[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     HEARING ON WELFARE IS BROKEN:
                  RESTORING WORK REQUIREMENTS TO LIFT
                        AMERICANS OUT OF POVERTY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORK AND WELFARE

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-8

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               ________
                               

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-241                     WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                    JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas               DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
DREW FERGUSON, Georgia               LINDA SANCHEZ, California
RON ESTES, Kansas                    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma                 SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia          JUDY CHU, California
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee             DAN KILDEE, Michigan
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania      DON BEYER, Virginia
GREG STEUBE, Florida                 DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JIMMY PANETTA, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah
MICHELLE STEEL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
                       Mark Roman, Staff Director
                 Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
                                 ------                                

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORK AND WELFARE

                    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois, Chairman
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     JUDY CHU, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah                    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
MICHELLE STEEL, California           DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Darin LaHood, Illinois, Chairman............................     1
Hon. Danny Davis, Illinois, Ranking Member.......................     3
Advisory of March 29, 2023 announcing the hearing................     V

                               WITNESSES

Grant Collins, Senior Vice President for Workforce Development, 
  Fedcap Group...................................................     5
Shakirah Francis, Employment Services Social Work Supervisor, 
  Department of Social Services Employment Services Division, 
  Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.............................    10
Heather Reynolds, Managing Director, Lab for Economic 
  Opportunities at the University of Notre Dame..................    17
Jacob Maas, Chief Executive Officer, West Michigan Works!........    24
Victoria Gray, Phoenix, Arizona..................................    30

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Public Submissions...............................................    93

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	


 
                   WELFARE IS BROKEN: RESTORING WORK
                     REQUIREMENTS TO LIFT AMERICANS
                             OUT OF POVERTY

