[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF WELFARE REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 1998
__________
Serial 105-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-826 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida, Chairman
DAVE CAMP, Michigan SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
MAC COLLINS, Georgia ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
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.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of March 12, 1998, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Olivia A.
Golden, Ph.D., Asistant Secretary for Children and Families.... 6
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Daniel H.
Weinberg, Division Chief, Housing and Household Economic
Statistics..................................................... 69
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Howard Rolston,
Ph.D., Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families....................... 79
______
Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, Vesta Kimble.. 42
Florida Department of Children and Families, Don Winstead........ 36
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Frank
Mora........................................................... 49
Nathan, Richard P., Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of
Government, University of New York............................. 65
National Center for Children in Poverty, Barbara Blum............ 84
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, J. Jean Rogers.... 28
OVERSIGHT OF WELFARE REFORM
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:13 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. E. Clay Shaw,
Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.
[The advisory follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
March 12, 1998
No. HR-10
Shaw Announces Hearing on
Oversight of Welfare Reform
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., (R-FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing on implementation
of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The
hearing will take place on Thursday, March 19, 1998, in room B-318 of
the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 11:00 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include representatives from the Administration, State
welfare directors, local welfare programs, the Census Bureau, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, and universities. 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 ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996'' (P.L. 104-193), created the TANF block grant, a new cash
welfare program.
This is the first hearing the Subcommittee will conduct this year
to review the implementation and effects of welfare reform. Future
hearings are expected to focus on impacts of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program on children and families, as well as
implementation and impacts of the 1996 reforms of the Child Support
Enforcement and Supplemental Security Income programs.
The Subcommittee is interested in specific examples of how reforms
are now being implemented at the State and local level. The
Subcommittee will also review the major research information that will
become available over the next several years that Congress, the
Administration, scholars, advocates, and interested citizens can use to
examine the impacts of welfare reform.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: ``Most of the
provisions of the 1996 welfare reform law have now been implemented by
every State. This is the first in a series of hearings and other
activities that our Subcommittee will conduct over the next several
years to carefully study the impacts of the welfare reform law.''
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit at least six (6)
single-space legal-size copies of their statement, along with an IBM
compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS Text or WordPerfect 5.1
format only, with their name, address, and hearing date noted on a
label, by the close of business, Thursday, April 2, 1998, to A.L.
Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of
Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their statements
distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may
deliver 200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on
Human Resources office, room B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, at
least one hour before the hearing begins.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be typed in single space on legal-size paper and may not exceed a total
of 10 pages including attachments. At the same time written statements
are submitted to the Committee, witnesses are now requested to submit
their statements on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS
Text or WordPerfect 5.1 format. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, full address, a telephone number where the witness or the
designated representative may be reached and a topical outline or
summary of the comments and recommendations in the full statement. This
supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://www.house.gov/ways__means/''.
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.
Chairman Shaw. We're just a few minutes late starting,
because there were two votes on the floor that we had to get
behind us. But we should go undisturbed now for a good while.
Welcome to the Subcommittee, our Members and guests.
It has now been more than 18 months since we passed the
historic welfare reform law in 1996. Early indications are that
States have taken great strides to reform their welfare
programs.
It is now time for our Subcommittee to begin a careful and
thorough examination of what is actually happening at the State
and local level, and of the impact of all this vigorous
activity on the Nation's poor children and families. This
morning, I personally reviewed with Mayor Penelas some of the
problems he's having down in Miami-Dade, and some of his
successes, too.
Today we begin that process. We have asked the
administration, with whom we have worked very closely and
productively since enactment of the welfare reform law, to give
us their views on the early stages of implementation. I'm
looking forward to hearing Assistant Secretary Golden's views
on what has been accomplished thus far and potential problems
that still lie on the horizon.
Then we are going to hear from two panels of invited
witnesses who will help us establish the groundwork for
subsequent hearings. The first panel consists of
representatives from two States and two local programs who will
describe for us the actual reforms that have been put in place.
I think it is vital that Members of this Subcommittee, as well
as scholars, advocates and the American public, understand the
specific reforms that States and localities are now
implementing.
The evidence presented by these witnesses will show that
the Nation's welfare programs are being transformed into
something very different than the checkwriting operations of
the past. The second panel will summarize the information that
is now starting to become available to evaluate the impacts of
welfare reform.
The Subcommittee was very conscious of the importance of
evaluating welfare reform. Thus, we included a three-part
strategy for evaluation in our original bill, and then fought
to retain these provisions in the final bill.
First, we completely revamped State data reporting
requirements. With the help of HHS and the States, we should
soon have better State reported data than ever.
Second, we gave HHS the money and authority to select
interesting welfare reform programs to evaluate using
scientific methods. Third, we gave a healthy sum of money to
the Census Bureau to follow a large group of families over many
years and to collect extensive information on children.
Today, we will hear about all three of these evaluation
strategies, plus other evaluation activities that are now in
various stages of implementation.
I'm also going to take advantage of this occasion to call
everyone's attention to the fine study on welfare reform just
published jointly by the University of Maryland School of
Public Health and the State of Maryland. Based on a random
sample of welfare recipients who left the rolls, this study
contains information about some families who have been off of
welfare for as long as 9 months.
The study found that about half of the families were
working at the time they left welfare, that the percentage of
families working increased somewhat over the 9-month period,
and that very few children became involved with the child
protection system. I congratulate the State of Maryland for
conducting this careful study, and hope that other States will
follow this example.
I know Mr. Cardin said he would try to join us today when
that testimony takes place. Copies of the study are available
on the table in the hearing room.
Whatever else might be said about welfare reform, there are
very significant changes now taking place in the Nation's
welfare programs at the State and local level. Our Subcommittee
has a responsibility to document these reforms and to study
their impacts.
I look forward to the testimony from today's distinguished
witnesses that will get us started on this long and complex
journey of evaluation.
Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the first in what I hope will be a continuing
series of efforts by this Subcommittee to assess the progress
and problems of welfare reform. Clearly, we have taken some
encouraging steps. Welfare rolls have dropped substantially,
and large numbers of people have moved from welfare to work.
Most States have taken their responsibility seriously, and
are providing support services necessary for both parents and
their children to transition from an income-based to a work-
based system. The environment and attitude within
administrative structures are being transformed to place
emphasis on the value of a paycheck.
A real sense of partnership is evolving between local,
State, and Federal administrative entities, replacing the
adversarial relationships that existed in the past.
There are also areas that need our continued vigilance. In
a substantial portion of the transitions to work, the type of
employment is in a low-wage job, raising questions of the
danger of recycling from one low-wage position to another, of
the need for additional training and the persistence of
families at an income level below the poverty level.
It is unclear also to what extent the persons remaining on
the rolls present the more difficult challenges, those with
lesser skills and those with more serious personal and health
problems. And whether structures are in place to meet these
challenges, and continue the very substantial progress of
moving people off of welfare to work.
Major progress to date has occurred during a period of
historic, continuing prosperity. And it remains uncertain as to
whether there are structures adequately in place to respond to
a period of recession in order to sustain and continue the
processes of welfare reform.
There remains a need to sustain adequate tracking of
recipients in other research to evaluate what is happening with
this population, and of the various causes of the major
successes today, in order to understand the continuing high
rate of poverty among children. We must work to identify the
adjustments needed to continue the vital changes in our system.
This is indeed an important hearing, and I congratulate the
Chairman for holding it. I hope and believe that the spirit
among all of us will be a collaborative one, without regard to
party affiliation, without regard to what our positions were at
each step of the legislative process, or whether we supported
the legislation that ultimately prevailed, as I did, or not.
We as lawmakers, the entire Nation, and most importantly,
children, have a major stake in seeing individuals move
successfully from welfare to work and remaining there. The
value and dignity of work is a key bedrock in the past,
present, and future health of this Nation, and the life of its
families. We cannot afford to lose this effort and this
experiment, and must work to ensure that it spreads to all
Americans.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
Our first witness will be Hon. Olivia A. Golden, Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. It's a pleasure to welcome you back to this
Subcommittee. I believe this is the first time since your
confirmation that you have appeared, so it's no longer Acting
Secretary.
Ms. Golden. That's right.
Chairman Shaw. We are pleased to see you back and look
forward to your testimony.
We have your full testimony, as we have the full testimony
of all the witnesses that will be placed in the record, and we
would invite all witnesses to summarize. We've got many
witnesses today, and I want to try to move the hearing along as
fast as we can.
Dr. Golden.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLIVIA A. GOLDEN, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Ms. Golden. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss implementation of the TANF, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program, with a focus on State implementation,
the new Federal role, and upcoming plans. I appreciate this
Subcommittee's efforts and yours, Mr. Chairman, to work with us
in turning welfare reform into a reality.
Over the past 2 months, I have spoken with families, with
private employers, with welfare workers, with community
leaders, with State and local policymakers and elected
officials about how welfare reform is proceeding.
In a recent trip to New Hampshire, I talked to a young
mother who had just started a job and left welfare. She spoke
with great passion about her joy and her children's joy after
she accepted the job. She had gone to a clerical training
program and found child care through the welfare agency, and
she receives regular child support, which is critical to paying
the bills.
I would now like to provide an overview of our earliest
findings on the effects of welfare reform and what we know
about changes in State policies and practice. And there's much
more detail in my written statement. More recipients are now
working, and more of those who have left the rolls are working.
Interim findings from the national evaluation of welfare-to-
work strategies and State welfare reform demonstrations
indicates significant increases in the employment levels of
recipients and former recipients.
States generally are maintaining their investments in poor
families. We have not seen a race to the bottom. For example,
22 States have reported that they exceeded the 80-percent
maintenance-of-effort level for fiscal year 1997.
States are beginning to focus more attention on the hard-
to-serve and fragile families. For example, 25 jurisdictions
have elected the family violence option to ensure that victims
of domestic violence receive appropriate protections and
services. States are beginning to focus their welfare offices
on employment and are taking a variety of steps to reinforce
the work message. Welfare offices are working closely with the
State employment service, one-stop career centers, JTPA, Job
Training Partnership Act, Programs and community colleges to
place welfare recipients into jobs.
We have continued to see dramatic declines in welfare
caseloads. Since August 1996, 2.4 million recipients have left
the rolls. And at the Federal, State and community level, new
partnerships are being forged. government is collaborating with
business, community organizations, transportation providers,
the media, and religious leaders, to help move families to
work.
Key elements of ACF's new role at the Federal level include
coordination, technical assistance, research and
accountability. We've expanded our network of Federal partners
to improve the coordination of Federal programs, we've been
working with the Department of Labor on implementation of the
$3 billion welfare-to-work grants, and on our data collection
and evaluation responsibilities under those grants.
The Departments of Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and the Small Business
Administration have joined us in related efforts to move
families from welfare to work.
Our technical assistance initiatives will ensure that
States, local governments and their community partners have
access to the information they need to accomplish their goals
for families. We are using models, onsite visits, contracts,
and conferences to support State and local implementation
efforts. We also collect and disseminate information on
promising practices.
Another key component of the Federal role has been to
ensure State accountability in key program areas, and to
promote high performance. In November, we issued a proposed
rule which covered the major TANF provisions on work,
penalties, and data collection. We are reviewing comments and
anticipate publication of final rules by the end of the fiscal
year.
This month, we issued the proposed rule on bonuses for
States that are most successful in reducing out of wedlock
births. And we also just issued key guidance on the formula we
will use for awarding the high-performance bonuses to States in
fiscal year 1999, based on their performance this year. This
summer, we expect to publish a proposed rule that will address
the high-performance bonus for future years.
Our research and evaluation efforts are critical to the
achievement of the goals of welfare reform. Howard Rolston,
Director of the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation for
ACF, is a member of the upcoming panel on research, and will
provide a fuller discussion.
Just to highlight some key points, first, States have
myriad options available to them under welfare reform, and need
information about which strategies are most effective.
Fortunately, the evaluation efforts we began under prior law
have given us useful information and will continue to produce
more in the years to come. Disseminating information on the
results of this research is one of ACF's major upcoming tasks.
The second challenge we face is to get better information
about what is happening to families who are leaving assistance.
To answer this challenge, we worked with the National
Governors' Association, the American Public Welfare
Association, and the National Conference of State Legislators
to sponsor a conference that examined the information available
on ``leavers,'' and will be compiling a summary of followup
studies.
And finally, we're supporting research in five States that
will look indepth at the effects of welfare reform on children.
At this early stage of welfare reform, we believe that
implementation is proceeding on the right track. We are hearing
from States and communities about what they view as the
critical next steps.
First, supporting States, communities, and employers as
they focus on job retention and earnings after the initial
placement. Second, working with States to provide supports so
that all families, including the hardest to serve, can succeed.
Third, completing the transformation of welfare agencies into
job centers, and fostering community-based approaches to
reform. Fourth, completing the developing of a regular,
reliable system for collecting necessary data. And fifth,
improving our understanding about the effects of these changes
on children and families.
At the Federal level, the Clinton administration and the
Congress have worked for social policies to help ensure that
work pays, including family leave, a higher minimum wage, an
expanded EITC, the new child credit, the work opportunity and
welfare-to-work tax credits, and increased child support
collections. The President's budget would build on these
successes by providing additional supports, such as targeting
substantial new child care funds to low-income working families
who are struggling to stay off welfare.
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to future conversations about
the progress of welfare reform.
I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Olivia A. Golden, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the implementation of welfare reform. I appreciate
this Subcommittee's efforts to work with us in turning this
historic piece of legislation on welfare reform into a reality.
In light of the Subcommittee's interests, I will focus my
remarks on the implementation of the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families--or TANF--program, including the patterns that
have begun to emerge about state implementation, the new
federal role, and upcoming plans.
Our information comes from state plans and preliminary
financial data and program data reported by the states. In
addition, I learn directly about what states are doing when I
travel and speak with those who are designing welfare reform
and those who are impacted by it.
Over the past two months, I have spoken to families,
private employers, welfare workers, community leaders, state
and local policy-makers, and elected officials about how
welfare reform is proceeding. I have heard over and over about
the dignity of work and about the kinds of supports communities
and states are seeking to put in place as families move from
welfare to work. For example, in one of my recent trips, to New
Hampshire, I talked to a young mother who had just started a
job and left welfare. She spoke with great passion about her
joy and her children's joy. ``I was jumping up and down. They
were jumping up and down. I was on cloud nine for a week after
accepting the job.'' To help her make the step to employment,
she had gone to a clerical training program and found child
care through the welfare agency, and she received regular child
support that was critical to paying the bills.
Today, I would like to provide some information about our
earliest findings on the effects of welfare reform and an
overview about what we know about changes in state policies and
practice. I also will discuss the new federal role, the steps
we have taken at the federal level to assume our new
responsibilities under the Act, and will indicate the
additional steps we will be taking to move this important
agenda forward.
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
I would now like to share with you some preliminary
observations on the impacts of welfare reform. These are
preliminary because while many states began their welfare
reform efforts under waivers, TANF programs have been in place
only a short period of time and are still evolving. We will
learn more over the coming months and years about the progress
of welfare reform as states make further decisions about the
design of their program and data is gathered on the state's
choices and their impacts.
Keeping this caution in mind, we are seeing that:
More recipients are now working, and more of those who have
left the rolls are working. Interim findings from the National
Evaluation of Welfare to Work Strategies and State Welfare
Reform Demonstrations indicate significant increases in the
employment levels of recipients and former recipients (with
employment rates of enrollees in the welfare reform group
sometimes 8 to 15 percentage points above those of the control
group). Also, research from several individual states suggests
that 50 to 60 percent of families leaving the rolls are
employed at follow-up; these rates are somewhat higher than the
employment rates observed for former AFDC recipients (which
were in the 45 to 50 percent range).
States generally are maintaining their investments in poor
families. We have not seen a ``race to the bottom''--in terms
of state spending or benefit levels. Twenty-two states have
reported that they exceeded the 80 percent maintenance-of-
effort (MOE) level for fiscal year 1997, and average spending
per recipient on cash grants, transportation, child care, and
other assistance has increased.
Forty states have enacted policies to change the way income
is counted in determining eligibility and benefits. Most of
these have increased their earnings disregards, thus helping to
make work pay and reinforcing the message that going to work is
better that staying at home.
Most states have maintained the income standards they use
for determining benefits (according to the state plans, four
states have increased while five have decreased their benefit
levels). Also, 33 states raised their general resource limits,
and 44 states have raised their automobile resource limits. To
help families transitioning off assistance, 29 states indicate
they are extending child care benefits for more than 12 months,
and 13 states provide transitional medical assistance for more
than 12 months.
States are beginning to focus more attention on the hard-
to-serve and fragile families. For example, 24 jurisdictions
have elected the Family Violence Option to ensure that victims
of domestic violence receive appropriate protections and
services, and most states exempt parents of infants from work
requirements. (Thirty states provide statewide exemptions for
parents with children under one, 11 states provide exemptions
for those with children under 6 months, and 3 provide
exemptions for children older than one.)
States are beginning to turn their welfare offices into
employment offices and are taking a variety of steps to
reinforce the work message. Almost all states have adopted a
``Work First'' model for setting individual expectations and
responsibilities and for structuring employment and training
services. This approach emphasizes early entry into the job
market and often uses referrals to other local agencies and
organizations for transitional resources. Thirty-three states
expect parents to participate in work within six months of
joining the welfare rolls (compared to the statutory standard
of 24 months).
Every state requires recipients to sign Individual
Responsibility Plans whereby they commit to making specific
steps toward self-sufficiency. Twenty-eight states deny
assistance to a family for failure to sign or comply with one
of these plans.
States are also making greater use of their sanction
authority to enforce the TANF work requirements. Between 1994
and 1996, sanction rates rose about 30 percent nationally, and
sanction rates of 25 to 30 percent--or higher--are now not
unusual. Under their state plans, 37 states have sanctions that
could result in the loss of benefits for the entire family.
(Most sanctions result from failure of individuals to show up
for initial interviews, rather than noncompliance with work
assignments.)
With few exceptions, we have continued to see dramatic
declines in welfare caseloads. Since August 1996, when PRWORA
was enacted, 2 million recipients have left the rolls. Since
1994, the number of welfare recipients has dropped by nearly
one-third. We know that many of these recipients are working at
the time they leave or after they leave, but we do not know
precisely what is happening to many of these former recipients.
The limited information we have suggests that sanctions,
time limits, and other changes are having mixed effects on
families. We are not seeing dramatic changes in the average
incomes of welfare recipients and former recipients. For
families leaving the rolls, the proportion of families
experiencing increases in income are comparable to the
proportion with decreases in income. Findings for sanctioned
families are not dissimilar; studies in Iowa and South Carolina
showed that 40 percent of individuals who were sanctioned
experienced income increases.
At the state and federal level, and community level, new
partnerships are being forged. Government is collaborating with
business, community organizations, transportation providers,
the media and religious leaders to help move families to work.
For example, new partnerships with transportation agencies
have resulted in substantial innovation. In many places, we are
seeing revisions to traditional public transportation services
to provide low-income families with better access to jobs. To
pick two examples from dozens:
In Ventura County, California, the local transit agency has
extended its hours of service, re-routed some lines, and
developed new service to some remote locations being used as
work experience sites.
The remote communities of Glendale and Azalea, Oregon, have
adopted a combination of innovative strategies, including the
development of carpools with 28 volunteer drivers, to give
residents access to education, training, and employment
opportunities 10 to 50 miles away. Also as part of this effort,
the local school district allows TANF recipients and other
residents to use school buses to get to work.
THE NEW FEDERAL ROLE
Consistent with the changed expectations about the federal
role, PRWORA required significant reductions in ACF staff
positions devoted to the programs that were block-granted and
in Department managerial positions. As noted in GAO's February
1998 report to you, entitled Welfare Reform--HHS' Progress in
Implementing its Responsibilities, we achieved these
reductions.
At the same time, we have worked to focus on the areas
where we have new and expanded responsibilities. Our job is no
longer to micromanage policy, but to support states and
communities in moving families to work, to hold states
accountable for results, and to develop and share information
about effective practices. Key elements of this role include:
coordination, technical assistance, research, and
accountability.
Coordination
In Washington, we have expanded our network of federal
partners to improve the coordination of federal programs and to
make it easier for state and local program administrators to
leverage the resources they need. These efforts are critical,
not just for their direct positive effects, but also because
they model the types of collaborations that we want to foster
at the state and community level.
We have been working with the Department of Labor (DOL) on
the implementation of the new $3 billion Welfare-to-Work (WtW)
program, including the issuance of guidance and Interim
Regulations, state plan reviews, regional conferences and
roundtable discussions. We also are working closely with DOL in
the implementation of our data collection and evaluation
responsibilities under the Welfare-to-Work program.
Representatives from the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Transportation, Education, and Agriculture and the
Small Business Administration have joined in some of these
efforts to help address the challenges of finding employment
for hard-to-place TANF recipients and the crucial need for
state and local collaborations.
We also have entered into new partnerships with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department
of Transportation to work on improving the accessibility of
welfare recipients to jobs and services. We are providing
technical support to both of these federal agency efforts,
working through our Regional offices to support similar efforts
at the state and community level and developing information on
promising practices that can be broadly disseminated.
Another key target of our coordination efforts has been
Tribal programs. Prior to the passage of PRWORA, Tribes had
some experience operating JOBS and child care programs, but
little direct involvement with AFDC. Many were, therefore, not
very well positioned to make the decision whether to implement
their own TANF program or to understand what that would entail.
Here in Washington and in our regional offices, we worked
extensively with Tribes to help ensure that they made informed
decisions and could submit an acceptable plan if they decided
to go that way. We helped facilitate communications between the
states and Tribes about critical implementation questions,
including service area definitions, funding implications, and
the need for referrals and exchange of information. We also
issued guidance to clarify that states could contribute to
Tribal TANF programs and claim such expenditures for MOE
purposes. This clarification facilitated the development of
additional Tribal programs. To date, we have approved ten
Tribal TANF plans and anticipate that several additional plans
will be submitted this year.
Technical Assistance
The purpose of our technical assistance (TA) initiatives is
to ensure that states, local governments, and their community
partners have access to the critical information they need to
accomplish their goals for families. In these initiatives we
use models, on-site visits, contracts, and conferences to
promote ideas and support state and local implementation
efforts. We also collect and disseminate information on
promising practices.
To help make our technical assistance efforts more
responsive to state and local needs, we established a Peer
Technical Assistance Network and a Technical Assistance Work
Group. The Peer TA Network facilitates the exchange of
information on promising and best practices among states,
localities, and community groups. The Work Group consists of
federal, state, local, and non-governmental representatives. In
its first meeting in January, the Work Group decided to give
priority to several issues during fiscal year 1998, including:
job retention, serving families with multiple needs, and
information systems. In its next scheduled discussion, the
group will specifically address the issues of job retention and
serving families with multiple needs.
Several of the initiatives we are undertaking focus on the
priority areas we have identified. For example,
1) In all our regions we are co-sponsoring workshops with
employers to develop short-term training programs that upgrade
the skills of welfare recipients. We held the first workshop at
a community college in Huntsville, Alabama, earlier this week;
2) We have developed a training package for welfare
agencies to use in implementing programs that identify and
provide appropriate services for victims of domestic violence;
and
3) We have funded a National Technical Assistance Center of
Welfare Reform and Disabilities at the University of Kansas.
This center will provide stakeholders with information to
assist them in developing effective strategies for serving
people with developmental disabilities.
Finally, in the interests of expanding access to
information, we are creating an information center which will
share data and information using a variety of media--such as
the internet, conferences, brochures, and handouts--on issues
such as the TANF statute and regulations, State plans,
implementation status, and research results.
Accountability
Another key component of the federal role has been to
ensure state accountability in key program areas and to promote
high performance. In these areas, we have taken a number of
critical steps over the past 14 months. However, there is still
much more to be done, and will be working hard to ensure that
future actions are carried out in a timely fashion.
Two TANF regulations recently have been issued which
address the area of accountability. In November, we issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which covered the major TANF
provisions on work, penalties, and data collection. This
proposed rule sent a clear message that we recognize the
importance of state flexibility in designing their programs,
but we also intend to hold states accountable for meeting
critical program requirements. We anticipate publication of
final rules in August.
This month we issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding the bonuses for states that are most successful in
reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Key guidance on the formula we will use for awarding the
High Performance Bonuses to states in Fiscal Year 1999 (based
on their performance in Fiscal Year 1998) was also issued this
month. The proposed formula focuses on state performance, both
in moving individuals into the work force and in the success of
individuals in the work force, once they are employed. We
developed this formula after extensive consultation with the
National Governors' Association, the American Public Welfare
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
state agencies, advocacy groups, technical experts, and
scholars.
We currently are working on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
that will address the High Performance Bonus process for future
years. We are committed to exploring measures that encompass
all of the goals of TANF, including family formation and
stability, and will seek advice on additional measures through
the regulatory development process. We anticipate publication
of the proposed rule in the early summer.
Several other TANF-related regulations will be published
this summer as well, including Tribal TANF and employment
programs, child poverty rate methodology, and data collection
for the Welfare-to-Work program.
In addition, we have issued a number of policy
announcements that have provided critical information to help
states proceed with the implementation of their programs. Among
the most significant were last January's announcement on the
ability of states to fund activities through separate state
programs, information on funding allocations, guidance on
access to the contingency fund, and the interim guidance on
TANF data collection and reporting.
Finally, we are finishing work on two Reports to Congress.
The first report addresses Recommendations for Changes to the
Contingency Fund and the second is the Annual Report on TANF
Programs and Performance. We expect to submit both reports to
this Subcommittee next month. Since the amount of performance
information we have available is still limited, the latter
report will not cover all the topics required by the statute.
However, we are working with states to correct problems in
their data submissions and will provide supplemental
information to this Subcommittee as it becomes available.
Research
Our research and evaluation efforts are critical to the
achievement of the goals of welfare reform. This subcommittee's
support has been critical to enabling reliable information
about welfare reform to be developed. Your keen interest in
this area is demonstrated by the separate panel in this hearing
today, which will address the topic of research on welfare
reform. Howard Rolston, Director of the Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation for ACF, is a member of this panel and
will provide a fuller discussion of this important topic. I
would like to briefly highlight some of the key points.
States have a myriad of options available to them under
welfare reform and need information about which strategies will
be most effective. Fortunately, the evaluation efforts we began
under prior law, and that PRWORA provided us authority to
support, have given us some useful information and will
continue to produce more in the years to come. Disseminating
information on the results of our research is one of ACF's
major tasks in the coming years.
One of the challenges we face is to get better information
about what is happening to families who are leaving assistance.
To answer this challenge, the Department worked with the
National Governors' Association, the American Public Welfare
Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures
to sponsor a conference that examined what information was
available on ``leavers.'' Building state capacity to track
``leavers'' is central to meeting this challenge. At this
meeting we learned that states are greatly interested in
studying this issue further, and we are compiling a summary of
what follow-up studies are being done. We believe this
information is critical to learning if families leaving welfare
are achieving self-sufficiency and improving the quality of
their lives.
The impact of welfare on children is also of critical
interest to us. Because most research primarily looks at
effects on adults, we are supporting research in five states
that will look in depth at the effects of welfare reform on
children.
OUR FOCUS IN THE COMING MONTHS
The passage of this legislation has presented all of us
with a variety of opportunities and challenges. At this early
stage, it appears that implementation is proceeding on the
right track. That is, reform efforts reflect an increasing
awareness of the critical importance of:
Fostering personal responsibility;
Maintaining investments, in order to reach all
needy families rather than only the easiest to place;
Getting all key players to the table (at the
federal, state and community level) so that the many dimensions
of underemployment and dependency can be addressed; and
Directing agency efforts to the achievement of
measurable employment goals and positive outcomes for families
and children.
Over the next several months we will continue to work along
a broad front to further the work we have begun. In particular,
we are hearing from states and communities about what they view
as the following critical next steps:
Supporting states, communities and employers as they focus
more and more on retention and job success after the initial
placement;
(2) Working with states to make the investments, develop
the knowledge, and provide the supports so that all families,
including the hardest to serve families, can succeed;
(3) Completing the transformation of welfare agencies into
job centers, ensuring that appropriate linkages are developed,
and fostering community-based approaches to reform;
(4) Completing the development of a regular, reliable
system for collecting the data necessary for tracking what is
happening and ensuring program accountability; and
(5) Improving our understanding about the effects of these
changes on children and families so that we can develop more
effective programs and make necessary adjustments.
At the federal level, the Clinton Administration has led
the call for social policies to help ensure that work pays. The
principle of supporting work has been embedded in the
President's agenda, including family leave, a higher minimum
wage, an expanded EITC, the new Child Credit, Work Opportunity
Tax Credits, the new Child Health Insurance Program, and
increased child support collections. The President's budget
would build upon these successes by providing additional
supports. The President's Child Care Initiative, for example,
targets substantial new child care funds, not to welfare
families, but to low-income working families who are struggling
to stay off of welfare. Many states have followed the model
established at the federal level and have worked to enact
programs at the state level that provide similar supports for
low-income working families.
CONCLUSION
I would like to express my appreciation to this
Subcommittee for its interest in, and bipartisan support of,
these endeavors. I look forward to future conversations about
the progress of welfare reform and hope we can continue to work
together in resolving any implementation issues that arise.
I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Dr. Golden.
Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Golden, of the $16.5 billion TANF block grant, how much
of that was actually obligated in fiscal year 1997?
Ms. Golden. Let me tell you a little bit about what we know
about fiscal year 1997, both in terms of the dollars and the
uses that States have made of their dollars. We have
preliminary information from one quarter of the year, which was
a transition year for the States. In that year, States were
focusing their spending on a range of critical purposes; about
91 percent of the block grant dollars were obligated. In
addition, almost half the States exceeded their maintenance-of-
effort commitments.
What that means is that in a time of substantial caseload
decrease, States are seeing that they've got to make the
investments in a range of critical supports. When you hear the
speaker from Anne Arundel County, for example, I think you'll
probably hear, as I did when I visited, about the critical role
of investing those dollars in supports for families, including
hard-to-serve families.
So we know that States are investing those dollars in a
range of critical supports for families.
Mr. Camp. So was it 91 percent that I heard?
Ms. Golden. From that transition quarter in 1997, from our
preliminary information.
Mr. Camp. How much do you think will be obligated in 1998?
Ms. Golden. My guess is that in 1998, now that States have
made the transition, State legislatures are really focusing on
those dollars. We're working hard to challenge States to
maintain their own investments on the maintenance-of-effort
side and to invest the TANF dollars.
My sense from talking with States is that there is a range
of critical needs and that they are investing those dollars for
some of the issues that both Chairman Shaw and Mr. Levin
highlighted. States are reaching a range of families, enabling
them to move to work. They're taking work seriously and
investing the dollars to accomplish that.
Mr. Camp. Do you expect then that all of the dollars will
be obligated?
Ms. Golden. I expect that States will be spending the
money. I don't know whether that means 100 percent. But I
anticipate that they will be spending the money on a set of
critical supports. It's interesting, in a time of reduced
caseloads, given the way State legislatures need to work, I
would actually have expected much more delay in being able to
get that money out. So my sense is that people have made early
and serious moves to investing those dollars in new ways.
Mr. Camp. And can States use this money for child care?
Ms. Golden. States are using it for a range of purposes;
child care is one. But there are many other critical
investments. They're spending it for a variety of welfare-to-
work strategies, for supporting families, both before they
leave welfare and to support low-income families afterward.
So, they are spending it for a range of purposes, including
but not limited to, child care.
