part of the picture, and as long as they were 

using it as an avenue into Medicaid, into other kinds of supports, 

it was more valuable to them than just the cash payment itself, 

and those have become somewhat separated. 

Senator THUNE. Same answer, Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Pretty much. I would just like to add that, at the 

risk of making this more complicated, in addition to the TANF program, there are other types of investments that States are making, 

and sometimes States will take families whom they think are not 

likely to succeed in the work activity program and move them into 

a separate program. And so they are not counted in the numbers 

that you would see in TANF. 

Now, in very tight economic times, that becomes more and more 

difficult for the States. 

Senator THUNE. And what reforms, if any, do you think Congress 

ought to make to TANF in order to ensure that States are more 

proactive in assisting families as they prepare for and find jobs? 

Are there things that we ought to be doing and we are not doing? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I think we ought to go back to the point that 

sounds very simplistic, but is really complicated of course, and that 

is the idea to start first very clearly with the goals of the program, 

making sure those are still the goals that you want them to be, and 

then look at the incentives and the way that the success of the 

States is measured. 

27 

Having one measure, and one measure that does not tell you 

very much about whether the States are actually achieving what 

you hoped they would, is not going to encourage States to make 

changes. 

If you were to think about some different measure or basket of 

measures that were more focused on outcomes or that gave States 

more flexibility for families that had larger problems or more significant problems, those are the kinds of things that we have seen 

make a difference when you are using a block grant, where there 

is a lot of flexibility but you still want to hold a State accountable. 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Dr. LEIN. I think there are three issues, following up on what 

Ron said: I think making more allowance for opportunities for education and training that may extend beyond some of the limits in 

many States; I think looking at coordinated programs that would 

increase father involvement with families; and third, looking at 

ways in which to expand people’s ability to get child care during 

the time they are trying to enter the labor force and to keep that 

child care for some time afterwards. 

Senator THUNE. Good. Let me ask just quickly one other question, and that has to do with a GAO report out here recently that 

suggested that there is about somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 

billion or north of there in refundable tax credits, payments made 

to people who are claiming children who do not live in this country 

and are here illegally. 

And there is some legislation, which I am cosponsoring now, that 

would require greater documentation to prove that you are here legally in order to benefit from that program. Are those the types of 

reforms that you would support, that you think make sense? Obviously, this is something where you have people who are not here 

legally benefitting from a program at great cost for the taxpayers. 

Does anybody want to take a shot at that? 

Dr. HASKINS. Yes. I would support something like that. The 

EITC, despite being a great program, as we have discussed several 

times during this hearing already, has a very high—whatever you 

want to call it—error rate. Some of it is because of, I think, legitimate mistakes, but this case where people are undocumented and 

claiming EITC, I think that it is illegal under the current law, and 

we ought to have a way to detect it. 

The problem with the solutions for EITC for this problem and 

other problems is that we spend billions in error on the EITC. The 

problem is trying to figure out a way to get enough information 

about each individual case so you can make a judgment about 

whether it is legal that they are claiming a benefit. 

It is a very expensive, hard thing to do. I once had, I think, a 

2-hour meeting with IRS specifically on this issue about what we 

could do, and eventually virtually nothing was done. We discussed 

all kinds of ideas, but they were all very—they would have greatly 

increased the workload of the IRS. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I thank you, all of you. This was very provocative and very informative. The burden is on us now to make sure the next steps 

are constructive and positive. But this has been very, very helpful. 

28 

I have learned a lot, I know, from this hearing. Thank you very, 

very much. 

This will help as we move toward reauthorization of TANF and 

ancillary measures. Thank you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


81229001.eps
30 


81229.002
31 


81229.003
32 


81229.004
33 


81229.005
34 


81229.006
35 


81229.007
36 


81229.008
37 


81229.009
38 


81229.010
39 


81229.011
40 


81229.012
41 


81229.013
42 


81229.014
43 


81229.015
44 


81229.016
45 


81229.017
46 


81229.018
47 


81229.019
48 


81229.020
49 


81229.021
50 


81229.022
51 


81229.023
52 


81229.024
53 


81229.025
54 


81229.026
55 


81229.027
56 


81229.028
57 


81229.029
(59) 

COMMUNICATION


81229030.eps
60 


81229.031
61 

Æ 


81229032.eps