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Work and Welfare,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in 
Room 2020 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darin 
LaHood [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Well, good afternoon, everybody. I am 
Congressman Darin LaHood. I want to welcome everybody to our 
subcommittee hearing today in the Sam Johnson Room, our first 
subcommittee hearing for our subcommittee, Work and Welfare. 
And our title of our hearing today is ``Welfare is Broken: 
Restoring Work Requirements to Lift Americans Out of Poverty.''
    And so I want to thank everybody for being here today. I 
have an opening statement that I am going to give, and then I 
will turn it over to the ranking member, Mr. Davis, and then I 
will have our full committee chairman, Mr. Smith, he will have 
a statement, and then we will introduce our witnesses.
    Well, good afternoon and welcome. I want to thank everyone 
for joining us today on this important hearing on how we can 
restore work requirements to lift more Americans out of 
poverty.
    I currently represent the 16th district of Illinois, which 
covers the central and northwestern part of our state. As 
chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee, I am proud of 
this committee's longstanding leadership and multi-year efforts 
to pass constructive and responsible welfare reform. This 
subcommittee has consistently enacted policies that reduce 
poverty by helping families achieve self-sufficiency through 
the dignity and value of work.
    As we all remember, the 1996 Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act, 
signed by President Bill Clinton with the help of a Republican 
Congress at the time, converted our nation's welfare system 
from an open-ended entitlement which caused rising welfare 
caseloads, long durations in poverty, and rising single 
parenthood into a--into the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families, also known as TANF, which provides fixed funding to 
states and, for the first time, required work in exchange for 
benefits.
    The primary goal of the TANF program is to assist families 
in need with a hand up, providing a safety net of government 
assistance to find work and pull themselves out of poverty. 
Since passage of the 1996 reform bill, welfare caseloads have 
dropped over 80 percent--and that is a good thing--as families 
moved into the workforce and left the cycle of dependency. The 
benefits of the 1996 bipartisan welfare reform have persisted 
decades after its passage, with children today half as likely 
to grow up below the poverty threshold.
    Not only that, but among single-parent families, deep 
poverty fell from around five percent before the reform to less 
than one percent today. Despite these gains, over the years 
work requirements in TANF have fallen flat because current law 
includes many loopholes that have been exploited by a number of 
states across the country.
    Likewise, Federal rules on what counts and does not count 
towards the Federal work participation rate can create 
obstacles for moving some individuals into the workforce. Even 
though we know a job is the best way out of poverty, this has 
led to thousands of TANF recipients having zero hours of 
``engaged in work'' reported to the Department of Health and 
Human Services. In fact, 57 percent of the work-eligible 
individuals on TANF recorded 0 hours of work in 2021.
    Ways and Means Republicans have dedicated--are dedicated to 
ensuring that there is accountability for Federal taxpayer 
dollars across programs, and that states are not able to game 
the system and avoid engaging their current TANF caseloads in 
opportunities for work. We want to find solutions to help 
states, localities, and caseworkers effectively work with low-
income families to remove barriers and support self-sufficiency 
by equipping them with the skills they need to be successful in 
the labor market.
    The timing of this hearing and strengthening TANF work 
requirements could not be better. Today there are nearly 11 
million open jobs across the country, or 1.7 for every worker. 
Our country's employers and small businesses are clamoring for 
workers to fill these roles. Despite a growing economy and 
workforce participation rate, our workforce participation rate 
is currently 62.5 percent, still below the pre-pandemic level.
    Programs that lack work requirements, such as the temporary 
work-free cash payments Democrats provided through the Expanded 
Child Tax Credit last year do nothing to address the underlying 
problems, and may be holding a family back from success. We 
cannot have a safety net system that incentivizes government 
dependency by paying people more not to work.
    I am proud that we have the--I am proud that we have a 
support system in place, but it should be a trampoline, not a 
generational poverty trap. Ways and Means Republicans are 
dedicated to helping individuals on the sidelines move into the 
workforce and attain their full potential. We must reform TANF 
to uplift recipients to a path of self-sufficiency and bolster 
our workforce. We cannot afford to relegate an entire 
generation of workers to the sidelines.
    I sincerely hope that we can work together in a bipartisan 
way, similar to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, on improving the 
TANF program to restore the focus on the work participation--
work preparation activities, training, support services, and 
case management that it takes to meaningfully lift Americans 
out of poverty in a sustained way. This can and should be a 
bipartisan effort.
    I am honored to have our guests here today to share their 
perspectives and expertise on TANF and moving individuals into 
our workforce and out of poverty.
    Chairman LaHOOD. With that, I am pleased at this time to 
recognize my colleague from our home state of Illinois, Ranking 
Member Danny Davis, for his opening statement.
    Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman. And let me add my words of welcome to our witnesses. 
It is indeed a pleasure to serve on this committee with you and 
provide part of the leadership. So, I am certain that we are 
going to have a very productive period of time.
    The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program is a 
program for families with children. Two-thirds of TANF 
recipients are children, and nearly 70 percent of them are 
under age 12. Over one-third of TANF children are infants, 
toddlers, and preschoolers. The primary goal of TANF should be 
to reduce adversity for poor children by providing stability 
and support for their families.
    Instead of focusing on how to help children, today's 
hearing topic seems to blame parents, grandparents, and other 
caregivers for their poverty, and suggests that the solution is 
work requirements. There are many ways we could strengthen 
TANF, but placing more burdens and blame on parents, 
grandparents, and caregivers is not one of them.
    TANF fails to help the vast majority of poor families. Only 
about 1 million families receive TANF income support, and the 
average monthly benefit in 2021 was $517, with 14 states paying 