Mr. Camp. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Chairman Shaw. Just as a followup to Mr. Camp's last
question, do you feel that with this flexibility of the States
and being able to transfer the money into child care, and with
the fact that the States are performing so well, so that they
have much money to spend per client in this regard, do you
think we need to at this time put more money into child care,
and if so, how much?
Ms. Golden. Yes. I believe that President Clinton's
initiative, the proposal of $20 billion over 5 years for child
care, is critical to reach working families. I've been to about
10 States in the last couple months, and I hear this not only
from families and States, but also from employers.
What States are doing is seeking to make the investments in
order to move families from welfare to work, and they're having
to work hard to do that.
Beyond that, there are enormous needs among working
families, which is the focus of the President's initiative.
When he announced the report last week, the President focused
on the fact that a family making in the high $20,000 would not
be eligible for child care in most of the States.
Chairman Shaw. No, under the present definition. Do you
think, without expanding it into middle income that there is a
need for more dollars to go into child care? I'm not talking
about the new program that the President's expressed interest
in. As to the present definition of child care and who is
available, who is eligible, do you think there's more money
than is necessary?
Ms. Golden. Right now, of the families that are eligible,
we reach about one in ten through the child care program. And
that need is particularly among the working poor, low-income
working families. So my sense is that what States are doing
through their investments is enabling families to move from
welfare to work.
But the next need, the reason for the additional
investment, is those low-income working families who are
struggling to hold onto their jobs. That's how I see what we
need.
Chairman Shaw. Isn't it true, though, that the States, even
right here in the District of Columbia, are not spending all
the money that's available to them, because it's a matching
program?
Ms. Golden. That's not true nationwide. I haven't looked
recently at the District of Columbia figures. But we have, as I
recall, about 99 percent obligations on the child care dollars.
We do have States making the investment to pull down the
matching funds.
Chairman Shaw. Have you had requests from States for an
increase?
Ms. Golden. What we have is States reporting both waiting
lists and reporting working families who need the resources. I
think States are working really hard to invest the money to
move families from welfare to work. They're doing a lot of
things to make that work.
They're not getting to those families who are working, who
are in very low-wage jobs, and who are struggling to hold onto
those jobs, rather than to go back to welfare.
Chairman Shaw. I'm having trouble seeing a clear picture of
a need. If you feel there's a need for additional dollars,
would you supply to this Subcommittee, and I'm talking about
under existing guidelines, what exactly you feel those needs
are on a State-by-State basis so we would have a better
opportunity to be able to review that. Because that's something
this Subcommittee has been very concerned about.
Ms. Golden. OK. The national number, as I say, was about
one in ten of the currently eligible families. Let me try to
provide you with as much State-by-State information as we have.
Chairman Shaw. Taking into consideration of course that
many of the families choose to have family care, rather than to
put the child in a day care type setting. And of course, we're
not trying to make that decision for them. We just want the day
care setting available where the parents choose not to do that
for one reason or another, including the nonavailability of
family or friends to care for the kids.
But of course we know that putting these kids in these
centers has both pluses and minuses, and it's not for
everybody.
Ms. Golden. Right. And as you know, the bipartisan
consensus behind the child care block grant makes sure that
those dollars go to a parent's choice of providers.
Chairman Shaw. What I'd like for you to supply is, is there
insufficient dollars to meet the demand for child care that's
out there? Are there some mothers that are not able to go to
work because there is no child care available? And that is
within the current definition, not the expanded program that
the President has suggested.
I thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.002
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just so we're clear, I think what you're saying is that if
you take all of those who are eligible outside, or perhaps
including those who are on welfare, there are inadequate funds.
The 1 in 10 figure is based on those who are eligible under the
present child care statutes. The fact that States are
emphasizing child care for those who are on welfare often means
there are even less sufficient funds for other low-income
families who are not on TANF, isn't that what you're saying?
Ms. Golden. Yes. I think States are working really hard on
this. My sense as I travel the country is that States are
investing in child care, and they're also addressing
complicated issues like after-hours care, weekend and evening
care. In moving families from welfare to work, child care is
critical.
But I think you're absolutely right in saying that what
they're doing with this intense focus is enabling families to
move from welfare to work. There are additional families who
are eligible, low-income working families struggling to hold on
to their jobs, and there isn't enough money right now for them.
And that's key to the President's proposal.
Mr. Levin. Let's face the future just for a moment. You
referred to this a bit in your testimony. What do you think the
major barriers are to continuing and to perhaps even
accelerating the effectiveness of welfare reform, of people
moving from welfare to work? As you look ahead the next several
years, what are the largest obstacles that we are facing?
Ms. Golden. I think there is a set of important challenges.
I believe that it's my job, the job of some of the people in
States and localities you'll be talking with, the job of people
in communities, to figure out how to address those. And I think
that work is going on in several of them right now.
I would highlight several. I'm hearing in States and
communities everywhere about how we work to focus on job
retention and on earnings gain after people move into work.
That's an arena where a lot of very good work is going on.
There are collaborative approaches at the State and local
level. We'll be issuing the high-performance bonus to reward
States for succeeding in those arenas.
The second arena is reaching everyone, ensuring that we
reach all families on welfare, including investing in people
who have a variety of barriers to employment. Again, I think
there's a lot of important work going on in that area. We've
been trying to invest in technical assistance in some of those
areas, for example, persons with developmental disabilities and
family violence. We've been trying to assist States in meeting
those issues.
I would also say that States are completing the
transformation of welfare offices, as Chairman Levin
highlighted. There's been really important change, and there's
a set of next steps in terms of shifting and building the links
at the community level between welfare offices and other local
programs.
All of those things are critical steps, and they all
require us to maintain the investment at Federal and State
levels.
Mr. Levin. You mentioned that you're working on the
contingency fund issue. Just quickly tell us what you're
looking at.
Ms. Golden. Surely. That report is extremely important to
the Subcommittee, and we will provide it to you in the first
half of April. What we will be doing, as we're required to by
law, is looking at an array of options and issues that have
been identified related to the contingency fund.
We've done some consulting with a variety of people to
learn what the issues are, and we're trying to set out
systematic analysis of those issues for the use of the
Subcommittee and the Congress.
Mr. Levin. And that includes looking at what the needs
would be if and when there is an economic downturn?
Ms. Golden. One of the topics is sufficiency of the fund.
Mr. Levin. Are you comparing individuals' needs in previous
recession periods with present levels of funding?
Ms. Golden. We've looked at the best data we could find.
I'm actually not positive if that specific comparison is in the
current draft or not. But we're trying to look at the best
information.
Mr. Levin. We've talked about it, and I would urge that you
do so. We need to make sure that welfare reform works during
times of prosperity, and that there is not a destructive
outcome in times of a downturn. While no one here wants to say
there will be a downturn in the economy, there have been in the
past, and there might well be another one in the future.
Chairman Shaw. I don't know if that was a political
prediction or what, but I think we just elected a Republican
President. [Laughter.]
Mr. Levin. I thought the opposite, but that wasn't the
purpose of my question.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Stark.
Mr. Stark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Dr. Golden. I think it's important to note here
that while you may think this TANF Program is working, there's
precious little detail in your testimony to support that
conclusion. And I'd just like to remind my colleagues that four
out of the five Democrats on this panel voted against the
legislation creating this program, and that three of the
leading experts in Health and Human Services resigned from
their positions in protest when this program was passed. These
were your previous colleagues.
So it appears to the Minority on this Subcommittee, or most
of us at any rate, that TANF is a seriously flawed program.
We've been looking for some hope to indicate that our fears
were not well-founded, and you don't bring us much.
You say in your written statement, 50 to 60 percent of the
AFDC families leaving welfare are employed. Well, by definition
that means that 40 to 50 percent of the AFDC families who left
welfare are unemployed. What are they doing to make ends meet?
And you don't know, and you don't seem to be concerned, which
is indeed troubling.
We have a report that the number of children receiving AFDC
as a percent of children in poverty declined between 1995 and
1996. And that is also true of the number of children receiving
food stamps as a percentage of children in poverty.
We also know the number of children receiving TANF has
declined by another 16 percent or so between 1996 and 1997.
There is no way that poverty has gone down 16 percent in 1
year. You know that, I know that. I think it's suggested that
poverty hasn't gone down 16 percent in 3 years.
I don't know what you make of the trend, and why poor
children are less likely to get assistance now. I don't know if
your department has looked at it.
I would like to think that you could tell us how you would
define success under this program--in something other than
caseload declines, which mean nothing. Why have you addressed
no measures of child well-being? Why have you included no
measures of the number of mothers in the labor force, or
fathers paying child support? Is there any other evidence that
would show us that welfare reform has done anything more than
kick families off programs? You don't bring us any of that.
What are you going to do about that?
Ms. Golden. Let me start with the success measures
question, which I think is a central one, and then work back to
what we know on the others. I think it is critical to have
measures of success that address a range of well-being----
Mr. Stark. When do you intend to have them?
Ms. Golden. Today we issue----
Mr. Stark. When do you intend to have those measures?
Ms. Golden. We've issued the high performance----
Mr. Stark. When do you intend to have them? In 1 month or 6
months? When do you intend to have the measures?
Ms. Golden. We've just issued the measures, and we'll have
information next year.
Mr. Stark. But Madam Secretary, this is a simple question.
You can count, you do this with your shoes and socks off. When
do you intend to have some measures that you can bring to this
Subcommittee that show us any results of this program? In how
much time?
Ms. Golden. I expect the State information to be available
next year on----
Mr. Stark. In 1999?
Ms. Golden. Yes, on the full year----
Mr. Stark. At the end of 1999?
Ms. Golden. I think States are likely to be able to provide
it fairly early in 1999.
Mr. Stark. Madam Secretary, half of those children could be
dead by then, thank you very much. But go ahead. What else are
you going to do which will be too little, too late?
Ms. Golden. Let me say what those measures will be, because
I think they're important.
Mr. Stark. The measures are not important if they're not
going to be here. That's pie in the sky. What can you measure
now?
Ms. Golden. We know what families are telling us. We also
have an array of studies which show that more families are
working, that there is a range of income effects for families
who leave welfare, and that there have not yet been the sharp
negative effects that many people expected. We don't know over
the long run how that will play out.
In addition, when I talk to families, what I hear often is
that the reason for going to work is because of the children.
Mr. Stark. What families are you talking to? How many
families have you talked to?
Ms. Golden. Not a large number.
Mr. Stark. How many?
Ms. Golden. A couple of dozen, three dozen.
Mr. Stark. That's piddling.
Ms. Golden. Absolutely.
Mr. Stark. Madam Secretary, that is not a statistically
valid study.
Ms. Golden. Absolutely.
Mr. Stark. My heavens.
Ms. Golden. The statistical studies show a range of
information, but they don't show everything. I think what
you'll be hearing in today's panel is that----
Mr. Stark. But you show us nothing. You've got no
statistical studies and you've talked to a couple dozen
families. And you've kicked, or you will be kicking, hundreds
of thousands of children off of support systems.
Now, to me, that's pretty inhumane. To not care enough to
know what's happening to those children and those families when
they're booted off the welfare rolls is not something that the
Democrats should be very proud of.
Ms. Golden. What I'm proud of is that we will be judging
the success of welfare by moving families to work, by their
gains in earnings and ability to----
Mr. Stark. You're not moving them to work. You're kicking
them off the welfare rolls. That's all you know. All you're
counting and all you are able to count is the decline in
caseload. You're booting people off their support systems. You
have no idea what happens to them after they leave, except for
talking to a couple dozen families.
Ms. Golden. And requiring States, if they want a shot at
$200 million----
Mr. Stark. Don't push this off on the States. We're running
our own program here, thank you very much.
Ms. Golden. Right. And what we will be measuring is
movement to work, gains in earnings, retention of jobs----
Mr. Stark. I suspect that you should spend less time, Madam
Secretary, on all this public relations clap-trap that you're
bringing here, and a little bit more time about worrying about
what happens to poor and dependent children in our country as
has been the previous record of your Department.
Ms. Golden. My history of research and my personal academic
work experience focuses on children and welfare.
Mr. Stark. You haven't done any research.
Chairman Shaw. The time of the gentleman has expired. Dr.
Golden, you should see the way he talks to the Republican
witnesses. [Laughter.]
Ms. Golden. And I'd be happy to outline the research----
Mr. Stark. They at least come with numbers, Mr. Chairman,
and know what they're talking about.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. McCrery.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Golden, correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be, but
it's my impression that much of the reduction in caseload has
taken place as a result of voluntary efforts on the part of
former welfare recipients to leave the rolls, that many of them
are in fact not being thrown off the rolls, they're voluntarily
leaving the rolls to obtain employment, or due to better
circumstances, is that correct?
Ms. Golden. Well, let me outline what we do know, what we
don't know, and what we will know, because I think all of those
are important.
What we do know right now is quite limited. There's a range
of studies in different States, and not a systematic national
approach. So we know some selected facts, like the percentage
that are working and what the range is in different places. We
know something about sanctions.
What we know about the point you make is that about 50 to
60 percent of those who leave the rolls are working. Of those
who leave for sanctions, about 40 percent are working, which
does suggest that some of those may have left by choice.
On the other hand, I don't think we know enough to say very
much specifically about why people are leaving or about their
circumstances. I share Congressman Stark's concerns that we
have to know much more than we do.
We will know is a set of things. We are investing in
research that will be a much more systematic look at the
``leavers.'' The Congress appropriated $5 million, which the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation will be using
for much more systematic work there.
We will know much more through a range of evaluation
studies, which will be discussed at length. Both Barbara Blum
and Howard Rolston will speak about some of the specific
research that focuses on children and outcomes for children,
which I think is critical.
In addition, we will know more through administrative data.
We have just put in place, and are really very pleased to have
put in place, a system for reporting not just caseload
information, because as Congressman Stark points out, that's
not complete, but also information about what happens to people
in terms of their movement to work, their time in those jobs,
and their wages in those jobs.
So, we know some information on the issues you raise. We
will know more, and it is absolutely critical for us to know
more.
Mr. McCrery. Let's return to the question of child care
money. I'm told that CBO, at least, estimates that in 1998,
only about 75 percent of the TANF money that's available to
States will be in fact obligated. In other words, States will
in effect save 25 percent of the money that's available to them
for TANF.
If that's the case, and obviously we don't know yet, that's
just an estimate, but if that's the case, and States are able
to use that money for child care, I'm not sure that we ought to
dive headlong into increased funding for child care, when
there's money on the table that's not being used that could be
for that purpose.
Could you submit to us your agency's analysis of exactly
why you think more child care money is needed in view of the
CBO estimate of utilization of TANF funds, and in view of the
fact that we have in fact called for, I think, about a 50-
percent increase in child care funding over the next 5 years,
which is a significant increase. So would you submit that to
us.
Ms. Golden. Surely, let me summarize the main points, and
then we should submit followup. First, as you note, it is
speculation in terms of next year for States. You may want to
speak with other panelists about that.
While States are holding some parts of money because they
believe they need to address future as well as current
contingencies, States really are finding that they have to
invest the TANF money to address the challenges of reaching all
families and moving families to work.
Second, I would again make the distinction between moving
families from welfare to work, which I believe States are
making the investments to do, and the broader needs of those
struggling families who are working and who should not be in a
position where they'd have to leave work and go back to
welfare. In that latter group of families, we're providing
child care to about 1 in 10 of the eligible families.
The critical needs are to make sure we have a system that
supports work and ensure that working families don't need to
return to welfare in order to get in line for child care. And
we'll submit the followup analysis.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.003
Mr. McCrery. Thank you very much.
Chairman Shaw. Mr. Matsui.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Golden, I want to follow up on some of the areas that
Mr. Stark moved into. I did skim over Mr. Rolston's testimony
and Barbara Blum's testimony and the Census Bureau's. I just
skimmed those. And I didn't see anything that helps me
understand what is really happening with the welfare caseload
at this particular time in America.
Ms. Golden. OK.
Mr. Matsui. I guess one of the problems I have, and I
understand that this is a political town and this is a
political country, but one of the real problems I think I have,
and I think many of us have, is that the impression trying to
be conveyed by this administration and by HHS in particular is
that welfare reform is a wonderful success, because we've seen
2.4 million people go off the welfare rolls.
And we've heard it from the President, in his Saturday
morning addresses. There's just been an array of commentary on
what a wonderful program this is, but the Family Support Act
actually deserves a lot of credit because the States were
finally able to put up the match and draw down Federal funds.
Clearly, the Family Support Act helped create the progress we
see today.
Because in early 1996, we saw a drop in the rolls,
significant drop in the rolls. And we've had also 80 months of
economic growth. So there are a lot of factors involved that
have resulted in this drop in the rolls.
If you came today and you had empirical evidence, data that
Mr. Stark had requested, to show that in fact this program is
working and you can attribute the drop in the rolls to this
program, I would really have a great deal of respect for your
opinion and the opinion of all the people that are touting this
program.
But the problem is that you're making these statements
about how wonderful this program is and how it's worked so
well, but you're not providing data. Just common sense tells me
that because the economy's going so well, you have to expect
the caseload to drop. It would have happened under the 1988
Family Support Act. It probably would have happened even
without any welfare program in place.
So, I hope your rhetoric changes until you get these
studies. Because until you get these studies, you're going to
get people like me and Mr. Stark and others very angry. Because
it's misleading. It's not fair to the people that are falling
off the rolls. And it's just not an appropriate way for adults
and people that are in positions of power and influence to be
conducting themselves.
Ms. Golden. What I would like to do is characterize what's
convinced me personally, because I've been working on welfare
for 25 years.
Mr. Matsui. I understand that. But you see, that doesn't
tell me----
Ms. Golden. But I would then address data.
Mr. Matsui. I go back home to Sacramento and people tell me
it's not working, that there are a lot of problems involved.
Ms. Golden. Right.
Mr. Matsui. In fact, all the people that are eligible in
the State of California to receive child care funds or child
care programs are not getting it. Only 30 percent are getting
it, you know that.
So I'm hearing just the opposite of what you're hearing.
But I won't go around saying it's not working, because that's
anecdotal. That's my personal opinion, based upon a comment by
somebody. And I don't think you should make comments based upon
anecdotes. Because maybe somebody's feeding you information
that may not be accurate.
Ms. Golden. Could I characterize what we know now and what
we don't know, because that's a very fair piece of information.
Mr. Matsui. That's fine.
Ms. Golden. Part of what we know is about the array of
studies that I've just characterized, about more people
working, but we have fragmentary information in different
places.
Mr. Matsui. But can you attribute these to the welfare
reform program, or would you attribute it to the economy, or
would you say part of it is because of the 1988 Family Support
Act that was finally starting to work in 1996?
Ms. Golden. I think everything, when the Council of
Economic Advisors looked at the reasons----
Mr. Matsui. But then you're just telling me what I already
know, that the welfare rolls have dropped, and half the people
that have dropped off of welfare now are working and the other
half we don't know what happened to them. We all know that, and
frankly that statistic, we knew before the welfare reform bill.
Ms. Golden. I started out in welfare in Massachusetts,
working as my first job out of college in the seventies. Two
things are most dramatically different to me, and they're both
indicators of progress, not success. I believe that we have a
lot more to do and a lot more to learn.
One of the two indicators is who's involved in moving
families from welfare to work. When I worked in Massachusetts,
there was no way that I or anyone else in the office would have
thought we could call up the transportation authority,
employers, or community organizations and get them focused on
working with us to work with families. I now believe that has
changed. The welfare agency is not in it alone, and that's an
incredibly important step.
The other thing that is enormously important is that
perspectives by and about families on welfare have changed.
They believe they can move to work, and employers and other
people see them as people we ought to be supporting in that
move.
I think what we need to know, and I am very committed----
Mr. Matsui. If I can just interrupt you, because I know my
time's running out, I apologize to you.
Ms. Golden. That's OK.
Mr. Matsui. Mr. Stark and I had these same kind of
discussions back in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office.
Ms. Golden. Absolutely.
Mr. Matsui. Remember when he eliminated the disregards and
made all these changes, we had that same problem. We basically
eliminated individuals from owning cars because we increased--
--
Ms. Golden. Right, and now we've gone the other way.
Mr. Matsui. Right.
Ms. Golden. We've essentially made sure that the programs
are supporting work.
Mr. Matsui. Many of these burdensome regulations that were
not necessary. So you're speaking to the choir in that respect.
But the real issue is, are sanctions working? What happens
to these families that drop off? And there are a lot of States,
38 States, that impose very severe sanctions.
And you don't know, and I don't know, and I want to believe
that they're doing better, maybe they move in with their
brothers and sisters or mothers and fathers, and so they're
taken care of. If you show me they're taken care of, that's
great. But if all of a sudden we're finding out that
homelessness is going up, people are out in the streets, then
we need to do something.
Ms. Golden. Right. Absolutely.
Mr. Matsui. So before, and my time has run out, so before
we start spreading the gospel about how wonderful this program
is, let's get the facts. And I would hope that you and your
department and others within the administration would be
somewhat circumspect. Because we're talking about, as Mr. Stark
suggested, a lot of people's lives, particularly children.
Ms. Golden. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I'd like to just point out to the gentleman, in addition to
the answer that Dr. Golden was making, that if you track
welfare reform into the States who got an early start, you will
find that they are way ahead of the curve, even though the
curve is very aggressive. I think that we have great evidence
that it is working.
Are some people falling through the cracks? Yes. Some
people fall through the cracks of every program that we try to
put together. But I think to take away from the tremendous
success of welfare reform would certainly be a mistake. We've
had years of prosperity, and yes, the welfare rolls should go
down in those years.
But the dramatic drop that we have seen in recipients of
welfare in this country certainly outstrips being able to
simply attach that to the economy. The economy's been good.
Mr. Matsui. If the gentleman would yield, I don't want to
make this a long discussion, because I just want to see the
facts. We can talk rhetorically. But almost every economist
says they have not seen growth like this since the fifties and
sixties. So I have to say that the growth of the economy right
now is unprecedented in terms of our generation. I think
perhaps maybe we should give a little credit to that.
Chairman Shaw. I give a lot of credit to the economy, and I
think Dr. Golden was correct, that all of----
Mr. Matsui. The only concern I have is that if the economy
starts to dip, then what happens to these people, if this
program isn't working as we presume it is working judging by
our rhetoric.
Chairman Shaw. That's a concern we all share.
Dr. Golden, I have a question that I want to submit to you
on the welfare-to-work program. But I'll do that, and ask that
you reply in writing if you would.
Ms. Golden. OK.
[No questions were submitted by Chairman Shaw.]
Chairman Shaw. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, would you yield before Dr. Golden
leaves? I just want to say to Mr. Stark and Mr. Matsui that
whether the recession is an issue, I think no one has worked
harder on the contingency fund issue than I have. That's why
I've urged the Department to review it.
Clearly, prosperity has been a major factor, and I don't
think anybody should deny that. I've spent a lot of time in
Michigan, mainly in Detroit. I would urge anybody who asks
whether there's been a change in the emphasis on the State and
local level to help people move from welfare to work to go to
Detroit and talk with Mayor Archer, talk with the people who
are working on that program. And they will give you compelling
data.
Though we don't have national data and there may have been
exaggerated claims, I think it's a mistake to say that there
has been a lack of overall progress.
Mr. Matsui. I don't think anybody is. In fact, I would take
the position, no one is saying that there's no progress. What
we're trying to do is make sure that the words and the rhetoric
are backed up by facts.
Mr. Levin. I very much agree.
Mr. Stark. Would the gentleman yield further on that point?
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Mr. Stark. Northwestern University economists just did a
study suggesting that the expansion of the earned income tax
credit is responsible for more than half of the increase in
employment rates among single mothers over the period of 1984
to 1996. All I'm suggesting is that you look at the relative
importance of the EITC, welfare reform, and general economic
conditions in moving single mothers into employment.
At least the Northwestern study is one on which we can
rely. I don't know whether they did any of their study in
Michigan or not. But to me, the idea that we are claiming
victory in welfare reform just because people are no longer
participating in TANF is not responsible.
Mr. Levin. That isn't what is being claimed, and as someone
who strongly supports the IT and the President, it is obviously
a factor, and a major factor. The question is whether the
transition of the welfare program to a work-orientation
caseload with the maintenance of efforts by the States, has
contributed to a movement of people from welfare to work in
addition to all of these other factors.
I think the data will help us to assess all the causations.
But I don't think there should be exaggerated claims on either
side including those who try to minimize the significance of
the----
Mr. Stark. I would support----
Chairman Shaw. This debate will be continued at another day
in another forum.
Before we leave, I would like to introduce the next panel,
because I know that Mr. Cardin wants to introduce one of his
constituents. So I would yield to Mr. Cardin.
Dr. Golden, thank you very much.
Ms. Golden. Thank you.
Chairman Shaw. And thanks for putting up with Pete. I meant
that humorously. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to sit in with the Subcommittee. My colleagues from
California thought I came to listen to their debate, but no, I
came because I'm really pleased that Vesta Kimble is here, who
is the deputy director of the Anne Arundel County Department of
Social Services.
The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services has
taken up the challenge that we created in welfare reform to
establish innovative employment programs. They have developed a
single stop shop for employment services that has been very
successful in the county and has acted as a model for our
Nation.
I'm very pleased that she could be here with us today, and
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce her. And
one of your constituents happens to be Congressman Stark, who
lives in Anne Arundel County. [Laughter.]
But I warn you about the questioning ahead of time.
Chairman Shaw. Now you'll lock your doors at night.
[Laughter.]
I would like to introduce Don Winstead, who is from my home
State of Florida. He's the welfare reform administrator of the
Florida Department of Children and Families in Tallahassee. And
we, too, are very proud of the job they're doing down in the
State of Florida.
Also, they will be joined by Jean Rogers, who's the
Administrator of the Division of Economic Support, Department
of Work Force Development in Madison, Wisconsin, and of course,
Madison, Wisconsin, has certainly been a leader in reform. Also
Frank Mora, Job Development Supervisor, Department of Public
Social Services, South County GAIN Region, Rancho Dominguez,
California.
We are going to have a series of votes on the floor. The
Subcommittee will stand in recess until approximately 12:35 to
12:40 p.m.
[Recess.]
Mr. Collins [presiding]. If the panel that's already been
introduced will take your seats. We will hear from J. Jean
Rogers. We will pause for a moment and wait for Ms. Rogers.
STATEMENT OF J. JEAN ROGERS, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF
ECONOMIC SUPPORT, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Rogers. I'm honored to be here today to tell you all
how PRWORA, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
and Reconciliation Act, has made it possible for Wisconsin to
help thousands of needy families reach self-sufficiency. PRWORA
is based in large part on Wisconsin's experience and
recommendations.
Although over the years, Wisconsin implemented 14 cutting
edge waiver demonstrations, it really wasn't until we
envisioned a world without AFDC that we could create a program
as innovative and comprehensive as we have in Wisconsin Works.
While W-2 was fully implemented only 6 months ago, we've
already seen a dramatic drop in our cash assistance caseload,
from 31,476 families in September to only 14,391 in January.
Unlike other States experiencing recent caseload declines,
Wisconsin's drop came from an already reduced caseload. In
1987, when we implemented our first waiver, we were over 98,000
families. Ninety-eight thousand to fourteen thousand--our
numbers speak for themselves.
Without the authority granted by PRWORA, we really couldn't
have implemented W-2. I'd like to share with you six reasons
you were right to pass PRWORA instead of continuing the old
ways that only allowed flexibility through the waiver system.
By their very nature, waivers are temporary. Why? Because
waivers were experiments which were time limited and only
applied to some clients, and our participants knew it. Many
figured they just had to wait it out. TANF gave us the ability
to make our changes universal and permanent.
Second, waivers were static and rigid. Our benchmark for a
policy change now is, will it help the participant progress
toward a job. If the answer is yes, we can change. Unlike a
waiver, PRWORA allows States the flexibility to change a policy
or procedure immediately, based on their implementation
experience.
Three, waivers were too restrictive to allow full
engagement. AFDC categorically exempted so many people that
nearly half of the caseload was not required to do anything for
their welfare check. The result? Thousands of families
languished on assistance for years without receiving any
meaningful help to become self-sufficient.
Well, no one ever got a raise on welfare. PRWORA gave us
the ability to require everyone to work to the best of their
abilities. The surprising result? People with even the most
severe barriers want to work, and they can work. They just
didn't know how, in many instances, to take that first step.
I had a woman say to me, with tears in her eyes, thank you,
thank you to my caseworker for believing in me, because nobody
else ever did.
Fourth, you couldn't waive the entitlement. Ending the
entitlement was really as much symbolic as it was hard policy.
Having no entitlement reinforces the work requirements and
allows us to design the work training requirements in W-2, like
a job in the real world, rather than a handout.
W-2 payments are based on participation, not on family
size. As parents move up the W-2 employment ladder, their
income increases. And families can have outside income with no
grant reduction, as long as they stay under the income limit of
115 percent of poverty.
Five, even with extensive use of waivers, it really was
difficult to change the culture of the welfare office and our
employers. The existence of random assignment to control groups
really constrained our ability to advertise as we do now. The
improved support of services available to all parents in need,
because half of them weren't eligible before, they were in the
control group.
In fact, we're recruiting clients. W-2 agencies in
Milwaukee are doing TV, radio, and full page newspaper ads, as
well as having community parties, just to encourage needy
families to take advantage of the services in W-2.
Sixth, waivers didn't allow us to change the bureaucracy.
We knew that if we were asking more of our participants, we
really had to ask more of our W-two agencies as well. To ensure
that they were really giving 110 percent, we instituted a
competitive bidding process with outcome-based contracts.
And the result? Of our 80 W-2 agencies, 63 are county run,
3 are run by tribes, and 14 by private agencies, two of which
are for-profit.
We already are seeing the positive results. Just look at
our caseload numbers and wages at full-time placement. That is
six dollars and 38 cents and rising.
In addition, the block grant structure of PRWORA gives
States the opportunity to shift funds to critical areas of
need. Because we're in the work support business, not the
income support business, we really need to spend our money on
things like child care and increased case management and
transportation. And that is exactly what we're doing.
We've tripled the funding for child care in Wisconsin,
ending the waiting lists. And we're the only State to have no
waiting lists. We've expanded usage up to families with incomes
up to 200 percent of poverty and only modest copays. Example, a
mother at the Federal poverty line with two kids on full-time
licensed care, our most expensive, pays only $69 a month for
over $900 in child care services.
Let me conclude with two more things that PRWORA did really
right. One, instead of mandating how many people cannot
participate, as the extensive exemption criteria did in AFDC,
PRWORA sets aggressive work participation rates, raising the
bar for all States. And by limiting the amount of postsecondary
education, PRWORA focuses States on the basics of getting and
holding a job.
Less than 18 percent of our current caseload has a high
school diploma. That's down from 51 percent in 1995. This
statistic shows us two things. One, many former welfare
recipients with a high school diploma have already successfully
entered the work force. And second, we're correct in focusing
on basic education, rather than on college degree programs.
Once a person has the basics and demonstrates the ability to
hold a job, then W-2 will help with postsecondary education as
support for life-long learning, not in place of working, just
like in the real world.
One last thing I would like to take this opportunity to say
before I close, and that is, we have become aware of a budget
proposal that would cut TANF funds in year 6. To accomplish
this, it would likely eliminate all of the State's ability to
have carryover funds.
PRWORA did so much that was right, both in terms of its
structure and in terms of its funding. Please don't now put the
States at risk based on some early guesses on the part of the
Congress of what future caseloads and economic conditions might
be. As was mentioned earlier today, economies are cyclical, and
we need to plan for the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of J. Jean Rogers, Administrator, Division of Economic
Support, Department of Work Force Development
I am honored to be here today to tell you how the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
of 1996 has made a difference in the state of Wisconsin. This
groundbreaking legislation, based in large part on Wisconsin's
experience and recommendations, gives each state the tools it
needs to design a work-focused program responsive to the unique
needs of its population. Wisconsin Works (W-2), our Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, is paving the way
for a world without Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC).
Being a leader in welfare reform for ten years, there is no
doubt that Wisconsin had a head start addressing the problem of
welfare dependence and the poverty that it creates. In fact,
Wisconsin's welfare legacy began in 1987, when Governor
Thompson made welfare reform one of his top priorities upon
taking office. At the time, Wisconsin's AFDC caseload had
swelled to over 98,000 cases.
Governor Thompson had little confidence that the Family
Support Act of 1988 would do much more than continue the status
quo. As a result, Wisconsin pioneered the way for states to
receive waivers from the federal government to run welfare
demonstrations. Wisconsin's first waiver, called Learnfare,
changed the direction of welfare by connecting, for the first
time, the receipt of welfare to personal responsibility.
Learnfare, which has since been folded into W-2, requires
students to attend school or face a reduction in the family's
cash benefit.
Since then, Wisconsin conducted 14 major welfare reform
demonstrations, finding solutions to many of the barriers faced
by families on welfare and steadily chipping away at the
caseload. By 1990, the caseload had decreased to just over
78,000 cases. Five years later, in 1995, there was a decline to
73,000 cases. When PRWORA was signed into law, in September
1996, 49,932 cases remained on Wisconsin's caseload. Although
we had cut our caseload in half in the preceding nine years, we
knew we could do better.
In fact, it was not until we envisioned a world without
AFDC that we could create a program as innovative and
comprehensive as W-2. When, in 1993, Wisconsin's State
Legislature mandated that the Governor end AFDC and replace it
with a work-based program, most states were just beginning to
tinker with incentives to work like increasing the earned
income disregards. This mandate gave us more latitude than we
could have hoped for. While many of our reforms were
successful, they were bound by federal limits. Legislating an
end to AFDC allowed us to start with a clean slate. We took
nothing for granted.
The result was Wisconsin Works (W-2), a work support, not
an income support, program. When Wisconsin passed the W-2
legislation in May 1996, however, states did not yet have the
authority to end AFDC. It was the passage of PRWORA by Congress
just a few months later that made our vision of a work-based
program possible. In fact, Wisconsin was the first state to
submit a TANF plan. Key provisions of W-2 were phased in soon
there after.
Full implementation of W-2 began in September 1997 and the
last AFDC checks were sent out this month (March 1998). The
transition to W-2 has been an overwhelming success. More
parents than ever are finding employment. Since September 1997,
our already reduced caseload has been cut in half from 31,476
families in September to only 14,391 as of January 1998 (latest
numbers available).
Caseload Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Caseload Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1987....................................... 98,295
January 1994....................................... 78,507
January 1995....................................... 73,962
January 1996....................................... 65,386
January 1997....................................... 43,888
January 1998....................................... 14,391
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decline in Wisconsin's cash assistance caseload is
truly astonishing-- the numbers speak for themselves. Although
Wisconsin had the groundwork laid for a work-based program like
W-2, it was not until the advent of PRWORA that Wisconsin could
take the final steps toward a truly work-based program. Without
PRWORA, the decline you see since August 1996 would not have
been possible. With PRWORA, Wisconsin was able to fully
implement the clear lesson learned from our 10 years of welfare
reform experience--to prepare parents for employment, a support
program must look as much like the world of work as possible.
It is clear that without the authority granted to all
states through PRWORA, we could not have implemented W-2. Let
me tell you six of the reasons you were right to pass PRWORA
instead of continuing the waiver system.
Six Differences Between Waivers and PRWORA
1. By their nature, waivers are temporary.
The goal of welfare reform demonstration waivers was to determine
whether a specific policy caused people to change their behavior.
Waivers were generally granted for a period of five to seven years,
after which, the state would go back to the status quo.
The result was that many participants subject to these policy
changes knew that it was an experiment. Many figured they just had to
wait it out. In fact, a Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation's
Cross-State Study of Time Limited Welfare, which focused on time limit
demonstrations in Wisconsin, Florida, and Vermont, found that several
participants did not believe that they would ever actually be subject
to a time limit. In fact, one individual from Florida said that
``somehow, some way, they'll come up with another program to supplement
those who are off.'' [The View from the Field: As Time Limits Approach,
Welfare Recipients and Staff Talk About Their Attitudes and
Expectations, A. Brown, D. Bloom, D. Butler. MDRC: October 1997.]
In contrast, TANF gives states the ability to make our changes
universal and permanent. Wisconsin has spent a lot of time and energy
ensuring that our participants understand that W-2 is not an
experiment, it is this state's AFDC-replacement program: all
participants are subject to a lifetime limit and will be required to
participate in exchange for their W-2 payment. This fundamental change
is not a message we could have conveyed in a few weeks. Since PRWORA
passed 18 months ago, we have been preparing our participants to
transition to W-2. Our efforts are paying off. Our participants are
getting the message. Many have chosen to enter the workforce and save
their time on assistance for when they may have a greater income need.
The magnitude of these behavior changes would not have been possible in
an ``experiment'' we needed a permanent program with real consequences
to get the message across. PRWORA gave us that.
2. Waivers were static and rigid.
Under waivers, we designed a specific program, and even if we
discovered that the program would be more effective if we could change
a policy, extend certain benefits to another group, or increase a
penalty for non-compliance, we could not make that change until the
waiver was ended. States became captives of their own experiments.
Although keeping the policies static made the evaluation results more
valid, it was not the best thing for the participant.
Unlike a waiver, PRWORA allows states the flexibility to change a
policy or procedure based on their implementation experience. Now, we
can implement the lessons we have learned right away. We are able to be
responsive to the concerns of participants, communities, elected
officials, advocates, and our W-2 agencies. Our benchmark for a policy
change is, ``Will it help the participant progress toward a job?'' If
the answer is ``Yes,'' we make the change.
For example, we recently extended our marginally employed policy to
individuals placed in our W-2 Transition position, where individuals
with extensive barriers to work such as a caring for a disabled child
are usually placed. We originally thought that these individuals would
not be able to work due to their severe barriers. However, in just the
first few months of statewide implementation, we heard from
participants, advocates and W-2 agencies that many of our W-2
Transition individuals can work, want to work, and can benefit from
work, even if it is only a few hours per week. Thanks to our ability to
adapt, we have broadened our policy to include these individuals. This
would not have been possible under a waiver. If W-2 were a waiver, we
would have to wait until the end of the demonstration to consider
extending this benefit.
3. Waivers made it difficult to implement Full Engagement.
AFDC categorically exempted anyone who met pre-determined criteria
labeled ``barriers to employment,'' which averaged nearly half of the
caseload. These individuals received a check without any participation
requirement. The result? Thousands of participants languished for
years--even decades--in AFDC, often never working with a case manager.
By shielding these families from participation requirements, AFDC
denied them the opportunity to break down their barriers. One thing is
clear, no one ever got a raise on welfare.
PRWORA recognized that simply writing out a government check each
month did not address the problems of poor families. PRWORA gave us the
ability and the incentives to require everyone to participate. Instead
of ignoring the hard-to-serve, W-2 works with them. W-2 requires
everyone to work to the best of their abilities. W-2 case mangers have
flexibility to assign work activities that address participant barriers
such as an alcohol problem, poor work history, or a disabled child. The
surprising result? The more we work with these individuals, the more we
find that their ``barriers'' do not actually prevent them from working.
In fact, most of these parents want to work, but they were told for
years that they were not capable. And they believed it. These people
simply did not know how to take that first step. I had a woman say to
me with tears in her eyes, ``Thank Governor Thompson for believing in
me.'' In Wisconsin, we are now helping thousands of parents take that
first step. It is not an easy one, and we have to stick with these
families to ensure that they stay on their feet, but a job is their
best chance of becoming self-sufficient.
Interestingly, penalties for non-participation in W-2 are not as
high as in earlier Wisconsin demonstrations. The goal of W-2 payment
reductions is to encourage individuals to participate, not to punish
them. Instead of imposing uniform ``sanctions'' for non-participation
for a month or three months, under W-2, just like a job, the parent
receives payment for only those hours in which they participated. Every
hour the participant fails to show up for required, pre-assigned
activities, their W-2 payment is reduced by $5.15. Both participants
and W-2 case managers realize that it takes a lot of hard work and
commitment to move families toward self-sufficiency. Participants
further realize that participation requirements, more suited to
individual circumstances because of PRWORA, are actually helpful in
realizing their employment goals. Case managers are more committed than
ever to making a success story out of every family on their caseload,
since contracts are outcome-based.
4. You could not ``waive'' the entitlement.
Ending the entitlement was as much symbolic as it was hard policy.
When we were designing W-2, I met with employers from across the state.
They told me that the existence of the welfare system as an alternative
to work was acting in a very real way as a competitor. Employers,
particularly those needing large numbers of entry level workers,
complained that their ability to attract and retain, and in some sense
manage their workforce, was weakened by the alternative cash support
system. If our workers with minor children did not like something about
the job, they could always quit and go back on welfare. Now, under
PRWORA, individuals who quit their jobs without good reason are no
longer entitled to a check. Instead, we help them find a new job.
Having no entitlement reinforces the work requirements and allows
us to design the work-training requirements in W-2 like a job rather
than a handout. Under AFDC, states set payment levels based on family
size and Wisconsin was among the most generous in the nation. The
inherent problem in that process was that there was an implied reward
for having additional children while on welfare. In addition, the old
concept did not reflect the working world, where parents do not receive
a raise when they have additional children.
PRWORA allowed states more flexibility in setting payment levels.
W-2 payments are based on participation, not family size. As a parent
moves up the W-2 Employment Ladder, their income increases with the
final rung being an unsubsidized job. Even the lowest rung on that
ladder pays more than what 80 percent of what AFDC recipients in
Wisconsin received before W-2.
In addition, W-2 allows families to keep more income than under
AFDC. Previously, net income was deducted dollar for dollar from a
family's AFDC payment eliminating any incentive to pursue other avenues
of income. Even child support was assigned to the state and a family
could only receive the first $50. Under W-2, once a family passes the
gross income test (115 percent of federal poverty level or $15,330
annually for a family of three), income does not reduce their W-2
payment. And the W-2 payment does not count in the gross test. Even
wages from a part-time job do not reduce the W-2 payment. In addition,
through a federal waiver, Wisconsin asked to be even more generous with
its needy families. In another reflection of the real world, Governor
Thompson fought to pass through the full amount of child support paid
each month to W-2 families.
Because of PRWORA and creative thinking by W-2 planners, families
are encouraged to seek other sources of income to augment earnings when
the enter the world of work. Unlike the old system, these earnings do
not reduce a family's grant. Again, just like the real world: you work
more, you have more.
Under PRWORA, eligibility requirements became much more simplified
and Wisconsin took advantage of these less complex federal regulations.
For example, there are no more rules excluding two-parent families and
discouraging marriage and family formation. Gone are the strict asset
limits which were out of step with the times. Also noticeably absent
from W-2 are the complex benefit calculations that were
incomprehensible to workers, not to mention recipients. Instead, PRWORA
allows states to set reasonable limits for eligibility. Our goal now is
to focus on case management, not mathematical equations!! Participants
may now own a vehicle with up to $10,000 in equity value and remain
eligible for W-2. In addition, they are able to retain up to $2,500 in
other assets, such as savings accounts for future education or family
emergencies.
All of this increased generosity is made possible because of the
end of the entitlement. States can now say, ``Just as in the real world
of work, we will help you if you help yourself to the extent you are
able, and do so without fear of the abuse of due process.''
5. Waivers made it difficult to change the culture of the welfare
office.
The existence of a random-assignment control group constrained our
ability to advertise, as we do now, the improved supportive services
available to parents, because half of them were not eligible--they were
in the ``control'' group. Now we no longer have to say, ``I'm sorry, we
know this may help you leave welfare, but because your Social Security
Number ends in an odd number, you are not eligible.'' In fact, we are
recruiting clients. W-2 agencies in Milwaukee are doing television and
radio commercials and full-page newspaper advertisements as well as
community parties to encourage needy families to take advantage of W-2.
6. Waivers did not allow us to change the bureaucracy.
We realized that in order to change how families receive welfare,
we had to change how we provide welfare. So we eliminated the
entitlement counties had as the sole service providers of cash
assistance. Instead, we asked them to compete with themselves to meet
certain performance outcomes in order to be W-2 agencies. The benchmark
was set high: two standards had to be met within a 12-month period:
Caseloads had to be reduced by up to 25 percent; and
105 out of 160 points had to be earned by progressively
increasing the number of adults in work activities and reducing the
amount of AFDC expenditures.
We speculated that perhaps half would make it. We underestimated
what a little healthy competition could do. Seventy of the 79 counties/
tribes earned the Right of First Selection. In the five unsuccessful
counties and the seven successful counties who earned the right, but
simply were not interested in being in the welfare business any longer,
we opened the process up to private sector competition. In essence, we
ended the monopoly that counties in Wisconsin had on administering
welfare. This competitive process to select the best and most
enthusiastic provider is integral to W-2.
And size was important too. We wanted each agency to be small
enough to develop a sense of community. Therefore, Milwaukee, which did
not earn the Right of First Selection and contains over 80 percent of
our state's cash assistance caseload, was divided into six W-2 Regions.
As a result, while the majority of cases in Wisconsin are privatized,
the majority of agencies are not.
The results:
66 Counties/Tribes; 12 Non-profit agencies; 2 For-profit agencies;
and 2 Tribes developed their own TANF plan.
By the way, every county agency and all but one Job Opportunity and
Basic Skills (JOBS) agency that went through the competitive process
was selected.
We found that through this process, even with counties that earned
the Right of First Selection, agencies had to redefine their mission.
The result was more innovation and creativity than would ever be
possible under the old system. The bidding process also established
partnerships between private businesses, government agencies and non-
profits who in many cases will work together for the first time to
provide the most effective and efficient services to low-income
families across the state.
The Department of Workforce Development is managing the W-2
contracts through state field staff to ensure that contractors are
meeting performance specifications. The approach is one of technical
support and guidance rather than ``gotcha.''
We made our goals our measures of success. The primary goal we want
to achieve is economic self-sufficiency. We chose a modified health
maintenance organization model. Instead of determining funding based on
the number of cases, we made a one-time determination of the caseloads
in each region at the start of the program, and set maximum contract
allocations based on this number.
W-2 agencies keep their profits. Therefore, there is a built-in
incentive for the agencies to succeed in placing individuals in jobs.
Rather than prospering by having a large caseload, agencies will
succeed by helping their participants find jobs and move off the
caseload, but not permanently. Agencies will be tracked for recidivism
and wages at placement to ensure they are helping people properly. In
addition, there is a $5,000 penalty per instance of failure to serve.
Why is the competitive contracting process so important? Because we
felt our W-2 families deserved excellent service. We knew we could best
ensure excellent service if we had the following three things:
A single entity to hold accountable for all aspects of the program;
Providers who wanted the privilege of helping people help themselves;
and The ability to change providers through time-limited contracts if
service and outcomes were substandard.
Wisconsin's AFDC program was state-supervised and county-
administered, with basically two separate, parallel, service delivery
systems: 1) eligibility and check distribution, run exclusively by
counties, some of whom did not even want to be in the business; and 2)
the JOBS program, which could be run by public or private vendors, some
of whom were not committed to the workforce-attachment model.
The W-2 program was designed so that one organization is wholly
accountable and responsible for results. By having one agency, with
each participant dealing with only one case manager, we eliminated the
excuses for low performance by both agency and participants.
PRWORA also gave states the opportunity to shift funds to critical
areas of need. One of the best examples of that flexibility is in the
area of child care. Safe, affordable child care is a challenge for all
working families, regardless of their economic status. It was also the
barrier cited most often by welfare recipients trying to enter the
workforce. Wisconsin was able to pool child care dollars into one
funding stream, with the goal of providing access to all working
families below 165 percent of the federal poverty level and recipients
up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, with child care
subsidies. To that end, $158 million was budgeted for state fiscal year
1998 and $180 million for state fiscal year 1999. Modest co-pays, which
underscore personal responsibility as well as stretch available funds
to more families, are based on a sliding scale. For example, in
Wisconsin, a mother at the federal poverty line with two children in
full-time, fully licensed care pays $69 per month for over $900 in
services. Today, there is no waiting list for subsidized child care in
Wisconsin!! Without PRWORA, we could probably not make that statement.
W-2 Child Care Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Families
Served # of Children Served
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1996.................... 3,552 5,847 (9,347
children on waiting
lists)
December 1997..................... 11,357 19,868
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Let me conclude with two additional things that PRWORA did
right:
1. Instead of mandating how many people cannot participate
(as the extensive exemption criteria did in AFDC), PRWORA sets
aggressive work participation rates, raising the bar for all
states.
2. By limiting the amount of post-secondary education,
PRWORA focuses states on the basics. PRWORA contains a welcome
provision that restricts post-secondary or vocational education
to 12 months. This reflects Wisconsin's experience with post-
secondary education for welfare recipients. Under the AFDC JOBS
program, participants with the poorest success rate were
enrolled in educational components; the most successful
participated in work experience or on-the-job training.
Currently, our most urgent educational goal is to increase
the percentage of W-2 participants who graduate from high
school. In December 1995, almost 51 percent of our AFDC
population had a high school diploma or its equivalent. By
contrast, less than 18 percent of our current W-2 caseload has
attained that educational level. This statistic shows two
things: 1) that many former welfare recipients with a high
school diploma have successfully entered the workforce; and 2)
we are correct in focusing on basic education rather than on
college degree programs. As a result, our goal is to have each
W-2 participant who lacks at least a high school education
enrolled in basic skills, GED, or HSED classes.
However, we do not stop there. W-2 also supports lifelong
learning. Career planning and exploration go hand-in-hand with
services provided by W-2 case managers. Wisconsin also offers
grant money and additional subsidized child care for education
to individuals who have a proven work history. However, just
like the working world, families must strive first to support
their families. Many parents have balanced work with part-time
education over the years. And as many of us know, that
opportunity for higher education means more when it is earned,
rather than seen as an entitlement.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today
about some of the many benefits Wisconsin has gained from the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. We
believe its passage was the 104th Congress' finest
accomplishment.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Mr. Winstead, we'll hear from you now, please. Your entire
statement will be entered into the record, each of you.
STATEMENT OF DON WINSTEAD, WELFARE REFORM ADMINISTRATOR,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Mr. Winstead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with
information about Florida's welfare reform activities and our
implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant Program. My name is Don Winstead, and I'm the
welfare reform administrator for the Florida Department of
Children and Families.
Along with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment
Security and the Department of Health, our agency is
responsible for administering the program that you passed with
the National Welfare Reform bill.
I'd like to highlight some of the comments that I've
submitted in writing today. In the spring of 1996, the Florida
legislature passed, by unanimous votes in both chambers, the
Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency, or WAGES Act. This act
anticipated enactment of national welfare reform legislation.
When you passed your bill, we were able to move very quickly,
because our laws were already on the books. We submitted the
required State plan and began statewide implementation of our
program in October 1996.
In the month prior to our WAGES implementation, there were
slightly over 200,000 families in Florida receiving AFDC. This
month, March 1998, the cash assistance caseload in Florida is
110,826 families, a decline of 45 percent. When you focus
specifically on the families containing an adult that are the
ones under the time limit, the decline has been over half. And
there is a chart attached to my testimony that gives more
information about the caseload reduction.
At the same time, our Department of Labor is reporting in
the first year of operation over 63,000 entries into
employment, 26,000 additional by the end of the calendar year,
and as of yesterday, the total figure was over 105,000.
The caseload reductions we've seen have been in spite of
changes in eligibility rules to reward work. We have increased
the earnings disregard, we disregard the first $200 of earnings
and half of the remainder for as long as the individual is
receiving welfare. We've doubled the asset limit. We have
eliminated the so-called marriage penalties that applied to
two-parent families under the AFDC unemployed parent program.
We've extended transitional child care to 24 months. And
we've also implemented a provision called transitional
education and training where people who leave welfare can
continue to get help to upgrade their skills and further their
education. There's information in my testimony on our caseload
trends and also on our experience with time limits.
We have changed our governance structure for the program.
The Florida legislature established a board of directors to
have oversight to the State WAGES Program. And this board has a
majority of private sector members.
We've also set up local WAGES coalitions in each of 24
regions of the State who have oversight of the local
implementation of the program, and our implementation is very
much community based.
In terms of time limits, Florida was one of the first
States to implement time limits under demonstration waiver. And
I believe I would be accurate in saying we've had more
experience with families actually reaching the time limit than
any State in the country. I was in Pensacola in February to
celebrate with them the 4-year anniversary of our demonstration
in that county.
There's more detail in my testimony, but bottom line, our
experience has been that the so-called time limit cliff is more
like a gradual slope, that the catastrophic impacts that some
people have feared would result from time limits have not
occurred, at least so far.
We've seen remarkable progress in our implementation of
welfare reform. Employment's up, caseloads are down. And we're
keeping our commitment to provide the child care and
transitional benefits that families need to move successfully
from welfare to work.
We foresee not only using all of the child care funds that
you are providing, but we anticipate transferring the maximum
allowable amount of the TANF block grant to the child care and
development fund, and to the social services block grant.
In the next State fiscal year, Governor Chiles has proposed
to use over $80 million in welfare savings to expand child care
for the working poor families of Florida. This proposal has
received broad bipartisan support in the Florida legislature,
and when implemented, will represent the most significant
expansion of child care services to low-income working families
in the history of our State.
In closing, I'd like to emphasize three key points as we
move forward. First of all is the need for continued
flexibility. The regulations that were recently published by
the administration for Children and Families have been the
subject of much discussion. We have provided specific
recommendations. We hope that they will seriously consider our
recommendations in support of continued flexibility, and we
hope you will do the same.
Second, we also urge you to continue your funding
commitments. We hear persistent rumors that Committees of the
Congress are considering a variety of measures that would
undercut our reform efforts. Measures that cut our Federal
matching funds in the Medicaid or Food Stamp Programs or
further reduce funding in the social services block grant will
have a direct impact on our success in welfare reform.
I have very clear memories of the recession a decade ago,
when our AFDC caseload doubled. The effect on the State budget
was devastating. And for each $1 of increased cost, we were
then only responsible for 45 cents. Next time we'll be
responsible for 100 cents on $1 of that increase. That's why
we're using part of our TANF block grant for a welfare reform
rainy day fund, and it's critical that we have that ability.
In our initial implementation, we've demonstrated that the
law you passed and the framework you established for State and
local reform can work. The old AFDC Program no longer exists in
Florida. In its place is a program that supports work, personal
responsibility and self-sufficiency. With your continued
support and through the efforts of communities throughout our
State, we believe that next phase of welfare reform can build
on the success of the first 18 months and complete the
transformation that has begun.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Don Winstead, Welfare Reform Administrator, Florida
Department of Children and Families
Florida's Implementation of Welfare Reform
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to provide you with information about Floridas
welfare reform activities and our implementation of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant. My
name is Don Winstead and I am the Welfare Reform Administrator
with the Florida Department of Children and Families. Along
with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security
and the Florida Department of Health, our agency is responsible
for administering the program you created in Title I of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193).
Implementation of WAGES
In the Spring of 1996, the Florida Legislature passed, by
unanimous votes in both chambers, the Work and Gain Economic
Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) Act. This Act anticipated enactment of
national welfare reform legislation. With the passage of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996, Florida was able to move quickly to submit the
required state plan and implemented the new program statewide
in October 1996.
In the month prior to WAGES implementation, 200,292
families in Florida received AFDC. This month, March 1998, the
WAGES cash assistance caseload is 110,826 families, a decline
of 45%. In the first year of operation, the Department of Labor
and Employment Security reported over 63,000 entries into
employment by WAGES participants, with an additional 26,000
reported in the October 97 through December 97 quarter.
The caseload reductions have been achieved in spite of
changes in eligibility rules to reward work. We let
participants who go to work retain eligibility longer by
disregarding a higher portion of their earnings than under the
old AFDC program. We have replaced the ``$30 and 1/3
disregard'' under the AFDC program by disregarding the first
$200 of earnings and 1/2 of the remainder. This earnings
disregard is available as long as the individual remains
eligible for temporary cash assistance.
Other changes have raised asset limits so that people can
exit welfare with more savings and eliminated the so-called
``marriage penalties'' which placed severe restrictions on two-
parent families. We have also extended transitional child care
to 24 months and implemented a transitional education and
training provision to permit people to upgrade their skills and
further their careers after they leave welfare.
The following chart shows the caseload trend in Florida for
June 1995 to March 1998. As you can see, the caseload was
declining prior to our implementation of WAGES, but the rate of
decline has increased considerably since October 1996.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.008
Governance Structure
In addition to changes in program design, Floridas WAGES
program has a very different governance structure than the old
welfare program. A State Board of Directors, with a majority of
members from the private sector, has been established to
provide oversight to the program. The State Board of Directors
oversees development of the statewide implementation plan,
oversees the program budget and charters local coalitions.
Local WAGES coalitions have been set up in 24 regions with
oversight, service delivery and financial planning
responsibilities. The local WAGES coalitions provide for many
of the work activity and training components of the program
through contracting for services. In addition, we are in the
process of implementing privatization projects in three areas
of the state for all WAGES services.
Time Limit Dynamics
Florida was one of the first states to implement time
limits through our Family Transition Program begun in early
1994 under a federal waiver. We are continuing that
demonstration in Escambia County to learn more about the
impacts of time limits. So far, over 1,400 families have
reached their theoretical time limit in Escambia County. Very
few individuals have used all of their benefits and been
terminated due to the time limit. Our experience has been that
over time, about 6% of families reach the time limit and are
cut off. Another 6% are employed, remain eligible because of
the higher earnings disregard and choose to continue receiving
cash assistance until they reach the time limit.
For families reaching the time limit, we can extend
benefits for the children if termination of full benefits would
make it likely that the children will come into emergency
shelter or foster care. So far, we have used this option in
only a handful of cases. Our experience in the Family
Transition Program has been that most families who have reached
the time limit have had other sources of support such as family
members or other income.
Our statewide WAGES program used the time limit structure
that we tested in the Family Transition demonstration. Our time
limits are shorter than those in federal law. For most
families, the time limit is 24 months out of a 60 month period.
For longer term welfare recipients and younger individuals
lacking high school completion or work experience, there is a
36 month out of 72 month time limit. Both the 24 month and the
36 month limit are within an overall 48 month lifetime limit.
As in the federal law, child-only cases, such as children
being raised by grandparents where the benefits are only for
the children, are not subject to either a time limit or a work
requirement.
The following chart shows a snapshot of the families in
Florida who are subject to the time limit and the theoretical
end of their eligibility. This chart shows when people would
reach the time limit if no family left welfare for any reason
other than the time limit and if no family received a hardship
extension. This is a theoretical worst-case scenario that we
use for planning purposes.
The chart show that very few of the families who became
subject to time limits in October 1996 are at risk of reaching
the time limit in October 1998. Local WAGES coalitions are now
in the process of reviewing the families who are within six
months of the end of their time limit. Those who have
diligently participated in the program and those with hardships
may qualify for an extension of their time limit for up to 12
months under state law.
Our experience is that the so-called ``time-limit cliff''
is more like a gradual slope and the catastrophic impacts that
some people feared would result from time limits have not
occurred, at least so far.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.009
The Need for Continued Flexibility and Support
Mr. Chairman, we have seen remarkable progress in the
implementation of welfare reform in the past 18 months.
Employment is up, welfare caseloads are down and we are keeping
our commitment to provide the child care and transitional
benefits that families need to move successfully from welfare
to work. We foresee not only using all of the child care funds
you are providing, but we anticipate transferring the maximum
allowable amount of the TANF block grant to the Child Care
Development Fund and Social Services Block Grant.
In the state fiscal 1998-99 budget, Governor Chiles has
proposed to use over $80 million in welfare savings to expand
child care for working poor families in Florida. This proposal
has received broad bipartisan support in the Florida
Legislature and when implemented, will represent the most
significant expansion of child care services to low income
working families in the history of our state.
By the end of April, the Florida Legislature will pass a
state budget that expands services for WAGES clients at risk of
domestic violence, increases funding for treatment of substance
abuse and expands family planning services to reduce out-of-
wedlock births.
We're off to a good start, but we need your continued help
and support.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has
recently published proposed regulations that would impose
extensive reporting requirements on states, restrict the extent
to which state expenditures can be counted toward the
maintenance of effort requirement and make it more difficult to
transfer funds to the child care block grant. We have provided
specific recommendations to ACF on ways we believe the final
regulations can implement the statute while continuing to
support state flexibility. Without the past support of the
Administration for Children and Families through the federal
waiver process, many of the lessons we have learned from
previous demonstrations and applied in the design of the WAGES
program would have lost.
We hope they will seriously consider our recommendations in
support of continued state flexibility and we hope you will
continue to allow us the flexibility we need to best serve the
families in our state.
We also urge you to continue your funding commitments. We
hear persistent rumors that committees of the Congress are
considering a variety of measures that would undercut our
reform efforts. Measures that cut our federal matching funds in
the Medicaid or Food Stamp programs or further reduce funding
in the Social Services Block Grant will have a direct impact on
our success in welfare reform.
I have very clear memories of the recession a decade ago
when our AFDC caseload doubled. The effect on the state budget
was devastating, and for each dollar of increased cost, we were
only responsible for 45 cents. Next time, well be responsible
for 100 cents of every dollar in increased cost. Its important
to remember that the implementation of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families Block Grant transferred the risk of future
economic downturn and the resulting caseload increases from a
shared federal/ state risk to a state risk.
TANF Block Grant funds were established as funds available
to states ``without fiscal year limitation'' under federal law.
As federal participation rates and the pressure of time limits
increase, we retention of the block grants is critical to
success. The unexpended block grant balances also represent a
``welfare reform rainy day fund.'' to protect the state from
future caseload increases.
Our initial implementation has demonstrated that the law
you passed and the framework you established for state and
local reform can work. The old AFDC program no longer exists in
Florida. In its place is a program that supports work, personal
responsibility and self-sufficiency.
With your continued support and through the efforts of
communities throughout the state, we believe the next phase of
welfare reform can build on the success of the first 18 months
and complete the transformation that has begun.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.010
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Winstead.
Ms. Kimble.
STATEMENT OF VESTA KIMBLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND; ACCOMPANIED
BY CHRISTINE BONDS, CHILD SUPPORT WORKER; JUANA CHAPMAN, JOB
COUNSELOR; AND ANGELA COLEMAN, CASEWORKER
Ms. Kimble. Good afternoon. My name is Vesta Kimble, and
I'm Deputy Director of Social Services for Anne Arundel County,
Maryland. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services is a
State office, a local office of a State agency, the Maryland
Department of Human Resources. Three years ago, our local
office changed the culture of welfare without any State
legislation, without any Federal waivers, without any
additional staff and without any additional allocation of
funds. We simply began doing business in a different way,
transforming ourselves from an impersonal, forms-laden
bureaucracy into a professional job center that offers
customized employment services for any county resident.
The job center is open Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., for walk-in service. No appointments are necessary. We
offer many employment services onsite, free of charge:
Employment assessments, local job listings, onsite job fairs,
targeted hiring, resume computers, phones for calling
employers, occupational training, microenterprise development
programs, and even a job club for those people who need a
little bit more intensive services.