an average of $300 or less.
    Most families receive child-only TANF. That is an even more 
paltry sum. This meager support is shameful, given the clear 
evidence that living in poverty causes both short and long-term 
health problems for children, damaging their futures, and also 
leading to unexpected and costly doctor visits that undermine 
work for their parents, especially for low-level entry jobs.
    TANF fails families by imposing crushing administrative 
burdens designed to kick them off under the guise of 
accountability. In fiscal year 2021 the single most common 
reason for TANF case closing was failure to comply with 
administrative requirements. It was a missed meeting, a late 
report, or a missed signature, not refusal to work.
    TANF fails to remove the barriers faced by millions of 
family caregivers. Nearly one-fourth of children currently 
receiving TANF assistance are raised by grandparents. For these 
families, TANF benefits, however small, can be a lifeline, 
maybe enough to avoid selling their home or draining their 
retirement savings.
    In Chair LaHood's and my state of Illinois, an estimated 
75,000 families with young children are headed by grandparents. 
But most grandparents-headed families do not receive TANF, 
despite dire financial need. I hope that we can work together 
to make it easier, not harder, for kinship families to get help 
from TANF.
    TANF fails to invest in career pathways, and in the last 
Congress my Republican colleagues opposed our efforts to 
continue the evidence-based Career Pathway Health Profession 
Opportunity Grant Program. Witness after witness, both 
Republican and Democratic, has stressed the critical importance 
of improving educational opportunities for TANF recipients, so 
that they can access higher-caliber, good-paying jobs. But when 
this committee had a chance to do it, many of my colleagues 
said no.
    If our goal is to address the worker shortage, our peer 
countries have demonstrated that guaranteed childcare and paid 
family and medical leave substantially increased workforce 
participation among women. Parents and grandparents that need 
help from TANF don't need more penalties, requirements, and 
paperwork; they need childcare. They need a safe place to live, 
food to eat, reliable transportation, good education, and 
health care. If we want to support work, that is where we need 
to start.
    Every American relies on the Federal Government for help 
sometimes. These investments benefit us all. They can make us 
the country we want to be, lifting the burdens from vulnerable 
families so that children can thrive.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Davis. At this time I am 
very pleased to have our full committee chairman here, Chairman 
Jason Smith, for an opening statement.
    Chairman SMITH. Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, it 
is a pleasure to join you for the first hearing of the Work and 
Welfare Subcommittee in the 118th Congress. This is a first 
step in ensuring that welfare programs work for America's 
families by helping lift them out of poverty and instead of 
keeping them trapped.
    I know the reality faced by working-class families in 
America because I have lived it. My grandparents never had 
running water. I grew up with my family living in a single-wide 
trailer, and then we upgraded to a double-wide when I was in 
high school. My father was a preacher and an auto mechanic. And 
my mother, she went to work in a factory just so she could 
provide health insurance for our family.
    Families like the one I grew up in and millions of others 
across America, they do the best they can to stretch every 
dollar to make ends meet. Millions of families go through rough 
patches through no fault of their own, and they need help. And 
when done correctly, welfare can be the bridge to build a 
better life for families who are struggling.
    No one's dream is to spend their lives on government 
assistance. Parents want to have the opportunity to provide for 
their families, put food on the table, clothes on their kids' 
backs, and a roof over their heads. If we don't get welfare 
right, then we run the risk of trapping people in a 
generational cycle of poverty that makes a government check 
more valuable than a job, and robs them from the dignity of 
work.
    We already see what happens when people are discouraged 
from working. In our country, labor force participation still 
hasn't caught up to where it was before COVID. There are nearly 
two jobs currently available for every worker. The simple fact 
is that work provides people a lifeline and a purpose. It 
connects them to their communities and rewards achievement. The 
bipartisan welfare reform of 1996 vindicated that approach. As 
child poverty fell and caseloads were reduced, welfare was a 
stepping stone for families, not a dead end.
    Today the welfare system needs modernization. According to 
the Foundation for Government Accountability, even before the 
COVID-19 pandemic, only about 3 million of the roughly 48.5 
million able-bodied adults who received Medicaid, TANF, food 
stamps, public housing, or child care benefits were subject to 
any work requirement.
    In 2021, the vast majority of states had a 0 percent--a 0 
percent--work participation requirement for TANF, meaning many 
states are not being held accountable for maximizing the number 
of individuals on their caseloads who are engaged in work.
    Government policies have too often encouraged Americans not 
to work, resulting in increased dependency and millions of 
unfilled jobs. We should be exploring every possibility to get 
our fellow Americans back into the labor force, including 
strengthening work requirements across all government programs. 
I hope this can be the area where Congress can come together 
and ensure that our welfare policies will work for a new 
generation.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Chairman Smith. We will now 
introduce our witnesses here today. I will start from my left 
and go right.
    Our first witness is Mr. Grant Collins, who is the senior 
vice president for workforce development at the Fedcap Group.
    Next, we will have Shakirah Francis, and Shakirah is the 
employment services social worker supervisor for the 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Department of Social 
Services Employment Services Division.
    Thirdly, we will hear from Ms. Heather Reynolds from South 
Bend, Indiana. She is the managing director at the Lab for 
Economic Opportunities at the University of Notre Dame.
    Next, we will hear from Jacob Maas from Grand Rapids, 
Michigan, and he is the chief executive officer at West 
Michigan Works.
    And lastly, we will hear from Ms. Victoria Gray of Arizona, 
and she is a loving grandmother of 7 grandchildren and 41 
foster children.
    Welcome to you all.
    With that, Mr. Collins, you are recognized for five minutes 
to deliver your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF GRANT COLLINS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR WORKFORCE 
         DEVELOPMENT, FEDCAP GROUP, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