We also offer employment-related services onsite, free of
charge: Career clothing vouchers, transportation subsidies,
child care vouchers, onsite child care, instruction in earned
income credit, GED preparation classes and GED testing, English
as a second language classes, and even an alternative high
school for teen mothers.
In addition, we offer other family services, onsite, free
of charge: Child support services, immunizations, WIC clinics,
Healthy Teen clinics, and even a summer camp and after-school
club for school-age children.
All of these services, in tandem, have helped us achieve a
66-percent reduction in the number of able-bodied TANF cash
assistance recipients and have helped to keep our recidivism
rate to under 10 percent.
Some of us would argue that welfare reform was possible all
along, given effective management, even under the AFDC Program,
and that we really didn't need PRWORA's time limits and other
penalties. In 1995, a full year before any legislative reform
in Maryland, our local office became an employment agency for
welfare applicants in order to divert them from ever applying
for cash assistance.
In 1996 we opened the job centers to the general public in
an effort to remove the stigma of welfare and to mainstream our
recipients with other unemployed county residents. In 1997, we
began our boldest initiative to date, to help any under-
employed county resident get a better job, one that pays at
least $8.15 per hour and has health benefits.
Our goal, you see, is to reduce poverty, not merely reduce
welfare dependency. This is by far our greatest challenge. It
is a challenge that lawmakers and policy leaders applaud, but
do not support when the budget funds are divvied up.
If I could ask you for just one change, it would be to
please think in terms of outcomes that matter for needy
families, not merely job placements, but prevention of
recidivism. Not merely employment, but employment in living-
wage jobs that just might survive the next economic downturn.
Not merely services for TANF-eligible parents, but services for
all low-income individuals who seek our assistance in finding a
job, finding affordable child care, transportation, health
care, and training for a better job.
Please remove the categorical chains that bind the funding
we receive, so that we can serve our customers better. We do
not want to, nor will we ever, turn away some residents simply
because we cannot fit them into a particular funding category.
Our caseloads overall have not decreased. In fact, they
have increased slightly. Nearly every TANF case we close
remains open for food stamps and Medicaid. Nearly every would-
be TANF applicant whom we divert up front from applying for
TANF, applies for and receives food stamps and Medicaid, if
only for the children. We haven't lost those people in exiting
the TANF caseload; in fact, we still own them in many other
caseloads.
Now, during these glory days of economic health, is the
time to address poverty head-on. Please help us achieve our
goals within our existing allocation of funds.
I'd be happy to answer any questions I can, and I will
defer to the experts, my staff, on questions that I cannot
answer. With me here today are Christine Bonds, child support
worker; Juana Chapman, job counselor; and Angela Coleman,
caseworker. All of them are from the Annapolis Job Center.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Vesta Kimble, Deputy Director, Anne Arundel County
Department of Social Services, Annapolis, Maryland
``Changing the Culture of Welfare at the Local Level''
My name is Vesta Kimble. I am the Deputy Director of Social
Services for Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services is a
local office of the Maryland Department of Human Resources.
Three years ago, our local office changed the culture of
welfare--under the AFDC program--without any State legislation,
without any Federal waivers, without additional staff and
without an additional allocation of funds.
We simply began doing business in a different way--
transforming ourselves from an impersonal, forms-laden
bureaucracy into a professional Job Center that offers
customized employment services for any County resident.
Services On-Site, Free-of-Charge
The Job Center is open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM,
for walk-in service. No appointments are necessary.
We offer many employment services, on-site, free of charge:
employment assessments, local job listings, job fairs, targeted
hiring, resume computers, phones for calling employers,
occupational training, micro-enterprise development, and a Job
Club for those who need more intensive services.
We also offer employment-related services on-site, free of
charge: career clothing vouchers, transportation subsidies,
child care vouchers, on-site child care, instruction in Earned
Income Credit, GED preparation classes and GED testing, English
as a Second Language classes, and even an alternative high
school for teen mothers.
In addition, we offer other family services, on-site, free
of charge: child support services, immunizations, WIC clinics,
Healthy Teens clinics, and even a summer camp and after-school
club for school-age children.
All of these services, in tandem, have helped us achieve a
66 percent reduction in the number of able-bodied TANF
recipients, and have helped to keep our recidivism rate to
under 10 percent.
Management by Objective
We did not engage in a lengthy planning process before we
began reforming the AFDC program in our local office. Rather,
we chose to begin with a few strategies that seemed to work in
a few other offices that we had visited around the country.
Specifically, from Portland, Oregon, we learned about up-
front job search coupled with child care subsidies for any AFDC
applicant, not just for AFDC recipients. From Minneapolis,
Minnesota, we learned about on-site child care in the social
services office. From Riverside County, California, and
Kenosha, Wisconsin, we learned about the importance of
professional environments.
Unlike these other offices, however, we chose to develop a
team of specialists--child care staff, child support staff, job
counselors and caseworkers--and presented them with a set of
objectives for the year, judging their performance as a group.
Team members had free reign to design and experiment with
strategies to achieve four specific expectations that first
year: 1) reduce our County's AFDC caseload 3 percentage points
faster than the other major metropolitan counties; 2) double
the number of job placements when compared to the Private
Industry Council agency's number from the previous year; 3)
divert as many families from applying for cash assistance as
possible by providing other services up-front; and, 4) keep as
many employed parents as possible from coming back into the
AFDC caseload within six months of employment.
The success of the team approach that first year was
evident in the results: the team quadrupled the number of job
placements, decreased the caseload faster than other counties
by 12 percentage points, and kept recidivism to 10 percent. Up-
front child care and transportation subsidies helped to divert
hundreds of would-be AFDC applicants that first year.
A formal cost-benefit analysis, conducted by the University
of Maryland, concluded that every $1 invested in the Job Center
and its services, yielded $2.70 in public program savings--
money not paid out in AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid.
We received designation as a pilot site for a U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services program called ``Changing
the Culture of Welfare.'' At times, we had to hide behind that
designation in order to protect our staff-directed local
reforms both from those who sought to preserve the stigmatizing
system of welfare, and from those who sought ``one-size-fits-
all'' welfare reform at the State level.
There were no special permissions or financial incentives
granted to our staff from the headquarters office in Baltimore,
and there was no escape from the ``welfare-like'' salaries for
caseworkers and supervisors ($17,900 annual salary for a
caseworker with a college degree).
Instead, the only rewards for staff were the authority and
freedom they had to make changes in welfare as they knew it.
For example, a renegade group of four caseworkers attacked the
stack of State forms and the State's 14-page benefits
application form, reducing them all to a one-page Assessment
Form with additional information able to be input directly into
a local data base designed in-house specifically to suit their
needs. With this new freedom, the teams also identified several
key operational needs: for transportation strategies; for
training (in Earned Income Credit and domestic violence
awareness); and, for a Job Developer to serve as a liaison to
all the local employers who flooded the Job Center with job
orders.
National Attention
This led to the development of three national models:
A curriculum for training front-line workers in
Domestic Violence Awareness, whose development was funded by a
grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
Administration for Children and Families. This training
protocol is now helping other jurisdictions implement the
Wellstone-Murray provisions of Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
The AdVANtage transportation program, which
transforms welfare recipients into van company owners who help
transport other Job Center customers on job search and to and
from work. This strategy was funded by a grant from the
Community Transportation Association of America, which operates
a demonstration grant program for the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Federal Transit Administration.
The Wheels for Work program, which Anne Arundel
County Executive John Gary created in 1995, to help welfare
recipients purchase surplus County government vehicles that
otherwise would have been auctioned off for a very low return.
These and other strategies have attracted national media
attention. TIME magazine, CNN and The Washington Post have
highlighted the Job Center as a national model, and because of
the media attention, more than 500 visitors from local, State,
Federal and national (for-profit and non-profit) organizations
have toured the Job Center in an effort to learn how it has
accomplished its objectives--in other words, to pick our
brains.
Most visitors are surprised to learn that the Job Center is
run by State government employees--not some local, private
company or national, for-profit contractor. Our usual retort is
to be equally surprised at our visitors' amazement that
government workers can and do operate an efficient, effective,
business-like entity. We further assert that it is better for
the government to operate such a facility because it can easily
shift its objectives as customers' needs dictate, and not be
burdened with lengthy and costly contract modifications.
Moreover, it is better in the long run, because the social
services agency can also carefully track whatever effect
welfare reform might have on the foster care caseload. Notably,
the foster care caseload in our County has decreased steadily
during the past five years, while the rest of the State's
caseloads have increased. Again, effective management was the
key.
Outcomes that Matter
Ever since that first magical year, the Job Center's
strategies and its objectives have continued to evolve. In
1996, we established a second Job Center, in our other district
office, and decided to open both Job Centers to the general
public, in order to remove the stigma of welfare, and to
mainstream our recipients with other unemployed County
residents.
Diversion is now one of the principal objectives. As Chart
1 indicates, in September and October 1997, 3,666 County
residents used the Job Centers. More than 2,300 of them were
interviewed by Job Counselors, yet only 417 applied for cash
assistance, and only 194 of those actually had their cash
assistance cases activated.
Recently, we began our boldest initiative to date--to help
any under-employed County resident get a better job--one that
pays at least eight dollars and fifteen cents per hour and has
health benefits.
By far the most challenging of our customers are those who
are working, but whose wages are so low that they continue to
qualify for, and choose to receive, TANF. Their partial monthly
cash assistance grant is usually under $100; nevertheless, each
month's grant still counts toward their lifetime limit of 60
months. This group of recipients represents a different type of
``hard-core'' population because it is difficult to persuade
them to close their cases voluntarily, or to seek training to
get better jobs while they are also working. Some of them,
quite frankly, do not believe the 60-month lifetime limit will
ever be imposed.
Even though PRWORA allows us to claim victory for a high
``participation rate,'' we cannot and should not rest on our
laurels. Our goal, you see, is to reduce poverty, not merely
reduce welfare dependency. The outcomes we focus on now are
broader than the PRWORA or ``Welfare-to-Work'' formula grant
programs. We seek to achieve:
Not merely job placements, but prevention of
recidivism;
Not merely employment, but employment in living-
wage jobs that just might survive the next economic downturn;
Not merely employment for those who are
``mandatory'' for work activities, but resources to assist even
those who are statutorily exempt from work requirements but who
want to work, and need to work, just to stay above the poverty
level (such as disabled parents and parents of disabled
children);
Not merely services for TANF-eligible parents, but
services for all low-income individuals who seek our
assistance--in finding a job, and finding affordable child
care, health care, transportation and training for a better
job.
We seek to address these broader outcomes largely in spite
of existing Federal and State programs, which recently have
created some operating flexibility for local programs, but
still rely on ``one-size-fits-all,'' restrictive, categorical
funding.
For example, as Chart 2 shows, the TANF grant and Food
Stamps together do not provide enough income to meet the
Federal Poverty Level. Clearly, in Maryland, work pays more
than welfare. However, there are few incentives to strive for a
better-paying job. Gains in wages decrease overall household
income for a mother with one child because of the loss of Food
Stamps benefits and the loss of eligibility for child care
subsidies. Sadly, if this low-income mother has another baby,
then the State will pay child care subsidies for both children.
This message, of course, is counter to every common-sense
notion in anyone's version of welfare reform. Yet, the Federal
rules associated with these funds limit her options.
We would prefer not to turn away low-income residents
simply because we cannot fit them into a particular funding
category. Those who today are living on the edge of poverty
will tomorrow most likely spiral down to a level that will
qualify them for services. Now is the time to address the needs
of all low-income families.
Although our TANF caseload has decreased markedly, our
caseloads overall have not decreased. In fact, they have
increased slightly, from 20,175 cases in 1995, to 20,467 in
1998, as is shown in Chart 3. Nearly every TANF case we close
remains open for Food Stamps and Medicaid. Nearly every would-
be TANF applicant that we divert up-front, applies for, and
receives, Food Stamps and Medicaid, if only for the children.
At the present time, neither the Federal government nor the
State government measure the diversion activity that occurs on
the front lines. Because it is not measured, it is also not
funded. We look forward to a day when our staff and other
resources are allocated, not based on the number of cases we
have under care in the cash assistance caseload, but rather,
based on the services we provide to the low-income residents in
our County and the outcomes associated with those services.
I'd be happy to answer any questions I can, and I will
defer to the experts--my staff--on questions that I cannot
answer. Accompanying me today are: Christine Bonds, Child
Support Worker; Juana Chapman, Job Counselor; and Angela
Coleman, Caseworker. All of them are from the Annapolis Job
Center.
Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8826.007
[The official Committee record contains additional material
here.]
Mr. Collins. Thank you. We're glad to have your staff here,
also.
Mr. Mora.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MORA, GAIN SERVICES/JOB DEVELOPMENT
SUPERVISOR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL
SERVICES, RANCHO DOMINGUEZ, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Mora. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Members of this
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here on behalf of Los
Angeles County.
We have jobs, OK, I want to start with that. On behalf of
Los Angeles County, I have 17 staff members that work with me,
job developers. My name, again, is Frank Mora. I'm a
supervisor. What I do, basically, I talk to 50 to 60 employers
a week.
I understand what employers want, I bring it back to my
staff, and I relay this to my clients. The process to becoming
employed is understanding the process of getting a job, what
you need to do, and applications, and so on, including the
interview.
I bring all the resources together in our region, meaning
from the housing industry, EDD, to job services, to JTPA and so
on, to make sure that our clients who become employed can go on
and get the training they deserve.
Our 17 job developers, we average approximately 325
participants per week that we see. Of the 325 we see every
week, we put them into a job pool, what we call a labor market
job pool, a computerized system, that we can become somewhat
like a temp agency. We're catering to employers. When they call
us, we can call people, motivate people within 24 hours, and
fill employment.
Out of this pool, we need to identify the three groups we
have. The first group on the labor market is the fast tracking
client that doesn't need much, he can get out there and work
and get going. This kind of client is very successful. Anybody
can do it, there's nothing to it.
The second group is the tough one. It's the person who has
not worked in the last 3 years or has been out of work even 10
or 12 years. We need to find out and we need to recondition, we
need to do some self-skill training, we need to establish the
self-confidence, motivate the client so he or she can get into
the employment force. And we're doing that quite successfully.
I'm talking about quite successfully, $6 an hour. That's very
good.
The third group that we have is the one I pride the most,
because this is where the welfare starts, is the teen parent.
This is where the problem begins, folks, and gets out of
control. We're talking about keeping families together, we're
talking about talking to young people, 19, 20 years old, and
counseling them and keeping them together, and to employment
and completing their education.
Let me describe to you one case that I have, that touched
me, and this is what's going on. I'm telling you what's
happening right now in the trenches.
Last September I had a gentleman by the name of David. He's
20 years old. He came to see me. He came to see our job
development staff, and we noticed that he was ready for
employment. We screened him. This guy can get out there in the
market, he can start work right now.
So consequently, I told David, David, I'm giving you an
appointment with me next week at 2 o'clock on Tuesday, see me,
I'm going to talk to several employers, that's what I do for a
living, and I'm going to get you some interviews. I want to see
you in my office at 2 o'clock next week, so I can get you ready
to go within 48 hours.
The following Tuesday came and David didn't show up. I'm a
very intense job developer. And what happened was, we made a
house call. Because I made a commitment to an employer that I
found that wanted to see the guy. He wanted to see this guy
within 48 hours, because he wanted to give him a job, interview
him, see what he's made of.
I went to see David. He lived in a not very good area of
Long Beach. I took a job developer with me over there, for
safety reasons, two together. When we were outside, we noticed
that there were some gang members that were buzzing around us
on bicycles. My job developer became very concerned. I told
her, don't worry, I'll take care of this right now.
When David came out, I said, David, where were you? You had
an appointment with me at 2 o'clock. I see there are some
safety reasons here. I want to see you in my office this
afternoon at 2 o'clock. If you really mean it, and you really
want to go to work, and you have a wife, you told me you do,
with two little babies upstairs, I want to see you this
afternoon at 2 o'clock.
At 2 o'clock, David came to see me. When David came to see
me, I told David, David, we need to be responsible. David, we
have a family that we need to keep together and you want to
provide for, and two little babies. He opened up to me. He told
me what the problem was and so on.
I made an appointment with the housing authority in Los
Angeles County to bring their resources together with him,
because obviously, for him to work and perform, he needs
safety. He needs to live in a place that will enable him to
come back and forth and feel safe with his family.
I told David, David, I got you the interview with Delco
Machine Shop in Long Beach. You need to be there, that's your
first responsibility, then you need to go see the housing
authority, and everything's going to work out, we're going to
give you the 100-percent effort. If you're giving us 100
percent, we're going to give you 100 percent.
David told me his wife was concerned, she didn't want to be
alone and so on. I told David, relax, go to the interview on
Thursday. David went to the interview on Thursday, Delco
Machine. Saram Graham called me back from Delco Machine in Long
Beach. She told me, you've got an outstanding client here. He
can go to work, I don't see why not. He can be a warehouseman.
I told David, I said, David, you got yourself a job at $7
an hour. So David came to me, he told me, Mr. Mora, I still
need some place to go where there's housing that I can feel
safe. I called into the housing authority and I told Linda that
David was coming over.
As far as I saw, there was an effort from David coming to
me that was going to allow him to become employed and give his
family a chance to stay together. This is very important to us.
This is not written policy, but it's common sense. If we're
going to make it together, we have to maintain the family
together.
David became employed. He got a job at Delco Machine. David
went to the housing authority. He moved. He got a better house,
a better place to live.
Three months after David was employed at Delco Machine, I
called Saram Graham, Delco, and I said, Saram, you wanted to
talk to me about maybe possibly sending David to training while
he's still working. So Saram told me, Yes, we can do that, but
I need to find out the school.
I called Long Beach City College. We got the community
college, we're bringing resources together here so we can do
something to keep a family together. It makes sense.
Long Beach City College told me, that's fine, we can do it.
And I can tell you right now, sir, that David is going to Long
Beach City College. When he completes machine shop operator,
while he's making $7 an hour, still working, he's going to be
making $15 an hour upon graduation.
His wife is completing her GED under Cal-Learn, the State
of California has allowed that. She graduates in June. I will
make sure that she gets proper guidance and employment. And I'm
talking about a family here, keeping it together, that she's
going to be making probably $7 to $8 an hour in customer
service.
We're talking about maintaining a household together.
[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]
Statement of Frank Mora, GAIN Services/Job Development Supervisor, Los
Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Rancho Dominguez,
California
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) Greater Avenues for Independence
(GAIN) program's job development efforts. As far as welfare to
work is concerned, as a GAIN service/job developer supervisor,
I am ``where the rubber meets the road.''
Special acknowledgment must go to our leaders in Los
Angeles County. Their vision of the program has allowed us the
opportunity to excel. Our entire staff also shares in the
dedication that has enabled us to fast-track welfare recipients
into the workforce.
I am here to talk to you about DPSS California Work
Opportunities and Responsibilities for Kids (CalWORKs)
program's job development component. I service welfare
recipients who are at different stages within the GAIN program.
My unit provides job development services. Job development
consists of a job creation process for job ready welfare
recipients who need assistance in entering the job market.
I will describe to you my typical experiences in the
trenches. I supervise thirteen (13) GAIN service workers and
one (1) clerk engaged in developing jobs for the South Los
Angeles County GAIN Region service area. Job development
however is a countywide effort that is taking place in five (5)
regional offices.
A job developer is a self-motivated individual who will be
responsible for understanding employer's needs. He/she is the
liaison between the employer and the welfare participant.
Employers perceive job developers as genuine and honest
individuals who the employer can rely on and trust. Employers
range from mom-and-pops operations, to small, medium and large
businesses.
The job development responsibilities impress employers and
allow for a successful relationship with the employers.
Employers value our providing screening, short-term training,
employment tracking and post-employment counseling to
participants. Consistent attention to all these components
impress our employers and make our program successful.
Screening consists of assessing whether or not our
participants are job-ready and able to enter the job market
and/or are suitable for this employer. The screening focuses on
work history, skills, education and conditioning habits that
are conducive or non-conducive toward the work environment.
In Los Angeles County, we provide our employers the
assurance that every participant who we refer to them meets the
legal immigration status required for employment. Employers
find in our participants a diverse prospective employee pool,
with different skill levels, rich multicultural and language
backgrounds.
Another asset of our program that has impressed our
employers is our participation in forming short-term training
programs that help to meet the employers' current job demands.
For example, a fork-lift program can be done in one (1) week
through a community college, provided the participant has some
previous warehouse experience. The forklift training has led to
immediate employment at an average pay of seven dollars and
fifty cents ($7.50) per hour. The certified nurse assistance
(CNA) short-term training emphasizes acute care and can be done
in eight (8) weeks. Our CNAs average earnings of nine dollars
and sixty-eight cents ($9.68) per hour with benefits. Normally
a CNA training used to take six (6) months long and the
forklift training used to be one (1) month. The beauty of the
short-term training programs is that they were done with
private sector participation. There are other short-term
training programs that are available such as welding,
landscaping, and customer service.
Employers are also impressed with our employment tracking
that enables them to evaluate our retention rates and to
predict trends in retention and growth.
Post employment counseling is the final service in the job
development process offered to our participants. We give
participants essential information for their understanding
about available transitional supportive services such as child
care and Medical (Medicaid).
Employee mentoring occurs as participants and job
developers continue to nurture the relationship and the
credibility with employers.
The job development services enable our employers to make a
connection with our participants before, during, and after
participants enter the workforce. The flexibility that Los
Angeles County has provided job developers in guiding our
participants toward employment has left a positive impression
with our employers. A single job developer is perceived as a
reflection of the whole organization. Employers perceive that
this can be a ``no-nonsense'' approach, meaning less paperwork
and more measurable results. We continue to nurture the
relationship with employers through follow-ups, swiftly
addressing their trends and employment needs. This is a
beneficial relationship where employers get ``a bigger bang for
the buck'' while we move welfare recipients into the workforce.
Having addressed the relationship with our employers, I
would like to address the relationship that our job developers
build with participants.
Job developers identify participants as either (1) job
ready, (2) as needing additional case management, or (3) as
needing to complete basic education activities. Job ready means
participants can be fast-tracked into employment. Job
developers work one-on-one with participants who need
additional case management in order to be ``reconditioned'' to
enter the job market. These participants usually have some work
history and may have been out of work for more than three (3)
years. Participants must have a broad view of the job market to
be successful in getting hired and keeping the job. Lastly, the
third group of participants require basic education to be
successful. They may be functionally illiterate in their own
language. These participants will be encouraged to attend basic
education classes with a vocational focus. They will also be
encouraged to take an entry level part-time job if one can be
found for them. If the participant is a teen, and already in
school, he/she will be encouraged to stay on track to complete
his/her high-school diploma or equivalent degree.
Participants value our workshops and one-on-one servicing
on resume preparation services, faxing resumes to employers,
typing tests, dressing for success, and referral to private and
public employment agencies. Most of all, participants value the
job leads and personal contacts. It is during the job interview
where participants ``put it all together.'' For participants,
this is ``where the rubber meets the road.'' Once offered the
job, participants gain reassurance to maintain self-sufficiency
through exit interviews and mentoring with the job developer
and when they see the job developer continue a relationship
with the employer. If the participant does not get the job, we
duplicate the process again and again until we succeed or until
more information becomes available to assist us in removing the
participant's employment barriers.
Challenges exist. Employment does bring other issues to the
surface such as dependable and quality child care, and reliable
transportation. There are some very basic changes the
participants may have to make such as personal hygiene and
grooming habits, their concept of appropriate business attire
and soft-skills needed to maintain employment. Such soft-skills
may include: getting to work on time, being reliable, being a
self-starter, following instructions and being a cooperative
team player. Other challenges include such things as language
barriers, the ability to read written instructions, etc.
Substance abuse, credit record setbacks and/or convictions
require a managed and an honest approach with the employer in
helping the participant find employment. On the other hand, we
do not ask or expect employers to lower their standards for our
participants. We ask and expect of our participants to rise to
the employer's standards. We strive to solve problems before
the participant gets hired. That way, the problem the
participant faces does not become a barrier to getting
employment.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, our young CalWORKs program has
developed into a successful model for welfare to work. It
offers more open participation from all players involved--
public and private. It uses innovation to the fullest and keeps
up with demands as they occur. In summary, I want to emphasize
that success in our program lies in making our participants and
our employers the central and most important elements in our
process. Our success occurs when the participant and the
employer find a common ground.
Attachments
Employers Who Hire Significant Number of Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employer Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl's Jr. Restaurant..................... 16229 Paramount Boulevard,
Paramount, CA 90723
Chief Auto Parts, ATTN: Vicky Demas....... 5400 LBJ Parkway Suite 200,
Dallas, TX 75240
Daniel Freeman Hospital................... 333 N. Prairie Avenue,
Inglewood, CA 90301
Franklin Brass Mfg. Co.................... 19914 Via Baron Rancho,
Dominguez, CA 90220
Helpmates................................. 13221 South Street,
Cerritos, CA 90703
Helpmates................................. 2780 Skypark Drive/Suite
115, Torrance, CA 90505
Kaiser Permanente......................... 9333 E. Rosecrans Avenue,
Bellflower, CA 90706
Little Company of Mary.................... 4101 Torrance Boulevard,
Torrance, CA 90503
Microdyne................................. 23610 Telo Avenue, Torrance,
CA 90505
Saint Mary's Medical Center............... 1050 Linden Avenue, Long
Beach, CA 90813
Sears (Carson/Torrance)................... 22100 Hawthorne Boulevard,
Torrance, CA 90503
St. Francis Medical Center................ 3630 E. Imperial Highway,
Lynwood, CA 90602
Torrance Memorial Medical Center.......... 824 E. Carson Street,
Carson, CA 90745
United Airlines........................... 5970 Avion Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90045
Volt Temp................................. 3655 Torrance Boulevard,
Torrance, CA 90503
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Private and Public Agencies Who Partner With South County Gain
Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of
Agency Address Partnership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job Training Partnership Act 7655 S. Center Job Fairs
(JTPA). Avenue.
Contact: Thelma Coles........... Los Angeles, CA
90001.
Los Angeles District 22d........ 461 W. 6th Street, Job Fairs in
Contact: Rudy Svorinich, Jr..... Ste. 302. South Bay Area
San Pedro, CA
90731.
Compton Career & Human.......... 700 N. Bullis Road Employment
Services Center................. Compton, CA 90221. Placement
State of California............. 1220 Engracia Employment
Employment Development.......... Avenue. Placement
Department (EDD)................ Torrance, CA 90501
Contact: Sharon La Floer........
Larson Training Center.......... 637 E. Albertoni Job Fairs
Contact: James Griffith......... Street,.
Ste. 100..........
Carson, CA 90746..
Hub Cities Consortium........... 5610 Pacific Soft Skills
Contact: Joe Martinez........... Boulevard. Training
Huntington Park,
CA 90255.
California State University..... 1250 Bellflower Certified Nurse
Long Beach, CA 90840............ Boulevard. Assistant
Contact: Sigmud Jacoby.......... Long Beach, CA Training
90840.
Carson Community Center......... 3 Civic Plaza..... Job Fairs
Contact: Pete Fajardo........... Carson, CA 90745..
Long Beach City College......... 1305 E. Pacific Forklift Training
Contact: Jim Martois............ Coast Hwy. and
Long Beach, CA Certified Nurse
90806. Assistant
Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Collins. Mr. Mora, we're out of time, sir. That's a
good story, though, it's a good success story.
Let me ask you a question about that. How are other
participants, what is their attitude? This is one case. On the
scale, since we passed the welfare reform, how has it affected
the other participants in your area?
Mr. Mora. I'd probably have a heart attack telling you some
stories that----
Mr. Collins. We don't have time for individual stories. Has
it been positive, negative?
Mr. Mora. Very positive. The overwhelming turnout from our
participants, it's incredible. I mean, they want to go to work,
sir. It's just us coming up with the manpower.
Mr. Collins. Well, that's good. It's good to hear that.
Ms. Kimble, how does the 1996 welfare reform law support
the changes that Anne Arundel County made at the local level,
and are there continued Federal barriers to the changes that
you still want to make, and if so, what would you suggest we
do?
Ms. Kimble. Well, it's clear that some of the provisions of
the PRWORA have assisted us. For instance, in Maryland we
already passed a welfare reform bill expecting that PRWORA
would be enacted. I don't know if we're the only State, but I
think we're one of the few States that said, whatever State
money is put in, we're going to keep those funds in the budget,
so that whatever savings accrue during the year, we will plow
those back into the programs. And in fact, 45 percent of those
savings go back to the local jurisdictions that generated them.
So we've had a wonderful, really a windfall of funding to
be able to plow back into training programs and replicate the
job center. We now have that additional money. Hopefully, that
will continue. That is, of course, only a State option.
Changes I would love to see, I was unfortunately a little
bit unhappy about the welfare-to-work legislation. Because it
was so restrictive about who we could serve with that funding,
and how the funding was even allocated. So it's only particular
people within the caseload who even qualify to get some of that
funding. And categorically funded programs are just so
difficult to operate, especially when you have a job center
that you want to open to the public, to try to remove the
stigma.
So really, taking the categorical chains away from all the
funding and just saying, ``Here is your money. What is it that
you want to do? Demonstrate with outcomes, not merely
participation rates.'' Quite frankly, the participation rates
aren't helping our people. They allow us to claim victory by
saying, a certain percentage of our welfare caseload is
participating.
But those people are still ``on the clock,'' and the clock
is ticking away. So we look at that as a failure, not a
success.
Mr. Collins. Very good.
Ms. Rogers, tell us more about having to advertise for
people in Milwaukee. It's kind of unusual, isn't it?
Ms. Rogers. Well, we believe that the way to really help
people in the broader sense of the community become self-
sufficient is to reach out and let them know that we have
services available to support them in work, child care,
transportation, case management, those kinds of assistance. And
under the umbrella of a job center, so that it doesn't carry
the stigma of welfare.
And that is an education and a cultural change that takes
time. We have competitive agencies, meaning they have contracts
that are based on competition, and they can earn profit. So for
these agencies to be spending what amounts to hundreds of
thousands of dollars advertising services, I think, puts a very
strong comment on how committed they are to helping the
community and not just pocketing savings.
Mr. Collins. Has this been a result of the drastic drop in
the number of cases, the success of your program has led to the
point that you have fewer participants?
Ms. Rogers. In a sense. Resulting from the fact that we
realized that we have the increased flexibility to be able to
reach out to the larger community. It was also a commitment
from the very beginning as well, because we want to establish
an environment in which the noncustodial parent can come to the
door for help, too, in hopes that we can build a more
traditional family support system. That will take some time.
Mr. Collins. Very good.
Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Winstead, let me be sure we understand the figures in
your testimony. On the first page, you talk about the month
prior to the implementation of WAGES, 200,000 families, and now
the caseload is, as of March, was 110,000. Then you referred to
employment figures.
Do you know what percentage of those who have left the
rolls are now working?
Mr. Winstead. I don't know the precise number of those that
have left the roles that are now working. Our followups show
it's over 50 percent. But of course, there are some people who
don't report to us that they're leaving because of employment.
They call up and ask that their benefits be terminated, or they
don't come in for their redetermination.
And we don't have information about how many of those are
working. Some of the followups we've done, we have indications
that many of them are, but I don't have the precise percentage.
Mr. Levin. Is the State tracking current recipients and
former public assistance recipients?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir. We set up in essence a data
warehouse where we're using the unemployment wage information,
so that we can track longitudinally what happens to people who
have left welfare.
Mr. Levin. So let me then ask you, Ms. Rogers, about your
figures. The chart about the caseload reduction for the State.
Has the State of Wisconsin been tracking what happens to those
who leave AFDC or TANF?
Ms. Rogers. Two things. First of all, what we do have and
have had in place for several years is the ability to look at
what we call status codes, why a case closes. One of those
codes has to do with what's called excess income. About 75
percent of our reported closures are as a result of excess
income. And excess income is driven by, largely, income,
meaning earned income. In part, a small part, it's child
support as well that could be part of excess income. About 75
percent is that.
Another thing that we're doing is working very hard to
build a data warehouse so that we can track into the future
against wage records the kind of information that you and we
are looking so much for. Part of the problem in the past, and
why we haven't been able to do that immediately in these new
programs is because the old systems were designed simply to
meet the Federal reporting requirements.
That's all that was in place before. Now we have to track a
larger set of data, and it takes time to build those programs
onto systems that really weren't designed to do it in the first
place. We expect that we will have our first capability in
July, with reports coming quarterly thereafter.
Mr. Levin. So your information is that a decrease from
98,000 to 14,000 is not a static figure. Taking those figures
into account, about 75 percent of the reduction involves income
from one source or another, correct?
Ms. Rogers. That's our best estimate, based on the data we
have.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Winstead, are you going to have a system in
place soon? When do you expect your system will be up and
running?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir, we have the system in place now. We
have built on a system that was originally put in place in our
Department of Education to follow or develop outcome measures
from vocational education and adult education programs. So
we're partnering with them to enhance their capability to track
what happens to people who leave welfare.
Mr. Levin. Ms. Rogers, on the second to last page of your
testimony, there's a reference to the number of people who have
a GED. It appears that those with a diploma have been placed
more readily than those without.
Ms. Rogers. It would appear, from looking at what
percentage of the caseload has achieved that, that those are
the easier folks to help find jobs.
Mr. Levin. Right.
Ms. Rogers. We have a more difficult time with both the
education and the broader aspects of readiness for the work
force with the remainder.
Mr. Levin. I want to say to you, Ms. Kimble, it's a factor
like that that caused us to try to focus the $3 billion
welfare-to-work program. We wanted to provide the States with
some additional resources for the harder-to-place recipient. We
didn't want States to simply work with those who are easy to
place or easier to place or help place.
So if you would look at testimony like from Ms. Rogers and
other data that you perhaps have, I think you can understand,
we weren't trying to tie hands, we were trying to focus
resources. Because there's so much flexibility with the rest of
the money, total flexibility.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Shaw.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Winstead, I enjoyed visiting with you and the Governor
down in Florida and listening to the success of the Florida
plan and how far you've come.
I'd like to direct your attention to the attachment to your
testimony entitled WAGES Monthly Flash Report. On the total
assistance expenditures, you show your baseline for the month
of September 1996 of $53 million. We come over to the monthly
report for March 1998, and we find that it's only about 66
percent of the baseline.
Would you explain that to me, and what happens to the
surplus?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir. As you noted, in September 1996, we
were spending slightly over $53 million a month in welfare
payments. And this month, in March, about $30 million, so
that's a difference of about $23 million a month in terms of
the savings.
What we've done in Florida is really three things with the
savings. First of all, used a considerable portion of it to
fund child care expenses. We have transferred, last year we
transferred some $70 million. In addition, to that $70 million,
the Governor has proposed an additional $80 million, over $80
million, closer to $85 million, in terms of child care
expenditures in the coming budget year.
We've also used those savings to establish our work
supports. We've significantly expanded our focus on employment
support services, and so forth. Then we've also used a portion
of the savings to establish a welfare reform rainy day fund, a
reserve. Because we're very fearful of what the effect could be
on our State should we experience an economic downturn. We
wanted to use the fact that you've made those funds available
without fiscal year limitation, gives us the opportunity to
establish some reserve and we think that's prudent.
Chairman Shaw. Thank you. Other Members will remember that
this was something that was very important to welfare reform,
and that is, giving the States flexibility to do precisely
that. You spoke of, if we have an economic downturn. I think
Mr. Levin expressed the possibility of something. I think we
all know, however, that economic downturn is a certainty. It's
just a matter of when. And I congratulate you for doing that
and setting up that rainy day fund.
I'd like to get into just one other area with you, because
the Governor was very supportive of what I as Chairman tried to
do last year, and that is, the possibility, worrying about the
possibility of the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Could you tell us, what impact would that have on the Florida
program? I know that the Governors all across this country, on
both sides of the aisle, have expressed concern about this.
Mr. Winstead. Right. We're very concerned, and have been
very concerned, about the potential impact. And it takes
several forms. First of all, we were concerned about nonprofit
organizations and governmental agencies even being reluctant,
and particularly, State, local, and civic organizations and
governments being reluctant to work with us, because of unknown
liability, how this would affect unemployment compensation, how
this would affect other liabilities.
In Florida, we did pass into State law a provision that
said in terms of workers compensation that the State would be
responsible for workers compensation. We also passed in State
law a provision that said people assigned to work experience
that we would use a calculation based on their cash assistance
and food stamps divided by the minimum wage in terms of
adjusting the hours. So those were not issues for us.
The concern that the Governor expressed to you that was a
particular concern was the effect of other labor-related laws
or payroll taxes on welfare recipients. Questions like, would
we be required to withhold 7.65 percent from the cash
assistance and food stamp benefits of recipients as a ``payroll
tax'' if they were assigned to work experience. That would
constitute one of the largest reductions in welfare benefits in
the history of our State, and that's something that was very
much a concern.
Chairman Shaw. There's a concern of sending out the wrong
message, too, because in listening to all of these witnesses on
this panel, it's very obvious that you've turned this whole
thing around to showing that work pays and that work is much
better than welfare.
I'm very, very impressed by this entire panel. We certainly
don't want to see that all of a sudden, when someone has to
work for their benefits, that their paycheck is less than their
benefit. That's sending out all the wrong messages.
I thank you all for your very fine testimony. And thank you
for the good work that your States are doing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Robert Matsui, Congressman from California, is
recognized.
Mr. Matsui. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
I want to thank, first of all, both the Majority and the
Minority staff and the Ranking Member and the Chair. Because I
think this panel is an excellent panel, and I really appreciate
the fact that there are a wide variety of views here, which I
think is very, very important for us as we try to understand
this program and obviously how adjustments could be made to it
in future years. I just think it's an excellent panel.
I'd like to commend you, Ms. Kimble, because you saw the
problem back in 1993, 1994, and you made those adjustments
under the 1988 act, and you didn't even ask for a waiver. You
just went ahead and did it. It shows the kind of leadership
that's required to make a program work.
I think your concept of perhaps looking for some
flexibility in the work program, training program, might be
something we may want to look at in future years. I know the
theory behind it was not to skim the cream, but I think we need
to maybe even go beyond it. I see Mr. Mora even acknowledging
that. I think it's probably something we need to look at.
I'd like to ask Mr. Winstead a question, a followup to Mr.
Levin. You said about 50 percent, I'm trying to quote you here,
it says, there's an indication that 50 percent are working, is
that right, or a little over 50 percent?
Mr. Winstead. Over 50 percent.
Mr. Matsui. When you say over 50, like 55 or 52, or 51, 60
percent maybe, 70 percent? You don't have any statistics, this
is anecdotal, like Olivia Golden testified, right, your feeling
about things?
Mr. Winstead. No, sir. I'm trying to recall, and I don't
recall the specific percent from our demonstration program that
we began under waiver, where we had half of the group randomly
assigned to a control group, and half randomly assigned to the
program, and what the experience was with the followup done by
the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.
Mr. Matsui. I have a 1996 green book here. You probably
know these numbers, but it states on page 500, most episodes of
AFDC enrollment end within 12 months, but of those who exit,
many come back after 24 months. Statistically, I recall, in
fact we've had these numbers for years and years, that the
first 12 months, about 70 percent of the recipients go off of
welfare. They get married, they get jobs, some of them go on
disability, I think 2 percent go on disability. Seven percent
move.
So we know that 70 percent go off, it's the 30 percent that
everybody was always concerned about. The problem is that many
of the 70 percent went back on, because they get divorced, they
lost their job, or they quit their job because they lost their
Medicaid benefits. So your numbers are very similar to what
these numbers were back in 1993 when these studies were being
done.
So perhaps maybe over time you can do some kind of a study
as to why this is happening. Why these numbers haven't really
changed, even though we have this wonderful, healthy economy,
the most healthy economy we've had in a generation. Is it
because maybe there are impediments in the welfare law? Are the
time limits hurting people? Are they creating more poverty?
These are the kinds of study and data that we need in order
to really make a fundamental, very good faith decision. This
program may be working wonders. But we shouldn't attempt to
skirt it and make it that way if it in fact isn't. And we
shouldn't try to make it bad if it really isn't, either. What
we need is hard data, and data that doesn't try to obscure what
we want to do.
And I appreciate the fact that you're doing a rainy day
fund. But rainy day funds usually don't work that well. I
remember back in 1982, in the height of our recession, that
horrible recession, Members from Michigan, the Michigan
unemployment department came to us and said, we have a rainy
day fund, but it didn't work in terms of UI, unemployment
benefits. So we had to do EB, extended benefit, Program, and a
number of others.
And obviously, the Federal Government in those days tried
to bail out, obviously, States and local government, of some of
their problems. I don't know if we're going to be able to do
that in this case if we hit a recession, because I think we
have a compact with you.
And like you said, you're going to pay 100 percent of
whatever the problem might be whenever that recession hits. And
I think the Chairman is right, it may hit one of these days,
hopefully not too soon.
I don't know if you have any comments on this, but let me
say this. The success of this program isn't necessarily going
to be measured when we have this wonderful economy. The success
of this program is going to be measured when we're in a
recession, a recession that goes on 1 year or 2 or maybe 2\1/2\
years, whatever the case may be.
That's when you determine whether a program is working or
not working. Because that's when you decide whether or not you
have people who are going to go into poverty, when people are
hurting, when you create hardship for people.
And that's why this is a little artificial right now. I
mean, I don't know of anybody that complains about anything
right now. In fact, we're seen so wonderfully, Members of
Congress, everybody is so high in popularity now. But that's
because we have a great economy. So we shouldn't have these
problems.
And I will say one final thing. And you can comment. One of
the reasons Mr. Stark and I are intense about this issue, and
we haven't had a chance to really talk about this, is because
we do something to senior citizens like we did in 1996, AARP
will be all over us, they'll be doing 150, 200 studies that
will be commissioned by millions of dollars worth of
consultants. They'll be shunting paper all over this
institution, saying, you guys are screwing up, you guys aren't
doing well, this bill needs to be changed in this way.
Children, kids in poverty and single women don't have that
kind of lobby. And so some of us have to take that
responsibility on. And I hope all of you will as well, because
you're in charge of this, and you need to make sure that if
programs aren't working, you need to come back to us.
Mr. Winstead. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, a couple of
points. First of all, one of the reasons that we are
continuing, even though we have terminated our Federal waivers,
because we didn't need them, we were able to do without waiver
the things we were already doing in our program. But we
continued the evaluation that we began under those waivers.
And Secretary Golden mentioned five States they were
working with to measure the impact of welfare reform on the
well-being of children. We are one of those five States, and we
have continued that commitment, because we want to, now that we
have a substantial number of people enrolled in our time limit
demonstration, we think we have an opportunity to learn more
about, now, what's the impact on the children in those
families. Because that is a very important issue to us.
I work for a Governor for whom there is no higher priority
than Florida's children. So that is the critical question. And
I would agree that the economy has certainly helped us quite a
bit, and I hope it continues. I hope that recession is a long
way off. But I've administered these programs during
recessionary times, and I know how difficult that can be.
I don't know if a rainy day fund will work for us, but
particularly if we have a regional recession or a short-term
recession or a recession that disproportionately affects our
State, given our reliance on tourism and agriculture, then it's
one consideration, and the fact that we do not have a State
income tax, so that State funds are affected very quickly when
you rely on sales tax receipts. It becomes very much an issue
for us.
Mr. Matsui. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I
appreciate this. Let me just say this. I have a great deal of
confidence and respect for you and Governor Chiles. You have
been wonderful over the years, and I have no second thoughts
about your commitment.
I'm just saying that there may be circumstances beyond your
control. I was in local government before I came back here. And
I have to say that when we hit a recession, and it was the
difference between taking care of police and fire or children
that are in poverty, it was easy to make that decision
politically. You took care of police and fire. Because they had
a constituency.
Obviously, at the State level, you have those same kind of
competing priorities. And usually, the ones that can't squeak
are the ones that lose out, and you know which group that is.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Coyne.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Winstead, the State of Florida has reduced its caseload
by 45 percent since you implemented the WAGES effort.
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coyne. And at the same time, Mr. Rolston, who will be
on a panel right after this, will testify that 31 percent of
the Florida participants HHS studied were sanctioned, 31
percent.
I wonder if you could tell us what percentage of that group
that were sanctioned lost all of their benefits and therefore
left the rolls.
Mr. Winstead. I'm not familiar with the 31-percent
sanctioned figure. So I can't speak to that particular----
Mr. Coyne. Well, as I say, Mr. Rolston will testify to that
later on.
Mr. Winstead. Right. I'll listen very attentively.
The sanction in Florida, the way we work our sanctions is,
if you fail to comply with the work requirement, the entire
family benefit is terminated. That is a new provision, a
provision that we enacted under welfare reform, and it's
different than what it was under our waiver demonstration.
The reason that we recommended that to our legislature,
which they passed, was in our family transition demonstration
program, the case managers who worked with families told me,
they said, Don, the people who are most at risk of reaching the
time limit without good options started to fail to comply early
on, and our sanctions were so weak that it did not have the
effect of redirecting their behavior. And that's why we have
changed our sanctioning policy.
On the first occurrence of sanction, it is full
termination. For chronic noncompliance, we have a provision
where we can then restore benefits on second or third
occurrence of sanctions to the children and pay those through a
protective payee.
Mr. Coyne. Can you tell us what percentage of those who
have left the rolls have left the rolls because they found a
job, they found employment?
Mr. Winstead. As I said, it's something over 50 percent
that we believe are connected to employment. When you look at
the employment figures reported by our department of labor,
it's over 105,000. But as you all know, the numbers associated
with the dynamics of welfare programs can be very misleading.
When I say that our caseload has gone from 200,000 to
110,000, that's not because 90,000 families left the rolls.
Actually, it's because when we were at 200,000, of those
specific 200,000 families, 140,000 of those have left the
rolls. And 60,000 remain, and they've been joined by another
50,000 who have entered or reentered. That's what that dynamic
is.
Of those 140,000 who have left the rolls, our department of
labor is reporting employment entries of slightly over 105,000
as of now. It was 63,000 the first year, then an additional
26,000.
Some of those employed families, however, are still on the
welfare rolls because of our earnings disregard, and have
chosen to do that.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
Ms. Kimble, we're all pleased to hear that you're focusing
on helping former welfare recipients find jobs that pay a
living wage and offer the health insurance, which is critical
to family security. I know you're very interested in that in
Maryland. But of the former welfare recipients you have placed,
what percent found good paying jobs with health benefits?
Ms. Kimble. I can tell you the average wage at placement is
climbing. And I think that has more to do with the Federal
minimum wage increase than it does with actually our efforts.
We started out with $6.27 an hour as an average, and it's up to
about $6.50.
Our goal this year for our job center teams, and let me
just add that they come up with the strategies, we just set the
goals for them, $7.00. So they have a way to go before
September.
It isn't that easy. It's easier to help someone get a job,
any job, and then we have to make the commitment to say, we
will help you get a better job. All of our job training slots
for the higher wage jobs, the jobs that pay at least $8.15 an
hour with benefits, are reserved for people who have jobs, so
they have to have at least a part-time job in order to qualify
for training.
Mr. Coyne. Do you have any information that would tell us
how many of them have health care benefits?
Ms. Kimble. From our up front job search, where I got the
average of $6.50 per hour, right now, about 25 percent of those
jobs have health benefits. And that really hasn't changed over
time. The goal for the job center is to try to get that up to
35 percent this year.
They've climbed a little bit, not much. And it's difficult,
because of the Medicaid income eligibility standards,
unfortunately, do knock the parent off of Medicaid, even though
the children stay on Medicaid in Maryland.
Mr. Coyne. Do you have any additional suggestions about
what additional resources and training would be required to
help all welfare recipients find the kinds of jobs that promote
self-sufficiency and would provide health care insurance?
Ms. Kimble. I guess my bottom line is flexibility with the
money. The less time we spend administratively trying to
pigeonhole people for particular funding categories, the more
time we have to spend with individuals, who for want of pride,
do not come into the TANF caseload. They're just as much in
need, however.
Mr. Coyne. Are you aware of the study that was done in your
State that showed 38 percent of the companies in Maryland
looking for employees, needing employees, but not finding them
because of the lack of training?
Ms. Kimble. I'm not aware of that actual study, but I do
know that that's an issue in our State. And that's why we're
trying to partner with employers specifically. For example, we
know nationwide there's a need for 150,000 electricians. So we
have just partnered with an electrical contracting conglomerate
to do that training for us and it's our job to get the people
there, to give them the transportation they need, to give them
the child care.
Our job is not to help employers get tax credits. Our job
is to help people get jobs and keep jobs. That's our commitment
to the employers. So we've removed all the stigma. We don't
need tax credits. We don't need specialized things to entice
employers. But we do need to respond to their needs, as you
said, for specialized training.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Winstead, I want to go back and ask you a followup
question to a question earlier. It was about sanctions. You
understood early on that some of those who were going to reach
the limit were going to reach that limit because of the fact
you didn't have strong enough sanctions.
But then in your testimony, too, you mentioned community
based programs. Did the community-based programs have any
effect or work with you in helping to keep the number who
actually reached the limit from being such a large number? If
so, how?
Mr. Winstead. Yes sir, and I think in the experience that I
talked about and in interacting with the case managers in our
Pensacola office, that's an example of the community-based
emphasis that we have. But under our new program, we've set up
24 regional coalitions that have oversight responsibility for
bringing together all of the State and the community resources.
I would remark also that we gave local communities, when we
did State level welfare reform in anticipation of your bill, we
also did State level work force development reform in
anticipation of something. But that hasn't happened yet at the
national level.
But we've reconstituted our private industry councils, we
established work force development boards in regions. And we
gave communities the option of having the same local board that
administers their work force development programs be the
oversight board for their welfare programs. In 16 of 24 areas
of Florida, they are the same. So in fact, our welfare-to-work
recipients will in large part be the same organizations that
are helping us provide oversight to our welfare programs.
But we think the more of those resources we can get
together at the community level, and also the more authority
that we can delegate to the community level on how they
operationalize the program, the more effective the result.
Right now we are going through a review process, because we
have shorter time limits than what you permit. And for some
families in Florida, the time limit can be 24 months. Our
community-based coalitions are going through a review process
now, looking with us at families that are within 6 months of
the end of their 24-month time limit. They have authorities
under State law to grant exemptions or extensions of the time
limit, based on people who have diligently participated in the
program and haven't been successful. And they'll be making
those decisions.
Mr. Collins. They've actually been able to guide you?
Mr. Winstead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
We thank the panel, and we will excuse you and call the
next panel.
We'll introduce the panel, and then we'll go back and call
on them in the order of the introduction.
We have Richard P. Nathan, director, Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government, Albany, New York; Daniel H. Weinberg,
Division Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics,
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC; Howard Rolston, Director,
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC; and Barbara Blum, director, Research
Forum on Children, Families and the New Federalism, National
Center for Children in Poverty, New York, New York.
Very good. Welcome, each of you, and your testimony and
your statements in full will be entered into the record.
We'll start with Mr. Richard P. Nathan.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. NATHAN, DIRECTOR, NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER
INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Nathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the principal investigator for a study in 21 States
where we're focusing on management systems, institutional
change, the organization of agencies, their budgets, their
staffing, their contracting, their information systems. Is
welfare reform, with the ideas that you're trying to work with,
penetrating to the local workers and affecting the culture and
signals of agencies and agency systems?
I, myself, have been to 10 States, and in the 10 States,
I've talked to our researchers, because we have researchers in
21 States. I've talked to officials in State agencies, and then
I go and talk to caseworkers, to see if what they're telling
me, people tell me is happening, is really happening.
I've been working in this field 30 years. I started in high
school. And I have never seen so much change as is going on
now. New policy bargains are being struck. The work emphasis is
happening. Welfare is being reinvented. Most agencies don't
call themselves welfare agencies any more. Semantically, we've
ended welfare.
I brought a chart that's got eight points. And all I'm
going to do is quickly mention some of these points. Number
one, there are, to me, and I've looked at this for a long time,
I'm a political scientist interested in management, there are
big surprising changes in the signaling and bureaucratic
culture and behavior of people at all levels who carry out
these social programs.
And when you talk to the workers and go to the local
offices, most places I've been, this is something that I have
not seen before. When I give talks about it, I make what I
think is a little joke, that all of this is happening and all
Congress did was pass a law.
Point number two is, it's not just devolution to the
States. It's very much also local, second order and third order
devolution to community groups in most of the States we're in.
And I was going to name the States, but I'm afraid I don't have
time. But I have 7 States out of our 21 where we have data I
could mention, including some represented here today.
Third is a point that I didn't expect. There's a new
politics out there. There's a new political equilibrium. People
are much more accepting of welfare and what welfare programs
are supposed to do. Because the time limit and the work
emphasis are popular and there are a lot of jobs available in
most parts of the country.
So the mood has changed. And social agencies are getting a
lot more cooperation from other agencies that provide services.
Employers want to hire anybody who can breathe into a mirror in
the morning and have a little mist form in most labor markets.
If you're ever going to reform welfare, this is a good time.
Point number four is the work-first emphasis. I used to be,
and Barbara Blum and I worked on this together for many years,
chair of the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., and their
research shows that immediate attachment to the labor force is
where you get your strongest effects. That is your culture
change, that is the signalling. And it's very strong in the
country. Our research, yes, we look at statistics, Mr. Matsui,
but we also spend a lot of time looking at institutions, which
we should look at more.
Mr. Matsui. Well, since he mentioned my name, you worked
for Richard Nixon, didn't you?
Mr. Nathan. I did. First term. First term. I like to--I
don't know how to take that, but OK. [Laughter.]
Mr. Matsui. Take it as you heard it. Take it as you heard
it.
Mr. Collins. Now, wait 1 minute. Let's let him finish his
testimony.
Mr. Nathan. I'm proud of what I did.
Mr. Collins. You'll have your time.
Mr. Matsui. No, I appreciate the fact, the Chairman says
that. He should not have mentioned my name in that context.
That's all I'm asking.
Mr. Collins. Refrain from mentioning a Member's name.
Mr. Nathan. I won't mention any other names.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The fifth point on our chart is diversion. That was a
surprise, too, to people, in that what agencies are trying to
do, welfare agencies are trying to do, is prevent people from
becoming permanently in assistance systems, and help them deal
with emergencies up front. And that is happening very widely in
a lot of States.
Point number six is enforcement. Not so much sanctions, but
that people are being required to sign personal responsibility
or self-sufficiency agreements, and they're being required to
take the steps that are part of this process embodied in
programs that go back a ways, but particularly embodied in this
new law and in earlier laws.
Point number seven is that work force development,
employment, and training agencies are playing a much bigger
role. In fact, in many States, the responsibility for
administering TANF Programs is being turned over to them, as
you heard, in Florida, Michigan, Texas, in lots of States. This
is becoming a different signalling by a different bureaucracy.
It's very jobs focused.
Point number eight is one that I particularly care about
and that you've been talking about today, but I won't mention
any names, and that is information systems. We really do need
to give attention to how we can get and who should be
responsible for the kind of data we need for general oversight,
for case management by case managers and for evaluation.
I'd like to have a word, if the opportunity arises, to talk
about the fact that many States are collecting the kind of
postprogram data we ought to have about what's happening to
people who are exiting from these systems.
Thank you very much for the chance to testify.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Richard P. Nathan, Director, Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government, University of New York
My name is Richard P. Nathan. I am the director of the
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public
policy research arm of the State University of New York located
in Albany, and I am the Principal Investigator for a multi-
state study the Rockefeller Institute is conducting of the
implementation of social programs. This study focuses on the
management systems for social programs of states, local
governments, and nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Field
research associates--typically teams of university based field
research analysts--in a representative sample of twenty-one
states are participating in this study. The overview analysis
is being conducted by a core staff of management and policy
analysts based at the Rockefeller Institute. Funding for this
research has been provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a number of
other private foundations. As the Principal Investigator for
this study, I have visited ten states this year to meet with
the field researchers, state and local government officials,
and to visit local program offices and interview local
workers--eligibility workers, case managers, and other front-
line workers.
In thirty years of observing welfare policy making and
administration, I have never seen a period of such rapid
change. This is not the case in all states, but it is the
case--to varying degrees--in most states. In spite of the
tendency for the media to focus on the 5-year time limit for
TANF cash benefits, our conclusion is that the time requirement
that matters most right now is more near-term. The biggest
story so far in this respect is ``Tomorrow Requirements''--by
that I mean up-front stronger signalling and enforcement of
work and work-related participation requirements. Some people
may not like this. But it is surely different now. Our reports
from the field and my visits to state and local offices suggest
that observers need to get out of Washington and out of state
capitals to examine these changes at ground level. Yogi Berra
once said, ``You can observe a lot of things just by
watching.'' He was right.
In short, new policy bargains are being struck. The work
emphasis is happening. National policy has shifted from the
``income strategy'' of the seventies to an employment strategy
that emphasizes services and sanctions in different ways and in
different combinations in different states. One result is that
some former recipients and applicants who might previously have
been aided are not receiving cash benefits as employment-
related strategies and other services are being expanded in
many states. In addition, welfare bureaucracies are being
reinvented and given new names. They are no longer even called
``welfare'' agencies. Semantically, we have ended ``welfare.''
There is, as stated, diversity in how this is happening.
Each state tends to put its own spin on reform, and many states
claim that reform was ``invented here.'' There is a window of
opportunity for welfare reforms now due to several factors--
added funds, added interest, political stability, and tight
labor markets in many areas of the country. Moreover, there is
a new political equilibrium about cash assistance for the poor
in many states now that welfare is so visibly work-oriented and
is time limited. This political shift has taken welfare off
national and state legislative agendas where for a long time it
had been a flash-point social issue. But state administrative
systems still need to adapt to these policy and program
changes, especially in the areas of information systems and
with regard to the application of financial incentives to local
public and private agencies.
Basically what is happening is that, after several major
national policy attempts to do so, states are now converting
what used to be ``welfare systems'' into ``social service
systems'' for poor people with children. This is a massive,
complicated, uneven conversion process. But make no mistake
about it, it is happening, although faster in some states than
others.
In human terms, there are both costs and benefits, both of
which I believe we need to measure better as stressed in this
testimony in discussing information systems for social
programs. Some families are being helped in new ways that raise
both their self-esteem and their living standards. On the other
hand, some people, many of whom were already working, are being
subjected to stronger work and participation requirements which
many social program advocates find objectionable. However,
these social policy requirements are not so much new as newly-
enforced.
Following are ten generalizations based on our research to
date:
1. The Personal Responsibility Act of 1996 is causing
surprisingly large and extensive changes on a bipartisan basis
in the signalling, organization and aims of social programs for
the poor in many states.
2. Especially important is what we call ``second-order
devolution,'' whereby states are assigning greater
responsibility to local jurisdictions and groups of public,
nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. There is diversity in
the way this second-order devolution is occurring and in the
organizational and institutional structures responsible for
social programs for the poor.
3. The third point is an especially important one and is
also surprising. We observe a new political equilibrium
emerging on welfare and work in many states which may over time
detoxify these programs and make it possible for public and
nonprofit agencies to do more and work together better to deal
with the problems of the most disadvantaged poor children and
families.
4. Most states are pursuing a ``Work First'' strategy for
welfare (i.e., immediate attachment to the labor force), which
represents a shift from the education/human-capital investment
strategy under the Family Support Act of 1988, which created
the JOBS program.
5. Another surprise is that states are devoting unexpected
priority to what are called ``diversion'' programs to prevent
families from becoming cash assistance recipients. Although
some of these diversion programs involve only one-time cash
grants in lieu of applying for continuing assistance, some
states are using diversion to expand their repertoire of short-
term solutions to financial crises affecting families, such as
immediate job search assistance, short-term services, and
referrals to other public or private agencies.
6. Many states are adopting stricter, faster, and broader
enforcement procedures to implement the job search, work, and
other requirements of the Personal Responsibility Act.
Frequently, these procedures are tied to conformity with the
terms of ``Personal Responsibility Agreements'' or ``Self-
sufficiency Agreements,'' which specify responsibilities
related to work, job search, etc.
Sanctions are being both threatened and imposed
earlier as these arrangements have become more routinized and
more serious. (HHS Secretary Donna Shalala recently referred to
this as the ``smoke out'' effect; she made the point, with
which I agree, that it has turned out to be larger than was
expected.) Based on a study by the U.S. General Accounting
Office, twenty-six states now are enabled to apply sanctions to
the full family as opposed to limiting them to the proportion
of the benefit designated for the family head.
In some states benefit reductions are ratcheted up
monthly for failure to comply with work requirements, as in
Arizona where for the first month of noncompliance the benefit
is cut by 25%, the second month by 50%, and the third month
after failure to comply, the full benefit is ended. In order to
reinstate the benefit, or a benefit reduction, the adult
recipient has to re-apply and there is a three-day special
programming requirement for job search, counseling, etc. In
other states, benefit reductions are ratcheted up for each
violation of the work requirements, as in Delaware where the
benefit is reduced by one-third for each violation.
7. Reorganization efforts are underway in many states to
assign the major responsibilities for administering TANF
programs to employment bureaucracies, combined with a related
effort to change the signalling and culture of these programs
to emphasize jobs and self-support.
Although some states have consolidated
responsibilities and operations into one agency and even a
small number of divisions, many of these programs are spreading
responsibilities across a large number of entities. Sometimes
this complexity is dealt with by giving formal leadership to
employment bureaucracies; sometimes it is managed through
informal co-location (e.g., ``one-stop'') coordination
mechanisms. Most commonly, it is managed at the case level
through the use of case managers. If there is any clear
tendency, it is to push these program responsibilities outward
to include more organizations and service providers in a wide
variety of formal and informal ways, producing new linkages by
referrals as well as by contracts.
Privatization initiatives to turn TANF-related
social program responsibilities over to non-profit and for-
profit groups are another important way states have changed the
signalling and procedures of a wide array of social and
employment programs to aid poor families. States and local
agencies are also devising innovative mechanisms for bringing
the resources of private institutions--such as businesses,
charities, religious institutions, and advocacy organizations--
to bear in pursuing the goals of local social programs. These
administrative changes mean that in some states divisions
between the public and private sectors are becoming blurred.
8. Increasingly, the key to implementing these and related
reforms is developing and operating information systems that
can provide on-line, linked data for case tracking and case
management. These systems are also critical for knowing what
happens to people (pre- and post-program outcomes) affected by
welfare reforms, including importantly the diverted population
and people who leave the rolls. This is an area of major need,
which over time will be the key both to understanding what
happens to needy families under social programs and also will
be the key to what these programs ultimately become in their
on-the-ground operations.
Although many tasks and responsibilities are being
passed down to local governments, local state offices, and
private service organizations, their welfare information
systems remain more accessible and responsive for state and
federal reporting requirements than to local administrative and
case management needs.
We observe tension and confusion between local and
central authorities about what should be reported. It is
increasingly clear that much crucial information about the
treatments people receive is not being captured, which is a
real problem as these treatments are becoming increasingly
varied and complex. There is considerable disagreement across
and within all levels of government over operational measures
of program performance.