    Mr. COLLINS. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Chairman 
LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on restoring 
the work requirement to lift Americans out of poverty.
    I lead on workforce development for the Fedcap Group, a 
company dedicated to improving the economic well-being of those 
with barriers to work. I am pleased to be here today, as I wish 
to offer a few insights from my current role and my former role 
as deputy director of the Office of Family Assistance, the 
Federal agency that oversees the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families Program. It was our office that drafted the TANF 
regulations as a result of the passage of the Deficit Reduction 
Act of 2005.
    In particular, I am here to outline some of the current 
loopholes that impact the program, to provide some insights 
regarding the approaches we took in 2005 to strengthen TANF, 
and to share some recommendations.
    States must keep at least 50 percent of adults 
participating in activities like employment, job search, or 
vocational training. States receive credit toward meeting the 
50 percent work rate if they reduce caseloads over time. For 
example, if a state had a caseload of 10,000 in 1997 and 
reduced it by 5,000 by 2002, its 2003 work participation 
requirement would have been 0.
    Currently, states have utilized a few ways to meet the work 
requirement that do little to further the objectives of the 
TANF program. Some states move selected cases from TANF into 
solely state-funded programs which are not subject to TANF 
rules, and states increase their rates by adding already-
working families, by adding small amounts of TANF cash 
assistance to their case so that they can count.
    While these practices are allowable, they fail to address 
those with real barriers in need for assistance. In fiscal year 
2021, 57 percent of TANF cases had 0 hours in any work activity 
for the entire year.
    Another key provision of welfare reform is what is called 
Maintenance of Effort, or MOE requirements. MOE makes sure that 
states continue to invest their own money in the program. While 
the Federal Government provides actual cash, currently many 
more states use eligible TANF expenditures to meet MOE 
requirements rather than actual spending on TANF work 
activities and supports.
    For example, a state might decide to provide a scholarship 
fund for low-income families out of their education department. 
That expenditure may then qualify as state MOE if it is 
reported as meeting a TANF purpose, even though the 
scholarships may not go to TANF recipients.
    While this practice is allowable, if overused it weakens 
the Federal-state partnership, as states have little skin in 
the game when it comes to moving more of the caseload into 
activities that lead to sustainable employment.
    These are only some of the ways around these requirements. 
It is important to address the full array of current work and 
MOE requirement loopholes if the goal is to move more to work.
    The Bush reforms sought to strengthen the work requirement 
and the Federal-state partnership. The DRA defined work 
activities, required work activities to be supervised, and 
required states address their internal controls via a work 
verification plan. Specifically, we recalibrated the base year 
for the caseload reduction credit from 1996 to 2005. Work 
requirements can be strengthened by recalibrating the base year 
for the credit on a biannual basis.
    Defining work activities to include evidence-based 
parenting, education, pre-apprenticeships, and apprenticeships 
can help more families be ready for jobs in the new economy.
    A new high-performance bonus focused on outcomes such as 
job entry, job retention, and earnings increases could provide 
the impetus for states to continue to work with those who are 
employed to further improve their economic mobility.
    Overall, states should be applauded for their efforts at 
getting people into work. Under new reforms, our nation's 
social safety net can become the economic trampoline for 
thousands of Americans who can succeed in work and exit 
poverty.
    Thank you, Chairman Smith, Chairman LaHood, and Ranking 
Member Davis for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
answering any questions you might have.
    [The statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Collins. We will turn now 
to Ms. Francis.

STATEMENT OF SHAKIRAH FRANCIS, EMPLOYMENT SERVICES SOCIAL WORK 
 SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 
          DIVISION, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