Many state information systems publish little more
than aggregate caseload information. Whatever the local
agencies are doing or accomplishing, not enough can be learned
about their activities from the data they are collecting and
reporting.
9. Most states have not yet worked out financial penalties,
rewards, or allocation rules that are consistent with the goals
of their new programs. Some of the existing incentives imposed
by states on local welfare agencies and contractors may in fact
work against program goals, such as when state budget
allocations to local agencies depend solely on the number of
cases in an area or the number of long-term cases.
10. Although many states are encouraging program
experimentation by allowing selected counties or regions to
apply different policies or administrative structures from
those used in the rest of the state--such as pilot
privatization projects--few states are making efforts to
evaluate how these variations might affect program performance
or outcomes.
I request that a brief description of the Rockefeller
Institute's ``State Capacity Study'' be included in the record
with this statement.
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Nathan.
Mr. Weinberg.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL H. WEINBERG, DIVISION CHIEF, HOUSING AND
HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC STATISTICS, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, U.S.
DEPARMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Weinberg. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
report on the Census Bureau's efforts to collect the data
necessary to evaluate welfare reform. Evaluating the effects of
changes in a huge, national program like TANF is not easy. I
want to focus on the analysis of longitudinal microdata, that
is, data that allow comparisons of the same individuals or
families at two points in time, more like a video than a
snapshot, if you will.
This is the preferred approach to evaluation, when there is
a nationwide change like the 1996 welfare reforms. Analysts
used prereform characteristics of a population group to control
for preexisting differences among households and families.
Analyses may be as simple as examining changes in employment
for specific demographic groups or as sophisticated as multiple
regression that takes account of people who leave the sample.
There will be only two sources of longitudinal data that
will have large enough samples for such analyses. The 1996
panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which
we call SIPP, and the SPD, Survey of Program Dynamics, the new
survey created by the welfare reform law.
In the interest of time, let me focus on the latter, the
Survey of Program Dynamics, or SPD, as we call it. The SPD data
will provide information on spells of actual and potential
program participation over a 10-year period, from 1992 to 2001.
It will examine the characteristics of people who participate
in programs and the economic consequences that changes in these
programs have on the well-being of recipients, their families
and their children. And the data will allow us to examine the
characteristics of people who leave welfare and their economic
well-being.
Since the SPD is based on a representative national sample
of all households, inferences about the effects of welfare
reform nationwide on families over time will be possible. The
data collected in the 1992 to 1995 period, using the SIPP for
the same sample of people will provide extensive background
information. The SIPP has more detailed data than any other
national survey on program eligibility, access to and
participation in programs, transfer income, in-kind benefits,
and so forth.
Coupled with an extensive array of economic and demographic
data, such as employment and job transitions, and income and
family composition, the data already collected will
characterize the prereform situation of households
exceptionally well. Because the SPD interviews the same people,
analysts will have data for the baseline prereform period, the
reform implementation period in the medium term, and through
the 2001 postreform period. This design will provide data for
evaluating the effects of the 1996 welfare reform that has
seldom, if ever, been available to assess other social policy
changes.
Now I'd like to give you an idea of where data collection
for the SPD stands. Once the legislation was signed in August
1996, we determined that it was critical to collect income and
program participation data as soon as possible from as many of
the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panel households as we could find.
Waiting too long to contact these households would have run the
risk of losing many of them and missing too much going on in
their lives.
We collected data for 1996 in April through June 1997 by
administering a modified version of the March 1997 Current
Population Survey. I'm pleased to report that we found 82
percent of the SIPP households and completed over 30,000
interviews. We are preparing for the release of these 1996 data
which will take place in the next few months.
However, these data only provide an extension of the
baseline information. The key first look at postreform behavior
will be collected in May and June 1998, using a brandnew
questionnaire. We developed this questionnaire in collaboration
with other Federal agencies and with Child Trends, Inc. The
1998 questionnaire includes many questions that focus
specifically on welfare reform and on child well-being,
including a special supplement for adolescents.
We anticipate that these data, which will give the first
picture of the effects of welfare reform on individuals, will
be available in the summer of 1999. Along with the microdata
from the SPD, the Census Bureau will also be releasing basic
descriptive statistics that present the data in nontechnical
ways.
The great interest of the research community in these data
suggests to us that there will quickly be a number of more
sophisticated studies of the effects of welfare reform. These
researchers will describe in detail what the Census Bureau will
initially describe in summary form.
The chart attached to my testimony illustrates the kind of
outcomes measures that analysts will be able to examine with
the SPD. I've given some examples there. In the interest of
time, I'll skip that.
We've also begun work to develop our 1999 questionnaire,
again working with interested Federal agencies and Child Trends
aiming toward an improved questionnaire. Finally, we are
examining how best to present these data to the public to make
analysis easier.
The opportunity to conduct the Survey of Program Dynamics
is an exciting one for the Census Bureau. It is also a sensible
investment for the government, as it builds on the investment
it already has in the Survey of Income and Program
Participation. The challenges are daunting, especially given
the length of time we will need to follow households, and
especially since household cooperation with government surveys
continues to decline.
You can be sure the Census Bureau will do its best to meet
these challenges.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and attachments follow:]
Statement of Daniel H. Weinberg, Division Chief, Housing and Household
Economic Statistics, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee to report on the Census Bureau's
efforts to provide the data necessary to evaluate the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
as directed by that legislation.
Evaluating the effects of changes in a huge national
program like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly
Aid to Families with Dependent Children) is not easy. Three
kinds of information are critical to those investigating the
effects of this welfare reform--process information (providing
background descriptions), cross-section microdata (comparisons
of different households at two points in time--a ``snapshot''),
and longitudinal microdata (comparisons of the same individuals
at two or more points in time--more like a ``video''). All
three kinds are needed to understand the full effects of the
welfare reform legislation.
The analysis of longitudinal microdata is the preferred
approach when there is a nationwide change like the 1996
welfare reforms. Analysts use pre-reform characteristics of a
population group to control for preexisting differences among
households. It is critical to know the pre-existing differences
when evaluating post-reform outcomes for the same people. This
may be as simple as examining changes in employment for
specific demographic groups, or as sophisticated as multiple
regression that takes account of people who leave the sample.
Only two sources of longitudinal data will have large enough
samples for such analysis--the 1996 panel of the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the Survey of
Program Dynamics--the new survey created by the welfare reform
law.
While the 1996 SIPP has a large sample size and will follow
households for up to four years, it suffers from the deficiency
that data collection began in April-July 1996, while the reform
took effect on October 1, 1996. One could argue that four
months of pre-reform information is sufficient for many
analyses, and the SIPP does try to collect retrospective
program participation information. Some, however, are
skeptical, particularly those analysts who need a longer pre-
reform period to accurately measure some initial condition, and
particularly because many (if not most) states had already
begun to make changes under federal program waivers well before
the beginning of the SIPP panel.
The other, and the best, source of longitudinal information
will be the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). The welfare
reform legislation directed the Census Bureau to continue to
collect data from members of the 1992 and 1993 panels of the
SIPP through the year 2002. These data will:
Provide information on spells of actual and
potential program participation over a ten-year period, 1992 to
2001;
Examine the characteristics of people who
participate in programs and the economic consequences that
changes in these programs have on the well-being of recipients,
their families, and their children; and
Examine the characteristics of people who leave
welfare and their economic well-being.
Since the SPD is based on a representative national sample
of all households, inferences about the effects of welfare
reform on families over time will be possible.
The data already collected in the 1992 and 1993 panels of
the SIPP, which form the basis of SPD, provide extensive
baseline (background) information from which to analyze the
effects of welfare reform. The SIPP has more detailed data than
any other national survey on program eligibility, access to and
participation in programs, transfer income, and in-kind
benefits. Coupled with an extensive array of economic and
demographic data (such as employment and job transitions,
income, and family composition), the data already collected
will characterize the pre-reform situation of households
exceptionally well. Other SIPP data of special interest here
include those on (1) education and training, (2) marital,
fertility, migration, and program participation histories, (3)
family relationships within the home, (4) work schedules, child
care, child support, support for non-household members, (5)
medical expenses and use of health care services, and (6) child
well-being.
Because the SPD interviews the same people, analysts will
have data for the baseline pre-reform period, the reform
implementation period, and the medium-term (through 2001) post-
reform period. This design will provide data for evaluating the
effects of the 1996 welfare reform that have seldom, if ever,
been available to assess other social policy changes.
Now I'd like to give you an idea of where data collection
for the SPD stands. Once the legislation was signed in August
1996, we determined that it was critical to collect income and
program participation data as soon as possible from as many of
the 1992 and 1993 SIPP households as we could find. Waiting too
long to contact these households would have run the risk of
losing many of them and missing too much going on in their
lives. To get into the field quickly, we could not use a
custom-designed questionnaire. We collected data for 1996 in
April-June 1997 by administering a modified version of the
annual March 1997 Current Population Survey (CPS) demographic
supplement. We supplemented the questionnaire with a few new
questions designed to collect summary 1995 data for the 1992
SIPP panel (who were last interviewed in January 1995). I am
pleased to report that we found 82 percent of the SIPP
households, and completed over 30,000 interviews.
We are preparing for the release of 1996 data, which will
take place in the next few months. However, these data only
provide an extension of the baseline information. The key post-
reform information will be collected in May and June 1998 using
a new questionnaire. We developed this questionnaire in
collaboration with other federal agencies and Child Trends,
Inc.; an interagency working group reviewed the questionnaire
to ensure that the appropriate issues were covered. The 1998
questionnaire includes many questions that focus specifically
on welfare reform and child well-being. We anticipate that
these data, which will give the first picture of the effects of
welfare reform, will be available in the summer of 1999. Along
with the microdata from the SPD, the Census Bureau will also be
releasing basic descriptive statistics that present the data in
non-technical ways. The great interest of the research
community in these data suggests to us that there will quickly
be a number of more sophisticated studies of the effects of
welfare reform. These researchers will describe in detail what
the Census Bureau will initially describe in summary form.
I must note that funding does not support continued
interviewing all of the 30,000 households, however. We,
therefore, reduced the number of households to be interviewed
to about 19,000 in 1998, including all low-income households
and nearly all households with children (excluding only those
at the highest income levels).
We have also begun work to develop our 1999 questionnaire,
again working with interested federal agencies and Child
Trends, aiming toward an improved questionnaire. Finally, we
are examining how to best present these data to the public to
make analysis easier. Along those lines, I would like to
mention a contract we have with the University of Wisconsin.
Their project team is attempting to describe all state
programs, both pre- and post-reform, along a set of common
dimensions (descriptive factors), such as whether applicants
are sent on job interviews immediately, whether sanctions are
strictly enforced, whether child care services are fully
available, and so forth. These characteristics could then
become explanatory variables in investigations of outcomes
using survey data--for example: Are job placements higher in
states that provide child care? Are earnings higher in states
that emphasize immediate job placement? Also part of the
Wisconsin project is a pilot study to see if such data can be
collected at the county level.
The attached chart illustrates the kinds of outcome
measures that analysts will be able to examine with the SPD.
Specifically, the SPD will measure:
Program eligibility and participation for the full
range of transfer programs, not just cash welfare;
Money income, in-kind benefits, and services
received from programs;
Employment, earned income, and income from other
sources;
Family composition and changes therein; and
Outcomes for children including key features of
their environments.
The opportunity to conduct the Survey of Program Dynamics
is an exciting one for the Census Bureau. It is also a sensible
investment for the government as it builds on the investment it
already has in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Yet the challenges are daunting, especially given the length of
time we will need to follow households, especially since
household cooperation with government surveys continues to
decline. You can be sure that the Census Bureau will do its
best to meet these challenges. I invite you and others to keep
track of our progress by visiting the special SPD web site:
http://www.sipp.census.gov/spd/. I am also attaching for the
record a copy of a paper on the Survey of Program Dynamics
presented last November at a Statistics Canada Symposium.
Examples of Measures Collected by the Survey of Program Dynamics 1998-
2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Area Example of SPD Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program eligibility and participation..... Number of months receiving
cash welfare
Amount of cash welfare
received
Did family later return to
welfare after leaving the
program?
In-kind benefits and services received.... Amount of food stamps
received
Number of months using
government-supplied child
care services
Employment, earned income, and other Earnings
income. Number of months with
earnings
Amount of child support
received
Job-related health insurance
Family composition and changes therein.... Marital event (marriage or
divorce)
Childbirth
Outcomes for children including key Poverty status
features of their environment. School-related information
such as changes in behavior
and participation in extra-
curricular activities
Contact with absent parent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Survey of Program Dynamics for Evaluating Welfare Reform
Daniel H. Weinberg, Vicki J. Huggins, Robert A. Kominski, and Charles
T. Nelson U.S. Census Bureau \1\
Abstract
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 eliminated the main United States welfare program, the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with another
program providing welfare support in the form of block grants to
states. Part of that law directed the Census Bureau to field a survey,
whose purpose is to collect the data necessary to evaluate the impact
of this change. To carry out that directive, we are conducting a Survey
of Program Dynamics (SPD). The SPD will simultaneously describe the
full range of state welfare programs along with social, economic,
demographic and family changes that will help or limit the
effectiveness of the reforms. We will collect data for households
previously interviewed from 1992-1994 or 1993-1995 by the Survey of
Income and Program Participation for each of the six years from 1996
through 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Paper prepared for Statistics Canada Symposium XIV, ``New
Directions in Surveys and Censuses,'' November 1997. Contact: Daniel H.
Weinberg, HHES Division, US Census Bureau, Washington DC 20233-8500.
This paper reports the general results of research undertaken by Census
Bureau staff. The views expressed are attributable to the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Census Bureau or the U.S.
government. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Evan Davey
and Stephanie Shipp for their comments and suggestions and the SPD Team
for doing all the work described herein; they bear no responsibility
for any errors that remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Words: welfare, surveys, evaluation
This paper will
describe the need for a new survey focused on
providing the data necessary to adequately evaluate recent
United States welfare reform legislation,
describe the origin, purpose, status, and plans of
the Survey of Program Dynamics, and
discuss some technical issues we must resolve in
the future.
I. WHY IS A NEW SURVEY NEEDED?
On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed legislation
passed by Congress, and the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 became Public Law 104-
193. This comprehensive legislation has extensive implications
for many programs. The law
eliminates the open-ended federal entitlement
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
creates a new program called Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), which provides block grants for
states to offer limited cash assistance,
makes extensive changes to child care, the Food
Stamp Program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for children,
benefits for legal immigrants,\2\ and the Child Support
Enforcement program,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Since changed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
modifies children's nutrition programs,
reduces the Social Services Block Grant, and
retains child welfare and child protection
programs.
The law also directs the U.S. Census Bureau to carry out a
new survey to permit researchers to evaluate the impacts of the
new law. Why would a new survey be needed?
Three kinds of information are critical to those
investigating the effects of this welfare reform--process
information (providing background descriptions), cross-section
microdata (allowing comparisons of two points in time--
``snapshots''), and longitudinal microdata (allowing pre-post
analysis of the same individuals). All three kinds are needed
to understand the full effects of the welfare reform
legislation.
Process or descriptive information provides the context to
interpret information about welfare recipients or former
recipients. Examples of process information are the kinds of
support services offered by welfare agencies (e.g., child care,
transportation vouchers, job search assistance),
characteristics of the welfare agency itself (e.g., cases per
case worker), benefit levels, restrictions on client behavior
(e.g., whether a teenager must live with her parents), and so
forth.
There will be several sources of such information. First is
the information that states must report about their programs to
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These
reports are likely to have only the minimum necessary to
satisfy the requirements of the legislation and therefore will
probably be insufficient on their own for research purposes.
Nevertheless, one can use this basic ``tracking'' information
to tell some basic stories. Two other sources of descriptive
information seem more promising, however. The first is an
effort, funded by the U.S. Census Bureau through DHHS, taking
place at the University of Wisconsin. The project team will
attempt to describe all state programs, both pre- and post-
reform, along a set of common dimensions (descriptive factors).
These would then become explanatory variables in investigations
of outcomes using survey data. Also part of this project is a
pilot study to see if such data can be collected at the county
level. A parallel effort is underway at the Urban Institute
(UI) as part of their Assessing New Federalism Project (ANFP).
Cross-section microdata can be and has been used to
evaluate the effects of program changes. Most typically,
researchers compare average characteristics of a population
group (e.g., the percent of welfare recipients working) at two
points in time. Two sources of cross-section microdata will be
available--the March Current Population Surveys (CPS), and the
National Survey of American Families (NSAF), being conducted by
Westat as part of the ANFP project in 1997 and possibly again
in 1999 or 2000.\3\ Because of the many variants of welfare and
new forms of household support established by the states as
they revise their assistance programs, survey organizations
will have to make changes to existing survey questions to
collect the relevant data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NSAF has quite respectable samples in 13 states, with a
supplementary sample in the balance of the U.S. The survey has a sample
size of about 35,000 households, with low-income households
oversampled; the interview mode is computer-assisted telephone
interviewing. A major focus of the survey is health outcomes. For more
details on the NSAF, see Brick et al. (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of longitudinal microdata is the preferred
approach when social experiments cannot be used to evaluate
program changes, as with a nationwide change like the 1996
welfare reforms. Analysts use pre-reform characteristics of a
population to control for preexisting differences among
households when evaluating post-reform outcomes for the same
people. This may be as simple as examining changes in
employment for specific demographic groups, or as sophisticated
as multiple regression that takes account of self-selection and
sample attrition. Only two sources of longitudinal data will
have large enough samples to analyze--the 1996 panel of the
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the new
Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD)--the new survey directed by
the welfare reform law.
While the SIPP has a large sample size and will follow
households for up to four years, it suffers from the deficiency
that data collection began in April-July 1996, while the reform
took effect on October 1, 1996. One could argue that four
months of pre-reform information is sufficient for many
analyses, and the SIPP does try to collect retrospective
program participation information. Some, however, are
skeptical, particularly those analysts who need a longer pre-
reform period to accurately measure some initial condition, and
particularly because many (if not most) states had already
begun to make changes under federal program waivers well before
the beginning of the SIPP panel.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ More details about the SIPP can be found in U.S. Census Bureau
(1991); a third edition is currently being prepared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the SPD, based on a sample of households
first interviewed in February-May 1992 or 1993 to be followed
until 2001, will provide a convincing set of baseline data,
assuming as we must that differential attrition will not
vitiate the usefulness of the data collected. The rest of this
paper describes the SPD in more detail.
No one source of information will be complete. A full
picture of the effects of welfare reform will emerge only after
many years and complementary studies using these different
sources.
II. Origin and Purpose of the Survey of Program Dynamics
Why would a new longitudinal survey that focuses on welfare
issues be needed? For particular agencies, a series of focused
single-purpose surveys or experiments can serve many of their
specific program evaluation needs. But if the research
community were to rely solely on highly focused data
collection, there would inevitably be major gaps. Only an
omnibus data collection vehicle can provide the basis for an
overall evaluation of how well welfare reforms are achieving
the aims of the Administration and the Congress. This requires
a survey that casts a wide net, one that simultaneously
measures important features of (1) both reformed and unchanged
welfare programs, and (2) other important social, economic,
demographic and family changes that will either help or limit
the effectiveness of the reforms. Further, ideally such a
survey should be in place before reforms are effective to allow
adequate assessment of baseline circumstances.
Several years before the passage of the actual legislation,
DHHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, responsible
for the food stamps program) invested substantial resources in
having the Census Bureau develop such a survey. They hoped they
could fund and field such a survey to meet their needs to
understand the effects of anticipated public policy changes on
the population. In these planning activities, several design
features emerged as essential. The survey should
Measure
--program eligibility and participation for the full range
of welfare programs;
--money income, in-kind benefits, and services received
from programs;
--employment, earned income, and income from other economic
sources;
--family composition; and
--child outcomes including key features of the environments
of children (because reforms may have positive or negative
consequences for children through these intervening
mechanisms);
Be a large, longitudinal, nationally
representative study that measures changes in each of these
areas and allows the identification of interrelationships
linking these changes;
Include baseline data for a period before the
initiation of reforms;
Continue to collect data throughout the period of
reform to monitor the process of change; and
Collect data for the period after the states
implement the reforms.
Section 414 of the welfare reform law specifically directs
(and funds) the Bureau of the Census to: continue to collect
data on the 1992 and 1993 panels of the Survey of Income and
Program Participation [SIPP] as necessary to obtain such
information as will enable interested persons to evaluate the
impact of the amendments made by Title I of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
on a random national sample of recipients of assistance under
State programs funded under this part and (as appropriate)
other low income families, and in doing so, shall pay
particular attention to the issues of out-of-wedlock birth,
welfare dependency, the beginning and end of welfare spells,
and shall obtain information about the status of children
participating in such panels.
To comply with this directive, the Census Bureau is
carrying out the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD) with two
primary goals:
Provide information on spells of actual and
potential program participation over a ten-year period, 1992 to
2001, and
Examine the causes of program participation and
its long-term effects on the well-being of recipients, their
families, and their children.
The data already collected in the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels
will provide extensive baseline (background) information from
which to figure out the effects of welfare reform. SIPP is a
longitudinal survey of households, interviewed at least nine
times at four-month intervals, and followed if they moved. The
SIPP collects more detailed data than any other national survey
on program eligibility, access and participation, transfer
income, and in-kind benefits. Coupled with an extensive array
of economic and demographic data (e.g., employment and job
transitions, income, and family composition), the SIPP will
serve to characterize the pre-reform situation of households
quite well.
Further, the Census Bureau worked closely with policy
agencies to develop and field topical modules that enhance the
value of the basic SIPP data. Modules of special interest here
include those on (1) education and training, (2) marital,
fertility, migration, and program participation histories, (3)
family relationships within the home, (4) work schedules, child
care, child support, support for non-household members, (5)
medical expenses and use of health care services, and (6) child
well-being.
By interviewing the same households in the SPD, analysts
would then have data for the baseline pre-reform period, the
reform implementation period, and the medium-term post-reform
period. Researchers require these data to assess short-term and
medium-term consequences and outcomes for families and
individuals. The use of both panels will also double the size
of certain groups of interest, subject of course to our ability
to recontact households in the two panels and their willingness
to participate. (Because the funding provided is not sufficient
to interview all households in both panels past 1997, we will
subsample after 1997; see section IV.)
The topics that the SPD will cover are an extension of
those covered by the SIPP, but placed in an annual context
using guidance from such annual surveys as the March supplement
to the Current Population Survey, the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics, and the National Longitudinal Surveys.
III. SPD Status and Plans
Current plans are for data to be collected for each of the
six years from 1996 through 2001. This will provide panel data
for ten years (1992-2001) when combined with the 1992 SIPP
panel data (and nine when combined with the 1993 SIPP panel
data). Our original plans were to have an instrument ready to
field concurrently with welfare reform. Because President
Clinton vetoed the legislation twice during 1995, we put our
plans on hold. Consequently, we were unable to pretest the SPD
questionnaire and could not field the survey we had designed in
1997.
Nevertheless, we felt it critical to fill the data gap
between the end of the SIPP observations and the start of the
basic SPD observations. To do so, we designed the SPD with
three fundamental sections:
(1) the ``bridge'' survey which will provide the link
between the 1992 and 1993 panels of the SIPP and the SPD;
(2) the 1998 SPD which will use the core instrument already
developed to collect annual retrospective data starting in
1998; and
(3) the 1999 (and later) SPD which will include a child
well-being module starting in 1999; its content may vary from
year to year.
SPD ``Bridge'' Survey
It was critical to collect income and program participation
data in spring 1997 for calendar year 1996 from as many of the
1992 and 1993 SIPP households as we could find, as too long a
gap ran the risk of losing too many households and missing too
much going on in their lives. Data for 1996 were collected in
April-June 1997 by administering a modified version of the
annual March 1997 Current Population Survey (CPS) demographic
supplement, with a few new questions designed to collect
summary 1995 data for the 1992 SIPP panel (who were last
interviewed in January 1995).
Eligible for the SPD sample were all SIPP persons
interviewed in the first wave of the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels
and still being interviewed at the end of the panel. We decided
not to try to find all persons in the 1992 and 1993 panels who
left the survey (attrited) before the end of the SIPP because
of the difficulty and cost involved in trying to find those
people (who had already declined to participate even after
repeated attempts to interview them) and because we felt that
most analysts would need as much baseline data as possible. Use
of population controls will reweight the remaining sample cases
to represent the U.S. population.
Finding people who move is critical to the success of any
longitudinal survey, particularly one as focused on the low-
income population as SPD. Naturally, SIPP has developed many
time-tested procedures that will help. But the automated
questionnaire instrument must permit such tracking as well.
Luckily, the CPS implemented a ``mover module'' in January 1997
to track people leaving formerly interviewed CPS households.
This was crucial to the SPD especially given the time that had
elapsed since the last interview, though the CPS approach did
not fully meet the needs of the SPD. We tracked most, though
not all, movers and we will attempt to interview in 1998 those
that we know about but could not interview in 1997. We also
tested the use of a $20 monetary incentive for low-income
households in an attempt to reduce nonresponse to the Bridge
survey; as the Census Bureau has shown that such an incentive
was successful in reducing nonresponse to wave 1 of the 1996
SIPP panel.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See James (1998). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the SPD
incentive is underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 SPD
During the first half of 1997, the University of California
at Berkeley translated the instrument developed in 1995 \6\
into computer code; UC-Berkeley is the developer of the CASES
authoring language used for computer-assisted Census Bureau
surveys. We carried out a pretest in October 1997 using 400
retired 1996 CPS households in four of our regional office
locations. From this test we will have a good idea of how well
the instrument does in an operational environment. We also will
test the use of a self-administered adolescent questionnaire
using audio cassettes to obtain information from youths 12 to
17 years old. Preliminary indications are that we may have to
shorten the questionnaire to fit within our time constraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information on the design process for the SPD, see
Hess and Rothgeb (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the fully developed computer-assisted personal
interview instrument, annual data collection will occur once
each year in May and June, with annual recall for the preceding
calendar year. The survey will include a set of retrospective
questions covering 1997 for all persons aged 15 and older in
the household. The topics covered are
Basic demographic characteristics, including
--educational enrollment and work training,--functional
limitations and disability, and--health care use and health
insurance;
Basic economic characteristics, including
--employment and earnings,--income sources and amounts,--
assets, liabilities, and program eligibility information, and--
food security;
Information about children, including their
--school enrollment and enrichment activities,--disability
and health care use,--contact with absent parent,--care
arrangements, and
payment of child support of their behalf; and
two self-administered questionnaires,
--a short question sequence for adults focusing on marital
relationship and conflict and a depression scale, and
--a relatively lengthy questionnaire for adolescents aged
12 to 17 focusing on such issues as family conflict, vocational
goals, educational aspirations, crime-related violence,
substance use, and sexual activity, (developed in collaboration
with the Child and Family Research Network).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We have not yet finalized this questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 SPD and later
Work has begun on identifying the topics for a child well-
being module to be asked in 1999 or later. We plan to focus on
elements that allow analysts to measure changes from pre-reform
periods or that illuminate other mechanisms affecting outcomes.
One possibility is to collect data on where the children have
lived and the reasons for any absence from the parents. Also
under investigation are question variants to address the
changing nature of welfare programs in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
IV. Technical Issues
This section deals with four technical issues that affect
the administration and usefulness of the survey--the need for
subsampling due to budget constraints, weighting and database
development, the collection of supplementary data, and the use
of administrative records.
Subsampling. It is clear we cannot interview all households
in the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels in 1998. The response rate to
the 1997 Bridge survey was good, given the time that had
elapsed since the prior interview--81.7 percent--yielding a
sample of 30,125 interviewed households. The budget for the
survey, $10 million per year, will allow us to complete
interviews with about 17,500 households in 1998, given the
projected length of the interview. Our current plans are to
Sample with certainty
--all households with income less than 150 percent of
poverty, and
--all households with incomes between 150 percent and 200
percent of poverty with children;
Subsample at 80 percent
--all households with incomes above 200 percent of poverty
with children;
Subsample at 50 percent
--all households with incomes between 150 percent and 200
percent of poverty without children; and
Subsample at 26 percent
--all households with incomes above 200 percent of poverty
without children.
Subsampling will be based upon household characteristics as
of the Bridge survey.
Weighting and database development. Three objectives will
influence our thinking on SPD data products and weighting. We
want to
Provide longitudinal data to evaluate the effects
of welfare reform;
Release a data product as soon as possible after
collecting the 1997 Bridge data; and.
Focus our scarce resources on just the products
that our users need most.
The first product the Census Bureau will release is a
public use microdata file. This will include data from the 1997
Bridge data, longitudinal weights to post-stratify up to a
January 1993 cohort, and codes to link the SIPP and SPD Bridge
data. We will release it as a research file with appropriate
caveats. The weights will be crude, but should suffice for
preliminary research purposes. Researchers always have the
option of making additional weighting or imputation adjustments
as they deem necessary for their specific analyses.
We realize that users of the longitudinal data might have a
hard time figuring out how to use data from three separate
surveys (SIPP, CPS, and SPD) simultaneously in a longitudinal
analysis. Our challenge is therefore to create a longitudinal
data set with annual data from all three survey instruments
(SIPP, CPS, and SPD) in a consistent format.\8\ Our current
plans are as follows. The Census Bureau will release two files
each year after 1998 and later SPD data have been collected,
processed, and weighted. The files will include and provide
appropriate weights for households responding to the latest
interview. The first file will include (1) the SIPP 1992 and
1993 panel data covering 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 respectively,
(2) the 1997 bridge data covering 1995-1996 (1992 panel) or
1996 only (1993 panel), and (3) the 1998 and later SPD data as
originally collected and edited (covering 1997 and later). The
second file will attempt to create a consistent set of annual
measures for each year of data (a ``common format'' file), to
simplify the analyst's chores; this file will probably use the
``least common denominator'';--the CPS--as the common data
format.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The microdata from the SIPP surveys are already available on-
line at the Census Bureau's web site (www.census.gov) through the
``Surveys On-Call'' program; plans are underway to provide the data as
well through FERRET (the Census Bureau's Federal Electronic Research
and Review Extraction Tool, which already provides the CPS microdata to
users).
\9\ Researchers will be able to analyze drop outs by comparing the
prior year's data file with the current one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These longitudinal products are conceptually the same type
of products that we have issued for the SIPP since its
inception. Usually, one defines a longitudinal cohort as all
the people interviewed (or for whom data was imputed) in every
interview within the period of interest. For example, the 1993-
1997 SPD longitudinal cohort will be all those people
interviewed from February 1993 through the 1998 SPD interview
(May-June 1998). The control date will be as of the beginning
of the cohort period (February 1993 for this example). This
creates a nationally representative longitudinal cohort for the
population as of the beginning of the cohort period. We expect
the weighting adjustments will compensate for differential
nonresponse.
Supplementary data. As noted earlier, the University of
Wisconsin will create a complementary data base of state and
county welfare program characteristics to match to the SPD
data. County-level matches must remain confidential, and
researchers would have to work on that matched data set at the
Census Bureau under Special Sworn Employee status to maintain
respondents' confidentiality.
Administrative Records. One final hope is that
administrative records can enhance the SIPP and SPD survey data
to provide an even broader and long-run picture of the pre- and
post-reform economic situation of the survey households. For
example, Summary Earnings Records from the Social Security
Administration for all respondents providing Social Security
Numbers (SSN's) could provide a good way of validating and
extending the survey earnings reports (as would matches to
income reports provided to the Census Bureau from Internal
Revenue Service tax records).
One potentially useful development would be to establish a
nationwide tracking system for welfare recipients based on SSN;
such a system could be used to facilitate enforcement of the
five-year lifetime assistance limit in the new legislation. We
could then append location information and possibly benefits
received to the survey data for welfare participants, even for
those attriting from the sample.
A few other alternatives present themselves. If the SPD can
collect employer name and address successfully, a match to the
Standard Statistical Establishment List can provide the key to
links with business data for those in the sample who are
working. If states collect and keep consistent caseload data
using SSN's, and their laws permit sharing such information
with the Census Bureau, that's another possibility for
enhancing the data files. Finally, we could match summary
financial data about welfare and related expenditures of local
and state governments using the household's residential
location. (Of course, researchers must use confidential
information at Census Bureau headquarters or one of its
Research Data Centers.)
V. Concluding Remarks
The opportunity to do the Survey of Program Dynamics is an exciting
one for the Census Bureau. It is also a sensible investment for the
government as it builds on the investment it already has in the Survey
of Income and Program Participation. Yet the challenges are daunting,
especially given the length of time we will need to follow households,
and as household cooperation with government surveys continues to
decline.
References
Brick, Michael et al. ``Analysis of Nonresponse and Coverage
Adjustment Procedures for a Dual Frame Survey,'' Proceedings of
Statistics Canada Symposium XIV, Ottawa, 1998.
Hess, Jennifer and Jennifer Rothgeb. ``Measuring the Impact of
Welfare Reform: Issues in Designing the Survey of Program Dynamics
Questionnaire,'' Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium XIV,
Ottawa, 1998.
James, Tracy M. ``Results of the Wave 1 Incentive Experiment in the
1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation,'' 1997 Proceedings of
the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical
Association, 1998.
U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation
Users' Guide, Second Edition, Washington DC, 1991.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Weinberg.
Mr. Rolston.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD ROLSTON, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Rolston. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, it
is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the role of research
as one critical element in the success of welfare reform.
This Subcommittee played a key role in making evaluation
activities integral to TANF. To illustrate how ACF is using the
authority and funding provided by Congress, I'll describe our
State evaluation activities, including both what we've already
begun to learn, and what we can expect to learn in the future.
A central focus of ACF's evaluation approach is to develop
reliable, credible information about how different strategies
are working, in order to inform the State policy choices that
TANF flexibility provides, and to inform the public and the
Congress as to how welfare reform is progressing.
I want to mention that the State evaluations I'll discuss
today are only one part of a broader strategy to develop
research and to disseminate it. Over the past 20 years, the
application of experimental approaches to studying the effects
of welfare reform has proven to be enormously important in
determining what is effective and what is not.
In authorizing the Department to fund the continuation of a
number of pre-TANF waiver evaluations, Congress provided the
vehicle for obtaining the earliest reliable information on the
effectiveness of different State welfare reform strategies on
such key goals as decreasing welfare dependency, increasing
employment and earnings and total family income, and
strengthening family structure.
ACF has funded nine States to continue their evaluations
with only minimal change, and an additional eight States to
modify their evaluations. The main questions that the waiver
evaluations answer is, ``What has the totality of the change in
State policy brought about?'' But there's another equally
important area of study which examines decisions States need to
make about the parts of their programs.
For example, over the last several years, it has become
clear that many recipients do work, but that their work is
sporadic. In addition, many of these families continue to have
incomes that are quite low.
As a part of the creativity that is coming about from a
flexible work-focused system, many States are now experimenting
with what are frequently called ``postemployment services'' in
order to increase employment persistence in family income. I
think you've heard about some of these from earlier witnesses.
Rigorous evaluation can tell us which of these approaches are
effective in achieving these goals.
In turning to what we've learned so far, I want to stress
that it's too early to draw inferences with a high degree of
confidence. However, the following lessons are suggested.
First, most State evaluations indicate significant impacts on
the proportion of recipients and former recipients who are
employed. These impacts range from modest to quite large, as
high as 15 percentage points, depending on the reform
intervention and the population subject to it.
Second, States are dramatically increasing the mandatory
aspect of work programs. Sanctions are much more common than
anyone would have predicted. For example, in Delaware, nearly
half of participants were sanctioned for failure to cooperate,
and in Florida, 31 percent.
Third, although States are getting out the message that
welfare reform is occurring, and despite State efforts to
simplify and explain their programs, many recipients don't have
a clear understanding of the new rules. For example, in one
State, almost 90 percent of participants knew they were under a
time limit, but only about half knew how to calculate when 1
month counted toward it.
This isn't a new phenomenon. It was true under AFDC also.
Fourth, to date, studies confirm earlier research on the
effect of more generous earnings disregards. They appear more
effective than other policies being evaluated in raising family
income for single-parent families. This was most dramatically
illustrated in Minnesota, where work incentives were a very
central feature of the State's reforms.
More generous disregards also appear to be increasing the
employment of single parents, but they probably also increase
the length of time and the total amount of welfare received
over time, although the welfare received is essentially now a
smaller earning supplement. So far, there is confirmation of
previous research that the effects of more generous disregards
on earnings are mixed, stimulating participants who would not
have worked or worked only a little to earn more, but also
stimulating those who have worked more substantially to earn
less than they would have.
Finally, the effects of family income of the common package
of welfare reform, which combines more stringent work
requirements, more generous disregards and time limits are not
clear. At this point, most programs appear not to have
increased or decreased average family income by much. More
generous programs combining high benefits with generous
disregards and no time limits appear to do much more to
increase family income, but probably also increase governmental
costs over the short run.
These early lessons illustrate how the results of our
evaluations hold promise to be highly informative to
policymakers at all levels of government. Our perseverance in
carefully evaluating State programs can make a major difference
in the extent to which the goals of welfare reform are
realized.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Howard Rolston, Ph.D., Director, Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure
to be here today to discuss the role of research as one
critical element in the success of welfare reform. This
Subcommittee played a key role in making research and
evaluation activities integral to TANF. To illustrate how ACF
is using the authority and funding provided by the Congress, I
will describe our state evaluation activities, in terms of both
what we have already begun to learn and what we can expect to
learn in the future.
A central focus of ACF's welfare reform research and
evaluation strategy is to develop reliable, credible
information about how different strategies are working in order
to inform the state policy choices that TANF flexibility
provides. This information can also inform the public and the
Congress about how welfare reform is progressing.
A key to developing this wealth of information is through
the use of experimental evaluations of outcomes. These
evaluations can shed light on whether state reforms are meeting
the goals of TANF as set forth in the statute--providing
assistance to needy families with children, ending dependence
through increasing employment and marriage, reducing out-of-
wedlock pregnancies and encouraging two-parent families.
My testimony today will focus on current evaluations of
state programs, primarily of existing state waiver
demonstrations, and future areas to consider for evaluations. I
also will share some of our early lessons from these current
evaluations. But before beginning this discussion I first would
like to take a quick, broader look at other research activities
funded by ACF.
The waiver evaluations are only one part of a broader
welfare reform research and dissemination effort taking place
in ACF. Last year, for example, we were able to fund nine
projects (from over 100 applicants) that are examining a
variety of key issues in welfare reform, including
implementation of tribal TANF programs, identification of
problems and solutions in implementing TANF in rural areas, and
a study of different diversion programs that states are
operating.
In addition, we are making careful investments to ensure
that knowledge gained through evaluation is widely disseminated
in formats that program operators find accessible, including
the very important Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
(MDRC) ``How-to Guide'' entitled Work First, How to Implement
an Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare Reform.
Effectiveness Evaluations of State Program Innovations
Over the past twenty years, the application of experimental
approaches to studying the effects of welfare reform has proven
to be enormously important to finding out what is effective and
what is not. Because of its proven track record, in almost all
cases ACF and the state agreed on an experiment as part of the
approval of its waiver demonstrations begun prior to enactment
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act. States randomly assigned families either to
continue receiving welfare under the old AFDC rules, the
``control group,'' or to another group that received welfare
under the reform regime, the ``experimental group.''
In authorizing the Department to fund the continuation of
these evaluations under TANF, Congress provided the vehicle for
obtaining the earliest reliable information on the effects of
different state welfare reform strategies in meeting the
objectives of TANF. ACF has funded nine states to continue
their evaluations with only minimal changes and an additional
eight to modify their evaluations.
Since most of the nine states are continuing waiver
policies into TANF with minimal change, by comparing the
experimental and control groups over time in a state, we can
reliably determine the causal effect of a state's reform effort
on such key outcomes as welfare dependency, employment and
earnings, total family income, and family structure. And by
looking across states, we can begin to compare the relative
effectiveness of different strategies in achieving the various
goals of reform.
The ability to look across states is enhanced by the fact
that the nine states embody significantly different approaches
to key policy decisions. For example, they include states with
a variety of time limits: states with strict and standardized
time limits, states with individualized time limits, states
that prescribe work after a time limit, states that eliminate
the benefit of the entire family, states that only remove the
benefit of the adults and states with no time limits.
The outcomes in the studies described above primarily
concern adults. To better measure the effects of welfare reform
on children, we created a team of twelve states to think
collectively about what outcomes, both positive and negative,
they thought their reforms might produce. We also included
researchers to inform the team on how best to measure these
outcomes.
We now have been able to fund five of these states to add a
common core of child outcome measures to their evaluations--
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. Because
these states represent varying approaches to welfare reform,
the results will produce rigorous information on how different
reform policies affect children.
A Look at Future Evaluations
The main question that the waiver evaluations answer is,
``What has the totality of the change in state policy brought
about?'' But there is another equally important area of study
to examine decisions that states need to make about the parts
of their programs, if they are to invest their TANF and state
funds most effectively.
A particularly important example that illustrates this kind
of evaluation is the increasing efforts by states to improve
job retention and advancement. Over the last several years, it
has become clear that many welfare recipients do work, but
their work is sporadic with substantial periods of unemployment
and dependency interspersed with work. In addition, many of
these families continue to have low incomes. We have learned a
lot over the last twenty years about ways that are most
effective to move recipients into work, and most states have
moved to ``work first'' approaches, in part based on that
knowledge. Now we need to turn our attention to learning about
how to keep individuals employed more persistently, and how to
raise working families' income.
As part of the creativity that is coming from a flexible,
work-focused system, many states are now experimenting with
what are frequently called ``post-employment services'' in
order to increase employment persistence. For example, some
states are working with employers to provide mentors to
individuals with little work experience; others are providing
opportunities for skills enhancement for former recipients who
show their commitment to work; and others are addressing access
to health insurance. Rigorous evaluation can tell us which of
the approaches, or the details of them, are actually effective
in increasing employment and earnings.
This example suggests how, if we continue to work with
states to ensure that the evaluations we fund answer their most
pressing program design questions, we have a tremendous
opportunity to learn which strategies really achieve the goals
of welfare reform. And this kind of learning can play a
critical role in the success of state welfare reform efforts.
What we Have Begun To Learn
In turning to what we have learned so far from these waiver
demonstrations, I want to stress that it is too early to draw
inferences with a high degree of confidence. Our ability to
learn from the evaluations will certainly grow over time.
Nonetheless, based on the information we have now, the
following lessons are suggested.
1. Most state evaluations indicate significant impacts on
the proportion of recipients and former recipients who are
employed. These impacts range from modest to quite large,
depending on the reform intervention and the population subject
to it. Among the states at the higher end of the range, the
proportion of participants working in the last quarter of
follow-up was 8 to 15 percentage points higher for the welfare
reform group than the AFDC control group.
2. States are dramatically increasing the mandatory aspect
of work programs. As with time limits, states have implemented
a variety of policies for sanctioning individuals who fail to
comply with program requirements, including eliminating a
portion of the grant, eliminating the entire grant, and
progressive reductions for repeated instances of failure to
comply. These sanctions, including whole family sanctions, are
much more commonly applied than anyone would have predicted.
For example, in Delaware nearly half of the participants were
sanctioned for failure to cooperate, and in Florida the
sanction rate was 31 percent for the welfare reform group
compared to 7 percent for the control group.
3. Although states are getting out the message that welfare
reform is occurring, and despite state efforts to simplify and
explain their programs, many recipients do not have a clear
understanding of the new rules. For example, they may know that
there's a time limit, but do not have a good idea of how months
are counted toward it. Thus, in one state almost 90 percent of
participants knew they were under a time limit, but only about
half understood the circumstances under which a month counted.
This is not a new phenomenon since recipients seldom understood
AFDC rules either.
4. To date, the studies confirm earlier research on the
effectiveness of more generous earnings disregards. Earnings
disregards appear to be more effective than other policies
being evaluated in raising family income for single parent
families. This was most dramatically illustrated in Minnesota
where work incentives were a very central feature of the
state's reforms.
In theory, more generous disregards should increase the
employment of single parents, and it appears likely that this
is happening in current state reform efforts. At the same time,
they probably also increase the length of time, and amount of
welfare received over time, although the welfare received is
now essentially a smaller earnings supplement. For example,
again in Minnesota, under its demonstration, which had no time
limit, both duration and amount of welfare were significantly
increased. But even in states with time limits and tough work
requirements, welfare duration prior to the exhaustion of the
time limit was not reduced.
Previous research suggested that the effects of more
generous disregards on earnings are mixed, stimulating
participants who would not have worked, or worked only a
little, to earn more, but also stimulating those who would have
worked more substantially to earn less than they would have.
The results in Minnesota seem to confirm this with average
earnings increasing substantially for long-term urban
recipients, but declining substantially for two-parent families
(especially women).
5. The effects on family income of the common package of
welfare reform, which combines more stringent work
requirements, more generous disregards and time limits, are not
clear. At this point, most programs appear not to have
increased or decreased average family income by much, although
undoubtedly, these averages mask the fact that some families
have experienced positive effects and some have experienced
negative effects. More generous programs combining high
benefits with generous disregards and no time limits appear to
do much more to increase family income, but probably also
increase governmental costs at least in the short run. Thus,
over an 18-month follow-up period Minnesota reduced poverty by
nearly 15 percentage points for long-term urban recipients, but
increased welfare costs by about 8 percent.
Conclusion
These early lessons, I believe, illustrate how the results
of our evaluations hold the promise to be highly informative to
policy makers at all levels of government. Our perseverance in
carefully evaluating the results of these shifts in states'
programs can make a major difference in the extent to which the
goals of welfare reform are realized.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Rolston.
Ms. Blum.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA BLUM, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH FORUM ON
CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND THE NEW FEDERALISM, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
CHILDREN IN POVERTY
Ms. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. It's a very great pleasure to appear before you
today to discuss ways in which Congress can be well and timely
informed of effects attributable to the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
As my written testimony indicates, obtaining information is
complicated now by the dynamics of devolution, which encourage
variation in policy and practice among States and localities.
Understanding what information will be available, when it can
be obtained and how it can be accessed is critically important.
Congress has a responsibility to govern well for all its
citizens. Since welfare participants are among this country's
most vulnerable citizens, and since two-thirds of these
participants are children, this Subcommittee's concerns about
the effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program are commendable.
My observations for this hearing are, in summary: First,
findings exist from earlier research that create parameters for
understanding the degree to which the welfare reforms of 1996
have changed the welfare equation. Are the demographics of the
TANF population different from those of the AFDC population, as
analyzed by Bane and Ellwood? Do modest investments still
produce modest returns, as MDRC's experiments have almost
uniformly shown? Are interventions for teen parents having
greater success in achieving employment and earnings than in
the past? How are the long-term participants faring as compared
to the supported work participants in the early eighties? Are
financial incentive components continuing to produce
significant positive effects?
Answers to these questions are important and can help us
understand the workings of TANF and other welfare-related
changes across States and localities.
Second, there is highly relevant information emerging, as
you've heard, from the waiver experiments. Implementation and
impact findings from these projects should be carefully
analyzed to discover the effects of States' efforts in the
early nineties, to test time limits, family caps, financial
incentives, school mandates, and other program requirements.
These findings will help us understand results that will be
emerging in other States implementing now similar changes.
Third, there are areas in which research efforts should be
expanded. They include learning about child outcomes, which has
been discussed a lot today, studying the experience of
substance abusers in the TANF Program, tracking the impact of
the Reconciliation Act on the immigrant populations, studying
implementation issues, and assessing the status over time of
those denied access to or leaving the TANF Program.
Fourth, early information about the systemic effects of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
on State and local policies and programs will be available
through research from the Rockefeller Institute and the Urban
Institute. But more attention should be paid to fostering such
well-designed implementation studies at the State and local
levels. These can highlight how changes are actually being
implemented.
Fifth, State capacity to use administrative data is
important, because these data provide snapshots of client well-
being, and allow us to see trends over time. State management
information system capabilities need to be strengthened, and
confidentiality issues resolved to enable research that will
provide timely and accurate information.
Sixth, large data sets need to be enhanced so that they are
representative of State or local populations and can be
usefully mined. The Census Bureau's initiative, the survey of
program dynamics, is of particular importance.
Seventh, impact studies should be encouraged to study
promising programs as they emerge, and funds should be provided
for their development and execution.
Finally, systematic ways to archive and share information
about research initiatives should be fostered. The Welfare
Reform Academy at the University of Maryland hosts monthly
satellite broadcast conferences on various topics of welfare
reform, and has convened an expert panel to evaluate current
research efforts. The inventory of projects created by the
Congressional Research Service on behalf of this Subcommittee
is very useful. The data base developed by the Research Forum
on Children, Families and the New Federalism is another
resource providing access to extensive information about recent
and current research projects.
But while facilitating the collection and exchange of
research information is critical, the experience of the
Research Forum during the past 14 months indicates that much
more is needed. Many opportunities exist to improve research
design, to facilitate coordination among researchers, and to
develop a consensus about appropriate use of research methods.
Most of all, researchers need to be encouraged to address
questions of relevance to policymakers and practitioners. Our
ultimate goal should be the ability to provide extensive and
understandable information to policymakers like yourselves, to
researchers, to practitioners, to funders and to the media.
Knowledge is power, and in this instance, power to make
informed decisions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Barbara Blum, Director, Research Forum on Children,
Families and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in
Poverty
What Will We Know and When Will We Know It?
Subcommittee members have expressed an interest in learning
from the Administration and from state and local administrators
about how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 is being implemented, and
from representatives of the U.S. Census Bureau, the
Congressional Research Service, HHS/ACF, and the Research
Forum, of ways in which Congress can be informed about the
effects of recent changes in welfare and related policies.
Certainly, the 1996 statute that created Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and modified many aspects
of welfare policy has profound implications for millions of our
citizens and immigrant residents.
The statute's thrust to devolve decision-making to state
and local levels is stimulating great variation in program
design at the state and local levels. The increased
requirements for work participation and the imposition of time
limits create challenges for state and local staff as well as
for the TANF participants. Changes in food stamp and other
benefits for immigrant populations are likely to have a huge
impact on hundreds of thousands of individuals.
Thus, understanding what information will be available,
when it can be obtained, and how it can be accessed is
critically important. Congress has a responsibility to govern
well for all its citizens. Since welfare participants are among
this country's most vulnerable citizens and 8.8 million--or
two-thirds--of these participants are children, this
subcommittee's concerns about the effects of PRWORA and TANF
are commendable.
Earlier Relevant Research
In examining what information will be available, the
backdrop of earlier research findings should be kept very much
in evidence. This is true for several reasons. First, during
the 1980s a significant number of analyses and experiments
began to produce information that improved our understanding of
the welfare population and the effects of various
interventions. Second, findings from this early research
constitute a template against which changes produced by PRWORA
can be compared. Third, the earlier research findings have
frequently raised additional questions that need to be answered
in order to make further progress in designing new
interventions.
Research accomplishments in the 1980s included analyses of
the dynamics of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) population by Bane and Ellwood, which provided new
information about the heterogeneity of the welfare population
and about client characteristics which were correlated with
duration in the caseload.
Experiments fielded by the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) in eight states studied a range of
interventions (i.e. job search, community work experience
programs (CWEP), grant diversion, education, training). These
projects were rigorously designed using randomized samples to
measure the impact of a specific intervention or sequenced
combinations of interventions.
The results of the experiments consistently showed modest
benefits from modest investments in the tested interventions.
Employment and income gains were reported for the experimental
groups, along with modest reductions in welfare costs and
dependency.
It was also the case that impacts were largest for those
least well off. That is, employment and income benefits and
welfare savings were greater for members of experimental groups
who had had the least prior work experience, and lowest grade
completion.
The experiments also showed that job search, when well
administered (as in Riverside's Greater Avenues for
Independence--GAIN--program) could be a very effective
intervention for moving participants into the workforce.
Education and training require a significant investment over
time; thus, impacts were not identified in the near term.
Nevertheless, given the very low levels of educational
attainment by many welfare participants (a recent national
survey shows 64% of welfare recipients not completing high
school) and the skill demands of today's workplace, the
outcomes achieved in well designed education and training
programs like Comprehensive Employment Training (CET) should
not be dismissed.
Three earlier experiments have addressed teen parents and
dependency. New Chance was designed by MDRC to study the
impacts of a comprehensive services intervention on mothers and
children. The Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (LEAP),
an Ohio experiment evaluated by MDRC, provided financial
incentives and disincentives based on the teen parent's school
attendance. The Teen Parent Demonstration (TPD), evaluated by
Mathematica, imposed mandates on teen participants that
triggered financial sanctions for non-compliance.
A comprehensive review of findings from these three
projects, sponsored by the Joint Center on Poverty Research
(JCPR), MDRC, Mathematica, and the Research Forum demonstrated
the difficulty of making a difference among the teen parent
population. While LEAP and TPD produced better school
attendance, findings from all three projects were
disappointing. Particularly important is evidence in New Chance
that obtaining a GED had no effect on subsequent employment and
earnings.
Two other experiments are cited because each showed
positive impacts for a distinct welfare group. The first,
MDRC's Supported Work, was an experiment with structured work
experience designed to increase demands on the worker over
time. In this experiment, very disadvantaged women who were
long term welfare recipients benefited significantly.
The second, the New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP),
evaluated by Abt Associates, Inc. is a program designed to
increase income from employment with child support incentives.
The women were required to establish paternity as a condition
for participation. Employment and income gains as well as
savings to the state were significant.
Research in the 1990s
During the 1990s, a new wave of research developed
reflecting the interest of many states to institute changes
through waiver authority. Authorization of these waivers was
granted subject to HHS approval of a rigorous evaluation. Thus,
today we are the beneficiaries of a significant number of
research projects studying program components--such as time
limits, family caps, and financial incentives--now being
implemented in new TANF programs.
Most of these more recent research projects are included in
a database that has been developed by the Research Forum with
support from the Annie E. Casey, Russell Sage, Edna McConnell
Clark, and Chase Manhattan Foundations. The Research Forum,
hosted at the National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University School of Public Health has three purposes, all
relevant to the changes in social policy that we are discussing
at this hearing. They are:
To encourage rigorous, comparable, and policy-
relevant research as a means of monitoring and evaluation;
To promote collaboration among researchers,
funders, policymakers, state and local program administrators,
and practitioners;
To facilitate the exchange of research-based
information among key stakeholders.
To support the third purpose, a database accessible through
an interactive web site--http://www.researchforum.org--has been
designed to include extensive information about research
projects that meet three criteria. They are large scale and
frequently multi-site; they have been designed by social
scientists who are recognized as having contributed to the
field; and they are relevant to TANF. (Other projects not
meeting all of these criteria will be included later this year
in an abbreviated form.)
Currently, 35 research projects are included in the
database (see listing, p.13-14). Of these, 22 include impact
research (see listing, p.15). Twenty-five are implementation
studies, 20 of which are linked to impact studies (see listing,
p. 16). In addition, the database includes 20 descriptive or
analytical studies (see listing, p. 17).
Most important, the research projects in the database can
be sorted by components being evaluated. The major components
include:
Changes in Child Support
Changes in Eligibility
Educational Activities
Employment Activities
Family Caps
Financial Disincentives/Sanctions
Food Stamps
Program operations/implementation
Program Requirements
Support Services
Time Limits
Important information about these components is emerging
and will continue to emerge during the next several years. For
example, a number of states are testing time limits.
Early findings from implementation and descriptive/
analytical studies in some of these states are already
available. Early impact findings are available for sites in
Florida, Connecticut, and Delaware; descriptive/analytical
studies have been completed in Iowa, Massachusetts, and
Wisconsin.
Schedule of Project Reports on Impacts on Time Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida......................... Interim........... Interim........... Interim........... Final............. .................. ..................
Connecticut..................... Interim........... Interim........... Interim........... .................. .................. Final
Vermont........................ .................. Interim........... .................. .................. .................. Final
Delaware........................ Interim........... .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to NYCAP, a number of projects are testing
financial incentives (see listing, p 18). Of particular
interest are Canada's Self-Sufficiency experiment and
Minnesota's Family Investment Program (MFIP). In both
instances, there is an impressive take-up by participants,
suggesting that more sophisticated approaches to supplementing
wages should be explored. (I stress this because I believe we
are all seeking for ways to ensure that working families have
sufficient subsistence to provide food, shelter, and clothing
for their children.)
Projects in the database may be searched and analyzed
according to the program components previously cited, as well
as other the other project characteristics, such as the sites
studied, outcomes assessed and organizations involved.
Publications
It is also possible to estimate when specific reports will
be published. Here, for example, are projections for reports
that researchers have shared with the Research Forum. These
projections are entered into the database and currently
available through the web site:
April 1998
Canada's Self Sufficiency Project: 18-month
Impacts
June 1998
Evaluation of ``To Strengthen Michigan's
Families'': Sixth Annual Report
Postemployment Services Demonstration: Final
Report on Implementation
July 1998
Canada's Self Sufficiency Project: Report on SSP
Plus
November 1998
Postemployment Services Demonstration: Preliminary
Impact Findings
December 1998
Project on Devolution and Urban Change:
Implementation Report on Policies and Practices of Individual
Sites
Arizona EMPOWER Process Study: Interim Report
January 1999
Vermont Welfare Reform Evaluation Project: Final
Report
June 1999
Arizona EMPOWER: Cost-Benefit Analysis Final
Report
Evaluation of ``To Strengthen Michigan's
Families'': Seventh Annual Report
July 1999
Canada's Self Sufficiency Project: 36-month
Impacts
December 1999
Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Early
Impact Results, by Site
Project on Devolution and Urban Change:
Implementation Follow-up Report, by Site
Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Reports on
Ethnographic Reports and Community Institutions, by Site
January 2000
Evaluation of ``To Strengthen Michigan's
Families'': Final Report on Eight Years of Demonstration
Operations and Cost-Benefit Study
June 2000
Evaluation of ``To Strengthen Michigan's
Families'': Eighth Annual Report
December 2001
Project on Devolution and Urban Change: Final
Impact Results (Individual and Aggregate)
Arizona EMPOWER Impact Study Draft Report
April 2002
Arizona EMPOWER Demonstration Final Evaluation
Report
Arizona EMPOWER Impact Study Final Report
Arizona EMPOWER Process Study Final Report
Gaps in Current Research
One aspect of the database that is seldom discussed relates
to how it helps to identify gaps in what is being studied on
scale. Several areas are quite evident:
Child Outcomes: Children comprise about two-thirds of
welfare caseloads, yet welfare research projects have seldom
incorporated direct assessments of their well-being. Embedded
in MDRC's National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies
(formerly JOBS) is an important set of studies on child
impacts; one of which is an observational study of parent/child
interactions. Results of these studies will be available in
about six months.
The Department of Health and Human Services has worked
extensively with twelve states to stimulate interest in
evaluating child outcomes. Funds have been provided to five of
these states to support this work on child outcomes. Much more
needs to be done.
Substance Abuse: Currently, the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA),
with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is
planning an experiment. This is the single large scale effort
planned to examine an intervention for TANF participants who
are substance users. Despite generous foundation funding, the
sample size of this project will be relatively small, and child
outcomes may not be addressed. Yet, we know that individuals
abusing drugs comprise one of the most problematic groups in
our TANF population and that effects of this parental condition
on children should be better understood.
Immigrants: This population is subject to the earliest and
most extensive changes, yet only the Urban Institute's New
Federalism project and a few other more modest projects are
currently studying impacts related to PRWORA changes.
Rural Issues: While urban areas deserve attention, we also
should be studying rural areas, particularly those with high
concentrations of population on welfare (i.e. Fresno County,
California with 220,000 TANF participants out of 660,000 total
population).
Systematic Follow-Up of Those Who Leave the Rolls: Except
for the Urban Institute's New Federalism project very little
work is being done across states or on a large scale to follow
individuals longitudinally. Efforts by individual states and
the Hudson Institute in Milwaukee provide only limited
information about the effects of exits on children.
Areas of Research Development/Research Tools
Having described in broad strokes what we will know and
what we will not know, it is important to examine not only when
but how we can learn more.
Implementation Studies
One avenue to understanding what is or is not happening
will be to pay attention to implementation studies as they
emerge. Frequently we have created strong Federal and state
statutes, setting appropriate policy direction, but have failed
to see those policies translated into practice. That can be
understood, since change is hard to achieve and involves many
levels of political structure and of management. Nevertheless,
since PRWORA institutes change of a magnitude seldom proposed
and since it will influence the lives of so many families,
knowing what is and is not being achieved is essential to
understanding the end effects.
As identified earlier, some of the implementation studies
are part of research projects that also evaluate the impact of
specific program components such as time limits and family cap.
Such studies can be extraordinarily informative in suggesting
ways in which these interventions can be more effectively
implemented.
In a few instances, implementation or process research will
be differently cast. For instance, the Rockefeller Institute
project directed by Richard Nathan is studying the states to
identify the degree and nature of change attributable to
PRWORA. This work and the work undertaken by the Urban
Institute in its New Federalism Project will provide invaluable
``advance notice'' of what is going on generally, while
reflecting the variations that PRWORA encourages.
Implementation studies have in the past been delegated to a
lesser status than other types of research. During this period
of dynamic change, new value needs to be attached to this genre
of research. Important work has been initiated by the Institute
for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the University of Wisconsin to
mobilize a diverse and distinguished group of researchers in
order to foster attention on the contributions of well-designed
implementation studies during a period when, for instance,
creating a controlled experiment is not feasible or when
information is needed in the short term.
Administrative Data
In this era of computerized management, it seems clear that
some of the most timely and accurate information about PRWORA
should come from links between administrative data sets. In
some states, this potential is developing very well; in many
other states, capacity remains quite weak. (This is one
instance in which variation may not be desirable.) It is clear
that, in order to even partially answer certain basic
questions, more extensive data links are needed. A few
examples:
TANF match with Unemployment Insurance (UI) and/or
wage reporting systems will identify that portion of the TANF
caseload moving into jobs with benefits.
TANF match with the Internal Revenue Service
records would give information on tax paying and income status.
TANF match with the Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC) would give information on wage level achieved as well as
the EITC supplement.
TANF match with Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
would show whether some custodial parent income is provided to
supplement other sources of income.
TANF match with Medicaid and Food Stamps would
show what benefits are continued after termination of cash
benefits.
TANF match with the protective and foster care
system would identify problems affecting children (obviously
constructed with confidentiality safeguards).
Confidentiality and capacity issues need to be addressed in
order to fast-forward the use of administrative data.
Large Data Sets
There are some opportunities to mine the major data sets--
for example, the Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP), Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), Current Population Survey
(CPS)--but there may be greater opportunities to examine how
these data sets have been constructed and to address issues of
sample size within states, coverage of program participation,
and assessment of child and family outcomes.
For example, the Census Bureau is extending two existing
panels of SIPP in order to monitor the effects on families of
the devolution of welfare policy. The result, entitled the
Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD), is a large, longitudinal,
nationally representative survey of program participation over
a ten-year period, starting prior to and ending after the
enactment of TANF. Attention will be given to measuring the
effects of these new policies on the well-being of individual
recipients, their families, and their children.