    Ms. FRANCIS. Good afternoon, Committee Chairman Smith, 
Subcommittee Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, and members 
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
testimony on the current Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
Program from my perspective as a social work supervisor in 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
    In my current role I manage a team of social workers with 
active caseloads. I am also responsible for reviewing, 
analyzing, and implementing current TANF processes. My remarks 
today will describe our engagement approach, measurement 
challenges, and observations based on my frontline and 
supervisory experience.
    The Mecklenburg County Department of Community Resources, 
through the Workforce Employment Services Program, provides 
social work services to eligible participants of the TANF 
program. Our county is in one of the nine states that delegates 
TANF administration, including maintenance of effort 
requirements, to counties. Our services include removing 
barriers to employment, which include assisting with referrals 
and connection to community resources such as housing, 
behavioral and physical health, substance use, food, 
transportation, child care, and other daily needs.
    Each participant is engaged in an initial assessment in 
which a personal information form is used to gather pertinent 
information regarding the customer's family, educational, 
health, and employment background. A mutual responsibility 
agreement is completed with participants that indicates 
activities the participant is required to complete to achieve--
to receive their monthly benefits, and the actions the social 
worker will take to assist the customer in reaching their full 
potential in the program. The agreement outlines the required 
hours the participant must complete each month, which 
correlates with the required monthly rate. The agreement also 
specifically spells out the hours required each week, along 
with the participant's assigned component.
    The workforce program currently uses a participation rate 
to measure the success of participants. The workforce customer 
must participate in a set number of core components, including 
independent job search, job readiness classes, vocational 
training, work experience, and other activities regulated 
through state and Federal guidelines.
    However, measuring our participants' performance by the 
number of hours completed only provides data for half the 
story. Focusing on the rate as the only means of measurement 
for success within the workforce program removes the human 
aspect of the program. Participants in the program are often 
overcoming immense obstacles such as trauma, homelessness, 
mental and physical health concerns, substance abuse issues, 
and yet are required to fully participate in the program.
    The current participation rate does not measure 
comprehensive family success. It also does not measure a 
customer successfully completing substance abuse treatment, and 
family reunification. Nor does the participation rate measure a 
family securing housing to stabilize their family to be able to 
work.
    These types of actions by a participant indicate successful 
movement towards self-sustainability. However, individuals do 
enter the TANF program ready to immediately participate in 
employment activities with little to no barriers, and may 
simply need assistance with connecting to job leads and 
vocational training. However, as mentioned previously, there 
are several participants who have barriers that need to be 
addressed prior to becoming employment-ready. Unfortunately, 
these participants are required to meet the monthly mandatory 
participation rates, while at the same time having to address 
their barriers towards stability.
    Another struggle within the TANF program is the 
effectiveness of the TANF components. The components are 
arranged between countable and non-countable activities. Some 
of these countable activities can only be used for a short 
period of time.
    Capping the amount of job search/job readiness hours 
available to a customer does not benefit participants in a 
downward economy or an individual who has limited educational 
or employment skill sets.
    Statistical measurements of the workforce program would 
benefit from focusing on tangible successes of participants, 
rather than a rate. These tangible successes could include the 
measurement of the number of participants who obtain employment 
within a set period of time from their entrance into the 
workforce program. Customers who successfully complete 
vocational training or increase their educational status while 
participating in the TANF program should also be considered a 
successful measurement.
    In the sake of time, I will close with an example from our 
program. A 25-year-old mother of one applied for TANF 
assistance in January 2022. The customer was seeking financial 
assistance, assistance securing employment, and child care. The 
customer had little family support, and reported relocating to 
the city to find better job opportunities. Her career focus was 
on health care, customer service, and clerical work. She 
received assistance from a workforce employment social worker. 
After assessing her situation, she was assisted with child 
care, mileage reimbursement, and connected to a mental health 
professional. Overall, she was successful in addressing her 
mental health needs, and secured full-time employment, earning 
$22 an hour, or $42,000 per year.
    Mr. Chairman and committee members, on behalf of our county 
manager and board, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
testimony today.
    [The statement of Ms. Francis follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Francis. I will now 
recognize Ms. Reynolds.

   STATEMENT OF HEATHER REYNOLDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAB FOR 
 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, NOTRE 
                         DAME, INDIANA

    Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Chairman LaHood, 
Ranking Member Davis, and members of the committee. I serve at 
the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, or LEO, at 
the University of Notre Dame, where we work with innovative 
service providers to build rigorous evidence around programs 
designed to move people permanently out of poverty.
    Prior to joining LEO, I spent two decades as CEO of 
Catholic Charities, Fort Worth. The clients we had the honor to 
serve are who taught me about poverty, struggle, and strength, 
and also about the incredible disconnect that exists between 
policy and on-the-ground work.
    The TANF program is one in particular that is particularly 
head-scratching to me. I observed many clients that benefited 
from TANF and many more working poor that were not qualified. I 
observed how recipients were required to often do various 
activities to keep their benefits, but these activities often 
had little to do with actually getting them into the workforce.
    In the research we conduct at LEO, I see studies that show 
us what works to put people on a pathway out of poverty. These 
experiences lead me to express three points to you today.
    First, TANF needs to be restructured in a way that gives 
people a way out of poverty. I will never forget Christina, as 
I sat in on a meeting with her about savings. As her case 
manager broached the subject, Christina, a single mom with two 
children, responded, ``I am a great saver.'' Her strategies 
were sound. Every time she used her debit card, she got $5 cash 
back, and put it toward her savings. Her case manager asked 
where she saved it. ``In a plastic piggy bank in the back of my 
closet.'' And when her case manager asked how much, she shared, 
``Oh, $6,000.''
    This single mom was a great saver. She worked part-time 
because she had small children to care for, and no help after 
fleeing a domestic violence situation. She was going to school 
supported by Catholic Charities to be ready for a living-wage 
job once her youngest hit kindergarten. Until then, she 
couldn't put her money in a bank. Why? It would be an asset, 
and she would lose all public benefits.
    She would have to spend her savings. She would have to try 
to get back on benefits. And the time lapse would cause her to 
go into debt. When she did get that living-wage job, she would 
have no savings, but she would have plenty of debt. She had 
kept her money in the back of her closet because, for 
Christina, it was the soundest financial decision she could 
make. Christina needed TANF dollars, her part-time job, and 
support from Catholic Charities to stay afloat while she worked 
to improve her situation.
    Second, TANF needs to be designed in a way where financial 
assistance is flexible and case management is robust. I met 
Rosa's family when they were about to be evicted. Her husband 
was making $24,000 a year. Rosa needed to get to work. Catholic 
Charities got Rosa a job and she quit. We got her another job 
and she quit. Most of us would say maybe Rosa wasn't serious 
about wanting to work, but Rosa's case manager knew her way too 
well to believe that.
    Rosa was placing her son, or her two-year-old son in a 
daycare situation that would make most of us moms shudder. It 
was all she could afford. Her case manager made a deal with 
Rosa. Rosa would find a safe, reasonably-priced child care 
center. We would pay for the first three months, and then half 
the costs of the next three months, as long as Rosa kept that 
job. This afforded her to accomplish all of her goals: a safe 
place for her son, the ability to work, and the ability to get 
six months of paychecks under her belt before the whole 
childcare bill fell to her.
    And guess what? Rosa is a certified IT specialist, promoted 
three times over the last six years. Her family is thriving, 
and she has never had to ask for help since. Rosa benefited 
from flexible funding to help her with her most pressing need: 
safe, quality childcare so she could increase her financial 
standing as a family.
    And third, we have got to let evidence lead the way. TANF 
funds are used for many things, including job training, child 
care, and cash assistance. We don't have great information 
about which of these efforts work, and in some cases research 
shows us they don't work. Evidence-building and usage has got 
to be key in reform.
    At LEO, we have over 90 research partners building evidence 
to help us understand what works. We take the most creative 
leaders across social services, design studies with them, 
understanding the impact of their services. These organizations 
do it because they believe if they can understand their impact, 
it can be used to scale and replicate their work.
    It is your role to pay attention to this evidence and to 
use it. As policymakers, you need to be shouting from the 
rooftops--or, said another way, allocating public policy 
dollars--to allow their evidence-based solutions to scale 
because they work.
    In closing, it is an honor to serve at the University of 
Notre Dame, who has a clear mandate to be a force for good in 
our country. The research we are producing continues to tell us 
the way to move low-income Americans to a life outside of 
poverty is through flexible financial assistance and case 
management. The answers are there. We just need you to follow 
the evidence.
    [The statement of Ms. Reynolds follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. We will now 
recognize Mr. Maas for five minutes.
    Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JACOB MAAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WEST MICHIGAN 
                 WORKS!, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