Impact Studies
As a former state administrator and then, subsequently,
president at MDRC, I want to make a personal pitch to support
impact research, particularly randomized studies. The current
ferment will settle down; some exemplary initiatives will be
recognized. These should be tested at the earliest time
possible.
My own experience has been that controlled experiments
yield far superior information. Future work should foster such
rigorous research initiatives.
In Conclusion and to Recapitulate
First, findings exist from earlier research that
create parameters for understanding the degree to which PRWORA
has changed the welfare equation. Are the demographics of the
TANF population different from those of the AFDC population as
analyzed by Bane and Ellwood? Do modest investments still
produce modest returns? Are TANF strategies able to move
individuals with low educational and employment experience into
the workforce? Are interventions for teen parents having
greater success in achieving employment and earnings than past
interventions? How are the long-term participants faring as
compared to Supported Work participants? Are financial
incentive components continuing to produce positive effects?
Answers to these questions are important and can help us
understand the workings of TANF and other PRWORA changes across
states and localities.
Second, there is relevant information emerging
from the ``waiver experiments.'' Implementation and impact
findings from these projects should be carefully analyzed to
discover the effects of states' efforts in the early 1990s to
test time limits, family caps, financial incentives, school
mandates, and other program requirements. These findings will
help us understand results that may emerge in other states
implementing similar changes.
Third, there are areas in which research efforts
should be expanded. They include: learning more about child
outcomes, studying the experience of substance abusers in the
TANF program, tracking the impact of PRWORA on the immigrant
population, studying implementation issues in rural areas, and
assessing the status of those leaving the TANF program.
Fourth, early information about the systemic
effects of PRWORA on state and local policies and program will
be available through work at the Rockefeller Institute and the
Urban Institute. More attention should be given to fostering
such well-designed implementation studies at the state and
local levels; these can highlight how well changes are actually
implemented.
Fifth, state capacity to use administrative data
is important because these data provide ``snapshots'' of client
well being and allow us to see trends over time. State
management information system (MIS) capabilities need to be
strengthened and confidentiality issues resolved to enable
research that will provide timely and accurate information.
Sixth, large data sets need to be enhanced so that
they are representative of state or local populations and can
be usefully mined. The Census Bureau's initiative, the Survey
of Program Dynamics, is of particular importance.
Seventh, impact studies should be encouraged as
promising programs emerge, and funds should be provided for
their development and execution.
Finally, systematic ways to archive and share information
about research initiatives should be fostered. The Welfare
Reform Academy at the University of Maryland hosts monthly
satellite broadcast conferences on various topics of welfare
reform and has convened an expert panel to evaluate current
research efforts. The inventory of projects created by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) on behalf of this
committee is very useful. The database developed by the
Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism is
another resource.
But, while facilitating the collection and exchange of
research information is critical to providing information, the
experience of the Research Forum on Children, Families, and the
New Federalism during the past fourteen months indicates that
much more is needed. There exists many opportunities to improve
research design; to facilitate coordination among researchers;
and to develop a consensus about research method, terms, and
definitions, comparability in research questions, and common
outcomes. Most of all, researchers need to be encouraged to
address questions of relevance to policy makers and
practitioners.
Our ultimate goal should be the ability to provide
extensive and understandable information to policymakers like
yourselves, to other researchers, to practitioners, to funders,
and to the media. Knowledge is power--in this instance, the
power to make informed decisions.
Project List
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Evaluator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Chance Evaluation................ Abt
Alabama ASSETS Evaluation................. Abt
Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Abt
Demonstration.
Assessing the New Federalism.............. Urban Institute
Big Cities Confront the New Politics of Columbia SSW
Child and Family Policy.
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project......... SDRC
Confronting the New Politics of Child and Columbia SSW
Family Policy in the U.S..
Connecticut's Job's First: Welfare Reform MDRC
Evaluation Project.
Devolution of Welfare: Assessing Yale
Children's Changing Environments and
Effects on School Readiness .
Devolution, Welfare Reform, and Wellbeing Columbia SSW
Study.
Florida Family Transition Program (FTP) MDRC
Evaluation.
Fragile Families Project.................. Columbia/Princeton
GAIN Evaluation........................... MDRC
Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Mathematica
Evaluation.
JOBS-PLUS Community Revitalization MDRC
Initiative for Public Housing Families.
LEAP Evaluation........................... MDRC
Minnesota's Family Investment Program MDRC
(MFIP) Evaluation.
Monitoring States' Welfare Reforms........ GAO
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work MDRC
Strategies (formerly JOBS).
New Chance Demonstration.................. MDRC
New Hope Project.......................... MDRC
New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Abt
Evaluation.
Newark Young Family Study (sub-study of Columbia/NCCP
Teenage Parent Demonstration Program).
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration......... MDRC
Postemployment Services Demonstration..... Mathematica
Project on Devolution and Urban Change.... MDRC
State Capacity Study...................... Rockefeller Inst.
State Policies and Practices Regarding CASA
Substance Abuse, Medicaid, and the
Employment Needs of Welfare Recipients.
State Policy Documentation Project........ CBPP
Substance Abuse, Economic Self- CASA
Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform.
Teenage Parent Demonstration Program ..... Mathematica
To Strengthen Michigan's Families (TSMF) Abt
Evaluation.
Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project MDRC
Evaluation.
Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of U Chicago
Children and Families: A Multi-City Study.
Welfare Reform: States' Early Experiences GAO
with Benefit Termination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project List
[Impact Studies]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Evaluator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Chance Evaluation................ Abt
Alabama ASSETS Evaluation................. Abt
Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Abt
Demonstration.
Assessing the New Federalism.............. Urban Institute
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project......... SDRC
Connecticut's Job's First: Welfare Reform MDRC
Evaluation Project.
Florida Family Transition Program......... MDRC
GAIN Evaluation........................... MDRC
JOBS-PLUS Community Revitalization MDRC
Initiative for Public Housing.
LEAP Evaluation........................... MDRC
Minnesota's Family Investment Program MDRC
(MFIP) Evaluation.
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work MDRC
Strategies (formerly JOBS).
New Chance Demonstration.................. MDRC
New Hope Project.......................... MDRC
New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Abt
Evaluation.
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration......... MDRC
Postemployment Services Demonstration..... Mathematica
Project on Devolution and Urban Change.... MDRC
Substance Abuse, Economic Self- CASA
Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform.
Teenage Parent Demonstration Program ..... Mathematica
To Strengthen Michigan's Families (TSMF) Abt
Evaluation.
Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project MDRC
Evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project List
[Implementation Studies]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Evaluator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Chance Evaluation*............... Abt
Alabama ASSETS Evaluation*................ Abt
Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Abt
Demonstration*.
Assessing the New Federalism.............. Urban Institute
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project*........ SDRC
Connecticut's Job's First: Welfare Reform MDRC
Evaluation Project*.
GAIN Evaluation*.......................... MDRC
Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Mathematica
Evaluation.
JOBS-PLUS Community Revitalization MDRC
Initiative for Public Housing.
LEAP Evaluation*.......................... MDRC
Minnesota's Family Investment Program MDRC
(MFIP) Evaluation*.
Monitoring States' Welfare Reforms........ GAO
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work MDRC
Strategies (formerly JOBS)*.
New Chance Demonstration*................. MDRC
New Hope Project*......................... MDRC
New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Abt
Evaluation*.
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration*........ MDRC
Postemployment Services Demonstration*.... Mathematica
Project on Devolution and Urban Change*... MDRC
State Capacity Study...................... Rockefeller Inst.
Substance Abuse, Economic Self- CASA
Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform*.
Teenage Parent Demonstration Program *.... Mathematica
To Strengthen Michigan's Families (TSMF) Abt
Evaluation*.
Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project MDRC
Evaluation*.
Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of U Chicago
Children and Families: A Multi-City Study.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects marked with ``*'' are linked to impact studies.
Project List
[Descriptive Studies]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Evaluator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Chance Evaluation................ Abt
Assessing the New Federalism.............. Urban Institute
Big Cities Confront the New Politics of Columbia SSW
Child and Family Policy.
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project......... SDRC
Confronting the New Politics of Child and Columbia SSW
Family Policy in the U.S..
Devolution of Welfare: Assessing Yale
Children's Changing Environments.
Devolution, Welfare Reform, and Wellbeing Columbia SSW
Study.
Fragile Families Project.................. Columbia/Princeton
Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) Mathematica
Evaluation.
Monitoring States' Welfare Reforms........ GAO
Newark Young Family Study (sub-study of Columbia/NCCP
Teenage Parent.
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration......... MDRC
Postemployment Services Demonstration..... Mathematica
Project on Devolution and Urban Change.... MDRC
State Capacity Study...................... Rockefeller Inst.
State Policies and Practices Regarding CASA
Substance Abuse, Medicaid,.
State Policy Documentation Project........ CBPP
Teenage Parent Demonstration Program ..... Mathematica
Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of U Chicago
Children and Families: A Multi-City Study.
Welfare Reform: States' Early Experiences GAO
with Benefit Termination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project List
[Projects Studying Financial Incentives]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Evaluator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Chance Evaluation................ Abt
Alabama ASSETS Evaluation................. Abt
Arizona EMPOWER Welfare Reform Abt
Demonstration.
Assessing the New Federalism.............. Urban Institute
Canada's Self-Sufficiency Project......... SDRC
Confronting the New Politics of Child and Columbia SSW
Family Policy in the United.
Connecticut's Job's First: Welfare Reform MDRC
Evaluation Project.
Florida Family Transition Program (FTP) MDRC
Evaluation.
GAIN Evaluation........................... MDRC
JOBS-PLUS Community Revitalization MDRC
Initiative for Public Housing.
LEAP Evaluation........................... MDRC
Minnesota's Family Investment Program MDRC
(MFIP) Evaluation.
Monitoring States' Welfare Reforms........ GAO
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work MDRC
Strategies (formerly JOBS).
New Hope Project.......................... MDRC
New York Child Assistance Program (NYCAP) Abt
Evaluation.
Parents' Fair Share Demonstration......... MDRC
Postemployment Services Demonstration..... Mathematica
Project on Devolution and Urban Change.... MDRC
State Policy Documentation Project........ CBPP
Substance Abuse, Economic Self- CASA
Sufficiency, and Welfare Reform.
To Strengthen Michigan's Families (TSMF) Abt
Evaluation.
Vermont Welfare Restructuring Project MDRC
Evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Grants to NCCP in Past 2 Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Title Project Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$100,000........................ Child Care Research 9/30/95 - 9/29/96
Partnership.
$100,000........................ Child Care Research 9/30/96 - 9/29/97
Partnership.
$136,000........................ Child Care Research 9/30/97 - 9/29/98
Partnership.
$200,000........................ Child Care Research 9/30/97 - 9/29/98
Partnership
Affecting Welfare
Recipients & Low
Income Working
Families.
$35,000......................... Process Evaluation 10/1/97 - 9/30/98
Pronect (thru
University of
Wisconsin).
$103,000........................ State Welfare 8/1/96 - 7/31/97
Reform
Demonstrations and
Infant & Toddler
Care (thru
Teacher's College).
$13,000......................... Child Health and 9/30/97 - 9/29/98
Development
Programs in the
Context of Welfare
Reform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCrery [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Blum.
Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Well, simply to say thank you very much. This is
a wonderful note upon which to end this hearing. The belief
that knowledge counts is critical. I think all of you have
suggested to us and everybody that before we reach final
conclusions, we should have as many facts as we can.
I'm glad we provided the money for these programs. I'm glad
there's a lot of private research going on. And, the more the
better, because this effort is worthy of it.
I have been somewhat discouraged to ask some questions,
since your testimony has suggested that we had better ask a lot
of questions as these programs continue to unfold.
Thanks.
Mr. McCrery. Mr. Matsui.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. McCrery.
Ms. Blum, 50 different States now have programs. And in
California, some counties have a lot of flexibility. What are
we really looking at? When we had, obviously, the Family
Support Act of 1988, which is actually a work first program as
well, but some people may not have read it, we had one program.
And we were able to collect data, we were able to analyze it.
Obviously, there were some flaws in it. I thought in terms
of the fund for the work program, we shouldn't have had such a
tough match for States, particularly when they were in a
recession.
Ms. Blum. Right.
Mr. Matsui. They never really got to it until about 1994. I
think once they started getting to it, that's when we started
seeing progress, and that's why in 1996, we started to see some
progress on it.
Nevertheless, it's over. It's gone. How are we going to
collect the data and how are we going to analyze these
different programs? And I'll ask you this, also, Dr. Rolston.
Because you've got so many programs now, how do you say, this
is working. Because there is so much flexibility with various
States and various counties, like in California. Perhaps you
can help us with this.
Ultimately, we're going to need, 1 year from now or 2 years
from now, an evaluation. And my State may work well, some other
State may not work well. Maybe my State won't work well, but
maybe New York will.
How do we evaluate it?
Ms. Blum. You and I certainly agree on the Family Support
Act, entirely.
Mr. Matsui. Exactly.
Ms. Blum. However, in answer to your question, I think my
written testimony highlights the difficulty that you are
suggesting. We are going to have to take our evaluations down
to the local level. I think that can be good, because we'll
really understand community effects.
I was in your State about 3 weeks ago, and heard about
Fresno County, where there are 660,000 people in the county,
220,000 on the rolls, with an agricultural economy. Now, we
have to understand that that county is going to operate very
differently from an urban area. And I think the research
community is hard at work now, trying to understand how to move
their work down to the community level. I also think
administrative data become extraordinarily important.
But we also can look at measures, child poverty measures
will tell us a story, wage levels at the local level will tell
us a story. We have to start thinking, it seems to me, very
differently. And of course, Dick Nathan has been thinking about
this for a long, long time.
Mr. Matsui. Maybe I can ask you, Dr. Rolston. How are you,
I'm assuming you're in charge of collecting the data and coming
up with some conclusions on this, is that my understanding?
Yes. Well, that's good. I'm glad we have somebody in charge at
HHS who's going to be held responsible and accountable. Maybe
you don't want to have that word, but at least accountable for
the collection of data, so 2 years from now, when we sit down
with you or you appear before us, we're going to be able to
say, is it working, and you're going to be able to give us hard
evidence that it is or isn't working, or these are changes that
could be made.
Now, tell me how, what's your methodology? It certainly is
not going to go to some welfare office and say, geez,
everybody's really excited, they wake up in the morning, look
in the mirror and say, I want to go to work. That's not what
we're talking about. We're talking about data.
How are you going to do this?
Mr. Rolston. I guess the reason I don't actually say I'm in
charge of it is because, I think it's like many other areas.
There's no single person in charge of it. As Barbara described,
there are a lot of people who have to do this. There isn't
going to be a single study that's going to answer the question.
There's going to have to be a multiplicity of studies that
answer a variety of questions. I think some of it's going to be
triangulation of a lot of different approaches.
I mean----
Mr. Matsui. Triangulation? I don't understand that. I don't
even understand that from Dick Morris.
Mr. Rolston. This is a very significant piece of social
legislation, and I don't think there is a way to do a single
study that will in any definitive way answer what is the effect
of welfare reform in Omaha versus Los Angeles versus some place
else.
At the same time, I do think there are tremendous
opportunities. One of our best methods of learning, we've
learned over the last 20 years, is through experiments. A
number of people have alluded to them.
Mr. Matsui. But I think what Ms. Blum is saying, though, is
that, you see, this is just the problem. In a way it's kind of
clever, and I know you're not suggesting it's clever, but it's
very clever. Because you can't hold anybody accountable any
more.
Mr. Rolston. Well, no, I----
Mr. Matsui. Well, no, no, because now it's at the local
level. So it's a supervisor or it's a city council member or
it's the mayor.
How do we do this? Ms. Blum is talking about poverty rates.
Is that a major factor?
Mr. Rolston. Yes, I think----
Mr. Matsui. Because poverty hasn't gone down. So we're
saying all wonderful things about this bill, but childhood
poverty hasn't gone down. So how could we say it's wonderful if
that's not the case?
Mr. Rolston. Well, first of all, child poverty hasn't been
measured after TANF. The latest data are from a prior period.
Mr. Matsui. We only have some anecdotal information. But
the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which I think most
people feel is pretty objective, has said childhood poverty may
have gone up a little bit.
Mr. Rolston. But that's through 1996, it's not----
Mr. Matsui. I understand that. I understand that. You're
right.
Mr. Rolston. But I'm certainly not at all trying to absolve
myself or others from responsibility. I think we all have
important----
Mr. Matsui. I'm not suggesting you are.
Mr. Rolston [continuing]. Responsibilities to learn this.
I'm saying----
Mr. Matsui. I'm not suggesting you are. I'm just saying the
bill maybe lent itself to that.
Mr. Rolston. I think we're doing a number of studies that
will tell us a lot about which different kinds of policies are
effective, what the effects are on employment, on earnings----
Mr. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Rolston [continuing]. On child poverty and other
things.
Mr. Matsui. How does that help us, how does that help us as
policymakers, though? If the program is working in Fresno but
not in San Francisco, what will that tell us? I mean, how do we
deal with that nationally?
Mr. Rolston. Well, I think it will be partly from the
perspective of understanding the effects in various places of
different kinds of policies, understanding how widespread those
policies are. Certainly, studies like the data collection the
Census is doing also can be very helpful in understanding these
things.
It will produce a data base that researchers will be able
to use, but it won't produce a definitive answer.
I think to come up with an analogy, if we dramatically
change the way that we financed highways, for example, you
wouldn't learn about the effects of that from one study. You'd
learn about it by studying a lot of different things in a lot
of different places and then trying to pull it together.
Mr. Matsui. And that's why we have a national highway
program, because it's so difficult to analyze unless you have a
national program. But we don't now. I mean, we have a different
program for the highway system, which is a national program,
than we do for children. I guess what I'm saying, and I know my
time is running out, what we really need from you is a road
map.
I'd like to sit down with you maybe and find out, what are
the criteria you're going to use to talk about the success or
failure of this program once you collect your data 3 years from
now, so that we can sit down and compare that with, whenever we
meet or whenever you provide that information to us or me, and
we can say, you're right, this program really is working well.
And then I can say, I made a mistake. But if it's not--see,
we need criteria. And we can't do the criteria after we collect
all the data and say, well, this is the way we want to analyze
this to make it fit our preconceived belief. Are you doing that
now? Is that the kind of work you're doing to try to give us
some idea of whether this thing will be successful or not?
Mr. Rolston. We're trying to do a number of different
things. What concerns me about what you're asking is that you
expect that a single study from a design----
Mr. Matsui. No.
Mr. Rolston [continuing]. That we could say, these are the
values and if these are the successes----
Mr. Matsui. You know, you were here--
Mr. Rolston [continuing]. And I don't think it will--
Mr. Matsui [continuing]. You were here when we questioned
Dr. Golden. The only thing I'm asking right now at this moment
is that, if you have some data to say this is a wonderful
program, produce it. If you don't, then you shouldn't be
talking about what a wonderful program this is. And I don't
think we can say that right now. I can't say it's a bad
program, because I don't have data to back that up. And you
don't have enough data to say it's a good program.
What we need to do is take a deep breath and step back and
let time work its will. And you need to collect data and try to
come up with the criteria. Because I'm telling you that nothing
has changed over the last 3 years from my perspective in terms
of what I consider the potential problems of this bill to be.
If we hit a recession, it's going to be pretty cataclysmic
for a lot of communities and a lot of--this is my opinion. Now,
maybe I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I need the data when you
collect it to tell me I'm wrong, that these time limits really
won't have the adverse effect that I felt it should or would
when I went before the House and gave my statement. That's all
I'm saying.
Mr. Rolston. We would certainly be glad to sit down with
you and talk to you about the kinds of measures that we think
are important in terms of assessing and the kinds of things----
Mr. Matsui. But what, let me ask you this, because you've
been doing a lot of work on it. Is childhood poverty, is the
poverty rate for children a significant factor in this, the
national rate? Is it significant?
Mr. Rolston. I think it's a significant factor.
Mr. Matsui. OK, and so that would be one of your criteria.
Mr. Rolston. I think the child poverty rate is one of the
things that a lot of people will measure by. I think there will
be differing views, and it will be complicated to figure out
what the bill contributed to, for a lot of the reasons that
people have, you yourself have----
Mr. Matsui. Like the economy right now, right? You can't
compare 1982 with 1998.
Mr. Rolston. Right, but scientists can work with data to
try to parse out those factors.
Mr. Matsui. I really appreciate this, and thank you.
Mr. McCrery. Mr. Coyne.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nathan, based on your research to date, what impact is
the ``work first'' strategy being pursued by most States having
on the kinds of jobs former welfare recipients get? In other
words, what kind of impact has that switch made, that is, the
work first concept?
Mr. Nathan. Mr. Coyne, I appreciate the question. And I
think the job this panel has, which is a complicated one, is to
try to give a good sense of what we can know and when we can
know it and how we can link up different studies. And our study
is on institutions, using people in 21 States, college
professors primarily, to look at how administrative systems are
changing.
We are analyzing that data now. As I highlighted in my
chart, these are early findings from 21 States, which includes
most of the big States in this data set.
I would say, in interpreting the data at this stage, that
the time limit and the signaling is being changed as welfare
caseworkers have said. I find I learn a lot by talking to the
caseworkers, now called case managers, asking questions such
as, What are you doing?
The signaling is different. The work-first emphasis of this
law, which is stronger than it's been before, is saying work,
immediate attachment to the labor force is the emphasis. You'd
better get to it, because you have only so much time, unless
you're in the 20-percent exemption group. Lots of States are
using maintenance-of-effort money and the 20-percent exemption
in ways that are important in our institutional research.
But I do think that even economists--I'm a political
scientist, but even to economists, Lord Keynes said this--
signals matter. The way an economy signals to people, the way
businesses, the way government signals to people influences
behavior. I believe that this law is having surprisingly big
signaling effects which we're already beginning to pick up in
our research, bigger than a lot of people expected.
Mr. Coyne. OK, well, that's fine. The concept will be work
first, but can we expect from that that if they go to work and
don't get additional training and education, that they'll
really get the good jobs, the jobs that would pay a living
wage, and in addition to that, enough money to pay for health
care benefits?
Mr. Nathan. Well, I hope our research will, as Howard
Rolston said, give you information to pass judgment on. There
is a lot more to be said on your question, which is a very good
one, where the previous panel, which I thought was an excellent
panel, talked about how programs are now looking at upgrading
and job retention and using the TANF money in ways that provide
quite concentrated service packages designed to help people
make it and stay in and move up in the labor market.
Now, we hope in our research over the next 3 years to be
able to tell you more about that. Because that's a big issue,
as to whether the strategy of just putting people to work is
enough. I hope our research and the research on institutional
change and administrative behavior will give you the kind of
information you should have to decide whether this work-first
signal is too harsh. Many people say it isn't. Indeed, that may
be what people conclude.
But our job, as this panel has said, and we're
institutional, administrative researchers, is to give you good,
clear, honest, and impartial information to decide whether the
signaling is too strong or whether it's helpful. And I can tell
you what my opinion is, but I'd much rather work through our
research and have the research enable people to reach their own
conclusions.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
Mr. McCrery. Mr. Matsui.
Mr. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rolston, I just want to make sure, so I have a clear
understanding of this, HHS is the lead agency in the collection
of data and trying to put together the analysis of the success
of this program. I remember when Secretary Shalala appeared
before the full Ways and Means Committee, I believe it was last
year sometime.
And I asked her, I said, do you have the capability, the
wherewithal, the staffing, to collect the data, so we can find
out if this program worked or didn't work, or was kind of in a
gray area when it's fully implemented and after we've had a lot
of information. And she said certainly, or something to that
effect.
Now, are you the individual that we're to look to for this
information, or is it HHS or tell me who it is. Because I want
to be able to really hold that person accountable 3 years from
now or 2 years or 6 months from now as this thing develops. Is
that you?
Mr. Rolston. Well, I work for Olivia Golden, there are also
other parts of the Department involved in this, like the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. So I'm
certainly not responsible for all of it. I'm not trying to duck
this----
Mr. Matsui. Who is? Who is? Give me----
Mr. Rolston. The Secretary, I guess, is.
Mr. Matsui. The Secretary is? Wait 1 minute. Come on. Who
at the staffing level, who's going to collect the data?
Mr. Rolston. Me and others. I'm just telling you, I'm not--
--
Mr. Matsui. You and others. Who else? Can you give me three
or four other people that have your stature in the Department--
I want all three of you, I want all four of you.
Mr. Rolston. Pat Ruggles, Deputy----
Mr. Matsui. Are you the lead on this? You're the one who is
going to be coordinating this?
Mr. Rolston. I would say we work together, her office and
my office and other offices----
Mr. Matsui. No, look, you'll have to excuse me for
interrupting you, but I just want to know who is going to be in
charge of this when it's all said and done. Because this, to
me, this is the ball game. This is very, very important. I need
to know, to my satisfaction, on behalf of my constituents, and
probably the 32 million people of the State of California, with
Pete Stark, and others, who are concerned about this, how we're
going to make sure this program works, and if it doesn't, what
adjustments we're going to make.
And how we're going to be able to really deal with the
whole issue of getting people from welfare to work. Now, I want
to know who's going to be responsible for making sure that that
data are available to us. Now, it was August 1996 when that
bill passed. We're 2 years, almost 2 years beyond that now.
Who in the Department is in charge of what I just
suggested, or what I just requested?
Mr. Rolston. Mr. Matsui, I'm doing the best I can to
answer. I certainly feel a great responsibility. But for
example, in the last appropriation bill, the Congress
appropriated $5 million to look at people who are leaving
welfare. That's certainly a very important investment in a very
important question.
Mr. Matsui. Is that you?
Mr. Rolston. No.
Mr. Matsui. Well, who is it? Come on, give me a break.
Mr. Rolston. Patricia Ruggles--I'm sorry, I can't give
you----
Mr. Matsui. Well, can I make a suggestion? I'm going
circular right now, so will you do me a favor? Maybe you ought
to discuss this in your interdepartmental discussions,
interagency, if it even gets to the White House, and find out
who's going to be in charge. When we have a trade bill,
somebody is in charge, right? When we have a health care bill,
somebody is in charge.
Why can't we do it for children? Why can't we do it for
this issue? Can we do it for this issue?
Mr. Rolston. I can only tell you that I am not responsible
for the entire activity. I'm responsible for part of it that--
--
Mr. Matsui. OK, I won't go any further, but will you do me
a favor? Will you bring that up with whomever your boss is and
then see if we can get this kind of data? Because I'm afraid 1
year from now we're going to have this same discussion and
nobody's going to be held accountable for it. And then we're
going to say, oh, well.
Mr. Rolston. I can just say, we feel a deep sense of
accountability for----
Mr. Matsui. Then find somebody.
Mr. Rolston. Nobody is passing the buck here. I feel
accountable----
Mr. Matsui. The only way government works, the only way
government works is if somebody is in charge, OK? Thank you.
Mr. McCrery. Dr. Rolston, is your department working with a
specific authorization of money from the Congress under the
welfare bill that was passed?
Mr. Rolston. Yes.
Mr. McCrery. You're getting money specifically for that?
Mr. Rolston. There was money that was in the bill. The
Congress has elected to appropriate it through another
mechanism, but it comes essentially from what was included in
TANF.
Mr. McCrery. And it's specifically for research?
Mr. Rolston. Research and evaluation on a broad variety of
topics, most of which have been mentioned today.
Mr. McCrery. And Dr. Weinberg, is that true, too, for the
Census Bureau?
Mr. Weinberg. The money for the Survey of Program Dynamics
was appropriated in the welfare reform legislation directly,
yes.
Mr. McCrery. And in your opinion, is it a good idea for us
to specifically appropriate money for research and evaluation
by the Census Bureau?
Mr. Weinberg. That's really beyond my pay grade. I really--
--[Laughter.]
Mr. McCrery. Well, it's not beyond your pay grade. I mean,
you're----
Mr. Weinberg. The proper way for Congress to appropriate
money is really up to Congress. That's all.
I appreciate getting an extra $10 million, but whether
that's the right way to do it is really up to you to decide.
Mr. McCrery. Well, I appreciate your deference to our
authority. However, we cannot make informed decisions unless we
have the opinion of folks like you, and that's what I'm asking
for, is your opinion as to whether this is money well spent. If
it's not, we can take it back.
Mr. Weinberg. No, I think it definitely is money well
spent.
Mr. McCrery. That's all I wanted to know.
Mr. Weinberg. It leverages money that was already spent in
ways that make this a very productive investment.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Nathan, I'm told, I wasn't here for your
testimony, but I'm told that you wanted to discuss postprogram
data a little more indepth, and I'm willing to give you a
couple of minutes to do that if you'd like.
Mr. Nathan. I very much appreciate that. What I want to say
about that, and as I listened this morning to Assistant
Secretary Golden and to the two previous panels, I'm struck by
the fact that many States are doing studies like the Maryland
study, which the Chairman mentioned this morning, where State
governments are providing data and money to researchers to see
what happens to people who exit from welfare or from TANF
systems.
I was in Mississippi doing our research the week before
last. Millsaps College in Mississippi has money from the State
and data from the State to study what happens to people who
exit from their TANF work program. In fact, it's very
interesting, because the agency people, and often we don't
think in this way, although Barbara Blum does, that people in
human service agencies care a lot about keeping their business
going. They're a little worried that as the rolls go down,
they're not going to keep their work force and keep their
rolls.
So in many States, what I'm----
Mr. McCrery. A shocking revelation.
Mr. Nathan [continuing]. Finding is that State agencies and
State workers are very concerned to find out what's happening
to people, why they're leaving. Do they already have income, do
they get jobs, what is happening to them? I have a temporary
assignment now at the General Accounting Office. What GAO is
going to do, and we were talking about this earlier with Howard
Rolston and others, is gather data from all the States that are
doing these kinds of studies. Many of them are well-designed
studies of postprogram conditions, of people who exit from the
TANF assistance systems.
I am going to use our network in 21 States to the fullest
extent we can to find out what kind of data will be available
to you, to your Subcommittee, and to the people who are
interested. I'm delighted that this Subcommittee is interested
to have a panel on research, and what we can learn, and how we
can help you think about what's happening under this law and
what that means in terms of how you might want to change it or
view it in the future.
Mr. McCrery. Thank you very much.
I appreciate all of you coming today and giving us the
benefit of your experience and your opinions and your research.
The reason that we included money in the bill specifically
for research is so that we policymakers might be better
informed as to the results of our policies. We who fashioned
the welfare reform bill did it for the purpose of trying to
better our society, and to better the lot of those who had been
on our, some of our welfare programs for long periods of time.
And we didn't see that they were making much progress.
We hope this is a better way. We don't know that. And I'll
be the first to admit that. This is an experiment. And we have
lots of experiments going on at local levels and State levels.
I happen to think that's good, not bad. Because we can learn
from those experiments.
I have faith in the local, and I know there are two
examples of Sacramento and somewhere else in California.
I have faith in that local organization. So if they're
failing, they'll look toward San Francisco that's succeeding,
and maybe adopt some of the things they're doing. I don't know.
But that was part of the whole thinking that we were going to
expand the number of experiments around the country, so that we
might learn from those.
But certainly, in my view, and I think as illustrated by
the testimony today, we don't have enough data yet. We don't
have enough experience with this new approach yet to draw any
conclusions. So I'm pleased to hear that there is research
going on by, in a number of different quarters, public and
private, and we look forward to hearing from all of you and
others in the future, when we perhaps can draw some more
conclusions.
Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]