    Mr. MAAS. Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, 
Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the 
subcommittee.
    West Michigan Works! serves as a local workforce 
development agency, and our region consists of 7 counties 
annually serving approximately 3,000 employers and 40,000 job-
seekers out of 8 service centers, 3 satellite offices, and many 
home offices.
    I am very passionate about the population we serve, 
especially in our TANF programs. If there is one thing that I 
have learned over the years, it is when you directly impact an 
individual you are impacting their family and you are impacting 
the community.
    I started my career in workforce development 20 years ago 
as an employer account representative in the Michigan Works! 
network, working directly with job-seekers who are receiving 
TANF, preparing them for employment, and with employers who 
would hire, train, and retain those individuals.
    Early in my career I was ill-prepared, as the barriers were 
far more complicated than college prepared me for. I remember 
picking up individuals from their homes to get them to work on 
time when public transportation failed them. I remember going 
to an individual's home following up on why he did not show up 
to work, only to find he was dealing with a family crisis, as 
his teenager ran away from home. I also remember running into 
individuals at a local Meijer who were thankful for working 
together, and excited to tell me about their new job. While the 
circumstances surrounding each of their lives was unique, it 
was clear to me that they were not looking for a handout, but 
rather a hand up.
    Our TANF program handled all things employment-training-
related and gave them the hand up they needed. Those services 
included orientation to the program, soft skills development, 
barrier removal, career planning, high school equivalency or 
GED prep, referrals to short-term training programs, support 
services, transitional supports, and helping retain employment.
    I held several other positions while working in the TANF 
program, including manager and assistant manager. In 2010, I 
transitioned to administration of programs, and since then I 
have served on several statewide committees involving process 
and policy improvements to our TANF program.
    Early in my career our state was at risk of $36 million in 
sanctions for not meeting work participation rate requirements. 
The challenge was that our infrastructure and IT systems were 
ill equipped to track work participation rates, programs 
weren't designed to meet work participation rates, and a large 
number of individuals were enrolled in activities that didn't 
count towards their participation rate, despite being better 
suited to help the individual in the long run.
    For example, an individual couldn't be enrolled and still 
can't be enrolled in GED full time. Individuals could only be 
in training programs for a short period of time before their 
hours stopped counting, even if the individual is on track to 
get their credential and increase their earnings.
    We were and are still dealing with difficult rules like 
having the fifth week of job search not count toward 
participation hours, and individuals who are referred to us in 
the middle of the month who have a slim chance of meeting work 
participation rate for the month. It makes no sense to me that 
their hours wouldn't be prorated for the month, depending on 
when they were referred. Bottom line is that work participation 
rate doesn't work.
    Fortunately, in Michigan, due to partnerships we have with 
our state departments of Labor and Economic Opportunity and 
Department of Health and Human Services, also known as the PATH 
Program, we have been able to solve these problems through 
caseload reduction credits where we can enroll a small 
percentage of individuals into high school equivalency and GED 
completion. Implemented in 2020, it provides an opportunity for 
participants to pursue high school completion or equivalency 
without facing the adverse effects of not meeting the work 
participation rate requirement.
    The challenge is that, culturally, there is still the 
mindset that we must meet performance locally. In our region we 
are dealing with five different DHS directors who are held to 
the standard of work participation rate, and one person can 
fail performance for that DHS, especially in our rural 
counties.
    I applaud the committee's challenge of reimagining what 
TANF can look like. Working directly with the population in a 
variety of roles, I have learned a few things that I hope you 
will find useful, and we would like to offer a few suggestions 
from our organization.
    Focus on outcomes, not outputs. Work participation rate 
doesn't work.
    Consider aligning the outcomes with Workforce Innovation 
Opportunity Act, which is about credential attainment, 
employment, employment retention, and earnings.
    When designing the program we would be comfortable with 
participation hours, but each individual's needs are going to 
be unique. Allow the states and local areas the flexibility to 
enroll them in programs that are best suited for the 
individuals, and certainly allow high school equivalency, GED, 
and post-secondary training as options.
    And maybe a dream to me, but consider integrating programs. 
Texas and Michigan have unique models where workforce 
development boards are delivering Workforce and Innovation 
Opportunity Act, Wagner-Peyser Trade Act, and welfare reform. A 
siloed approach to employment training programs creates 
confusion for employers and job-seekers alike. Just as our 
employers don't care where our funding streams are coming from, 
neither do our job-seekers. At the end of the day, our job-
seekers just want a decent-paying job, and our employers just 
want the talent they need to remain competitive.
    We have a local success story submitted in my written 
statement. With that, I just want to open it up for opportunity 
for questions. Thank you, Chairman.
    [The statement of Mr. Maas follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Maas. At this time we will 
hear from Ms. Gray for five minutes.
    You are recognized. Thank you.

          STATEMENT OF VICTORIA GRAY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

    Ms. GRAY. Good afternoon, Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member 
Davis, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
commitment to families that you do, and the opportunity to 
speak to you today about the critical role Temporary Assistance 
to Needy Families plays in the lives of grandparents and other 
relatives that are raising children, also known as 
grandfamilies or kinship families.
    My name is Victoria Gray, and I have become an advocate for 
grandfamilies after discovering firsthand the difficulties that 
they face as we raised seven grandchildren, some of whom have 
severe medical and behavior issues. As an advocate and a 
professional, I serve as the Generations United GRAND Voice, 
and I am the founder and executive director of the non-profit 
GreyNickelinc, supporter of kinship families in Arizona. I 
routinely connect grandfamilies to TANF, which is an essential 
source of the support for children.
    When parents are unable to raise their children, 
grandparents step up to provide protection, stability, and 
love. Currently, more than 2.5 million children are raised by 
grandfamilies. Collectively, we save the county more than--our 
country more than $4 billion a year keeping children out of 
foster care.
    My husband and I were both working. We had two teenagers at 
home. We received a call that our granddaughter, who was 
medically fragile, was placed into foster care. We stepped up 
to care for her and received about $17 a month for diapers. We 
were not told about TANF at that time. The additional support 
would have been a huge help to my family. But work requirements 
are a barrier for families like mine.
    My granddaughter was born in 29 weeks at 1 pound, 2 ounces. 
Her lungs were not fully developed, she had two holes in her 
heart, a frontal lobe cyst. She has cloudiness of both eyes. We 
were told she would have limited to no vision. We could not 
find a child care center that would accept the responsibility 
or the liability for taking this child in. I had to quit work 
to care for her.
    Later that year, her brother was placed with us. We found 
out that he was not biologically linked to us, so we became 
foster parents in order to keep him in the home with his 
sister. When we did get licensed, we received $500 a month in 
foster care for him. We were caring for two siblings in the 
same house, and both had special needs, but we got vastly less 
support for our granddaughter because we were related to her.
    Grandparents are not expecting to raise a child in 
retirement, but step up with little to no warning. TANF is one 
of the few sources of support for children outside of the 
foster care system. Going back to work can be a huge challenge. 
Our issue was facing--was finding childcare. Other grandparents 
suffered with health issues, disabilities, and just finding a 
job at their age.
    Once we learned about TANF, we did apply, but we did not 
qualify, even after we came from two incomes to one because we 
made $75 a month too much. Many grandfamilies like ours cannot 
access TANF because of the asset limits. We were essentially 
penalized for responsibly saving for our retirement. We used 
our credit cards, our savings account, and some of our 401(k) 
funding to care for our children. Today, at 86, my husband has 
to work, and he works as a school crossing guard for us to make 
ends meet each month. Having spent most of our savings to 
provide for the children, we now hope that we don't have to ask 
for financial assistance as we get older.
    Many states offer child-only TANF grants, which generally 
do not consider the family's assets or income. However, the 
amount is vastly lower. While it is valued and essential, the 
amount of these grants are largely inadequate to provide for 
the children's needs. To survive and thrive, families routinely 
must piece together other assistance from food banks and 
clothing closets. Often, they simply go without.
    Another barrier accessing TANF is a requirement to collect 
child support. If the state tries to locate the families to 
collect child support, caregivers have reported that the 
parents become angry, and they threaten the grandparents that 
they will remove the children, putting the children back in 
harm. Some grandparents fear for their own safety, as well, 
because the parents still have keys to the family home. So 
grandparents often choose not to pursue TANF, and suffer 
emotionally and financially for the concerns of the children 
and themselves.
    Please keep the grandfamilies in mind when you move forward 
with the TANF Assistance for Needy Families. I have included 
specific recommendations in my written testimony for 
consideration.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify and your 
consideration on behalf of grandfamilies.
    [The statement of Ms. Gray follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Well, thank you, Ms. Gray, and I want to 
thank all of our witnesses for the valuable testimony you 
provided today and the work that you do in your different 
fields.
    At this time we are going to proceed to question-and-answer 
by our committee members, and I will begin with that session 
now. Mr. Collins, I am going to start with you.
    You mentioned during your time in the Bush Administration 
that was the last time we had a reauthorization of TANF in 
2005, and that was to deal with some of these issues that we 
talked about today, and to reset the work participation rate. 
Can you explain what problems prompted these changes, and if 
you think any of those same solutions would work today?
    Mr. COLLINS. Sure, Mr. Chairman. The problem was actually a 
good one, and that was that states had done a great job of 
getting people off of the caseload, and they enjoyed a really 
generous caseload reduction credit. So it essentially brought 
the 50 percent rate down to 0. So states really didn't have a 
rate to meet. So that was the challenge.
    And I think what we would do today has to include some 
other pieces of reform. I would recalibrate the work 
participation rate calculation, the caseload reduction credit 
calculation more frequently, perhaps even biannually. But 
today, because of the other things that have happened with 
TANF, you also have to look at solely state-funded options 
states have to move people out of the rate.
    There are other things that happen with MOE, and there is a 
bunch of loopholes that you have to close. Doing the rate by 
itself, recalibrating the caseload reduction credit by itself 
won't address the issues to make sure more individuals receive 
TANF assistance.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that. I will turn to Ms. 
Francis next.
    To count towards a state's work participation rate, TANF 
recipients must engage in a minimum number of hours in order 
to--in either core or supplemental activities. Can you provide 
examples of how this causes caseworkers to provide workarounds 
or take a hit on their evaluations when helping recipients get 
the training they need to enter the workforce?
    Ms. FRANCIS. Yes, thank you for that question. Yes, a lot 
of times our customers come in, and they are required to 
participate in a certain amount of hours. And job search, job 
readiness, we know that they only have a set amount of hours 
that they can complete for the year. And so, if they come in 
and they used those hours already, but that is the component 
that they need to be in in order to be successful in our 
program--so overcome any barriers or things of that nature, 
once they run out of those hours we can no longer use that 
component, and they are not counting towards the rates.
    And then also we have situations where you might have a 
adult who comes in over the age of 20 who wants to participate 
in getting their GED. So we have to put them in another 
component along with their GED, because over the age of 20 it 
does not count currently for them. So we have to combine them 
into another activity, which could be stressful for the 
customer to try to juggle both of those things at the same 
time. So it is kind of hard.
    And as far as taking a hit from our social workers, 
sometimes if they are not meeting the rate, we will just keep 
them in that activity because we know it is going to be 
beneficial for them in the long run to be in that activity, 
rather than just pushing them onto something else so that they 
can meet the rates.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Reynolds, from your experience in research, what is the 
best measurement tool to help high work barrier individuals 
enter the workforce, while still holding states, localities, 
and caseworkers accountable?
    Ms. REYNOLDS. Great question, and thank you for that. I 
would say the most effective thing that we continue to see in 
study after study after study is the pairing of flexible 
financial assistance with robust case management, all leading 
to the outcome of education and upward mobility.
    I would say what we see again and again is when the Federal 
Government block grants dollars out to states and has 
requirements behind it, like in Family First, like in MIECHV, 
where we say these programs need to be run with evidence-backed 
program, we--the poor in our country deserve programs that 
actually are shown to work, and then those states can 
distribute those funds to those evidence-based programs, it 
makes all the difference.
    Some specific things we have seen in our research at LEO is 
Bridges to Success in Rochester, New York. They are getting 
amazing gains in employment and earnings because of mentorship, 
sequencing, and incentivizing certain behavior through flexible 
financial assistance. Padua at Catholic Charities, Fort Worth, 
we are seeing tremendous gains in employment and earnings of 
low-income individuals, some who start as the working poor, and 
some who start not working at all.
    And we are seeing awesome results, too, with the Goodwill 
Excel centers that operate in 15 locations across this country, 
where we are seeing when you have students, adult students who 
did not graduate from high school, come get their education, 
get post-secondary credentialing, all by being wrapped around--
all while being wrapped around with supports and case 
management, that is really the model that is helping 
individuals move into upward mobility.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that.
    Mr. MAAS, Michigan is one of the few states to integrate 
the TANF work requirements with workforce boards and services 
provided through the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. You 
are charged with making that effective at the local level. What 
do you see as challenges and opportunities for this type of 
model?
    And are there Federal rules or regulations that make this 
connection difficult to replicate in other states?
    Mr. MAAS. It is a great question, Chair. I wish I knew that 
answer, too. Only joking. All jokes aside, you know, it has 
worked well for Michigan. I think with our state we have an 
interagency agreement between the Department of Health and 
Human Services and our Workforce Development Department.
    While I would love to see that federally, obviously we are 
talking about Federal versus local control in some of our 
states. You know, now we have seen the model with Texas, and 
Texas does it well. You know, obviously, Michigan is doing it 
well. We have had great partnerships between these two 
departments, where Michigan Works! has been at the table, our 
Labor and Economic Opportunity organization has been at the 
table, and DHS has been at the table.
    So it has always worked well for us. And again, focusing on 
skills and skill development and pushing back on the state a 
little bit around flexibility for that high school equivalency 
or GED, as Ms. Francis had mentioned, has been a key component 
to our success over the last few years. So thank you for that 
question.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that, Mr. Maas. At this time 
I am going to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Davis for his 
questions.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank all the witnesses.
    Ms. Gray, let me thank you especially for traveling here 
all the way from Phoenix, and for sharing your experiences with 
us over the years as you have helped grandchildren and helped 
others to be able to help grandchildren.
    The most common reason that families stop receiving TANF 
benefits is failing to meet an administrative requirement like 
filling out a form or attending a meeting scheduled by an 
agency or a state. Can you tell us what it is like for 
grandparents when they see the forms or when they are told they 
have to meet all of these requirements, what their reactions 
are?
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Davis. So for grandfamilies or 
grandparents, we are talking about a group of people who have 
spent their lives working, saving for their retirement, and now 
are faced with raising additional children.
    A lot of the families that I work with, when they look at 
the TANF application where in Arizona it was 58 pages long, and 
they only really needed, like, 6 or 7 pages, it was very 
frustrating for them to go through it. The application is long, 
it is difficult to navigate, and the questions sometimes are 
not--the families don't understand what they are asking for.
    So a lot of times the family will go through and fill in 
different pages, and be denied simply because they put in the 
wrong information. Some of the families that I work with in 
their seventies and eighties are a little illiterate. They 
don't understand it, and you have to help them fill the forms 
out. So when they are tasked with doing this, they feel like 
they can't get it done, and they just stop.
    And it is very hard for them to do it while they are still 
caring for children. Some great-grandparents were placed with 
three children, and still with the care for them and the daily 
needs that they needed, they had to go through 58 pages of a 
TANF application.
    Mr. DAVIS. Sixty-eight pages?
    Ms. GRAY. It was 58 pages.
    Mr. DAVIS. Fifty-eight pages?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, sir.
    Mr. DAVIS. That is a lot of pages. Well, let me ask you. 
Only about 4.5 percent of cases are closed because of a failure 
to file a child support case or attend school. But I know that 
child support requirements are the reason some grandparents 
don't apply at all.
    Can you tell us more about the situation where that is a 
problem, and why it is important to look at the entire family 
structure when dealing with a case?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, sir. So for the child-only TANF, it still--
it includes, like, sometimes the income. That is really not a 
problem for some, because they are retired. They are living off 
of 2,000, $2,500 a month.
    But when you look at the overall, if it is your biological 
child and you are caring for the children out of the state 
welfare system, you leave yourself open to what a lot of 
grandparents complained about, being threatened or intimidated: 
``If you apply for these funds, the state is going to come 
after us, so we are going to remove the children from you.'' 
That only puts the children back in danger again.
    So a lot of grandparents will not apply for that, because 
they don't want to lose the children and have the children be 
put in a situation that caused them to be removed in the first 
place.
    Mr. DAVIS. If you were giving advice to an agency that 
administers a program to be helpful, what would you ask or tell 
them to do?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, sir. So I have heard a lot here about the 
TANF and the application, and we are talking about a lot of 
families. We are not talking about 60-year-olds, 70-year-olds. 
We even have 80-year-old families, who have worked already and 
just need to experience their retirement.
    So one of the things that I would ask that the committee 
look at is, at these ages, there are those disabilities. They 
have mobile issues, they can't get around. They have families 
that are getting knee replacements and hip replacements, and 
they still have to chase around a two-year-old or a three-year-
old, and it causes a lot of problems. I think, if we can take a 
look at what the grandfamily situation really is, then we can 
take a look at more of how we can help them.
    But these grandfamilies are really suffering, because they 
are spending the money that they have worked so hard for to 
keep ends to meet for these children and to keep them safe and 
stable in their home. So if we could take a look at the 
resources as far as what would a 60 or 70-year-old family 
member need to care for a 3-year-old, I think it would add a 
little more incentive to help these families, because these 
families are struggling. They are really struggling.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Consistent with 
committee practice we will now proceed with two-to-one 
questioning, and I will recognize Mr. Carey of Ohio.
    Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
    I want to thank you all, all the panelists, for taking time 
to come before this subcommittee and testify. Your experiences, 
your expertise will help inform us as we work to take a look at 
our current welfare system, make the reforms to help America 
become more self-sufficient, and transition from Federal 
assistance into the workforce.
    In 2022, TANF funds served over a million families in the 
U.S., which included 2 million children. In my home state of 
Ohio, the TANF program serves more than 41,000 families, 
including 68,000 children. As many of the witnesses mentioned 
in their testimonies, the current TANF program requires states 
to track work participation rates, which do not effectively 
further the objectives of the program, and are not a good 
measure to success.
    Ohio's workforce agencies has worked to innovate and 
provide assistance to low-income young adults to build careers 
and break the cycle of poverty. Through the Comprehensive Case 
Management and Employment Program, Ohio utilizes funds from 
both TANF and Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act to provide 
workforce-related services to eligible Ohioans who are 14 to 
24. This innovative program utilizes performance metrics like 
education or training after completing the program, and 
credentials attained rates instead of work participation rates 
to assess participants.
    Listen, I look forward to continuing to discuss how states 
like mine are innovating these programs, and how we can 
highlight the best practices to provide a helping hand to 
Americans on the road to self-sufficiency.
    First question, Mr. Maas, back in my home district I hear 
all the time, all the time from employers, from Intel to LG to 
Honda, that continue to invest and want to create more jobs in 
Ohio in and around the district, ``How can we reform TANF to 
help move current and future welfare recipients into the 
workforce and into those open positions quickly as possible?''
    Mr. MAAS. That is a great question, Representative Carey, 
and thanks for the opportunity to answer.
    We are hearing, frankly, across the country and across West 
Michigan of just the challenge that our employers are 
experiencing with hiring, attracting, retaining.
    You know, individuals in the TANF program that we serve 
often times have a number of barriers that we need to address 
first. So working with our state, we made sure that we allowed 
a barrier removal activity, which was new to us in 2020, to 
really spend some time deeply in these individuals, removing 
any barriers that they have. You know, finding childcare takes 
time. Dealing with legal issues takes time. Dealing with 
housing issues takes time. And so working with our state, we 
have added a barrier removal in that activity.
    But also it is that skills, Representative. You know, they 
need to have the skills that our employers need in order to 
remain competitive and stay within our regions. And so we need 
activities like GED completion and high school equivalency, 
because a lot of employers are still requiring it at least to 
get your foot in the door, but also for advancement for those 
companies, too. You know, if our goal is to break the 
generational cycle of poverty, we need those tools in order to 
help individuals in the long run.
    So--and then for us it is short-term training and skills. 
It sounds like you are doing some great work in Ohio in the 
partnerships with Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. You 
know, my predecessor for region 5 coordinator, Christine Quinn, 
had always told me, ``How do we take best practices and turn 
them into common practices?'' So how do we take examples like 
what Ohio is doing and spread them across the country?
    So thank you for the question, Representative.
    Mr. CAREY. Thank you.
    Ms. FRANCIS, as I mentioned earlier, my home state of Ohio 
has innovated within one of its programs to measure performance 
outcomes, rather than work participation. In your testimony, 
you mentioned how the work participation rate takes the human 
aspect out of casework. Can you explain why this is? And you 
only have a minute, I apologize. [Laughter.]
    Ms. FRANCIS. It is all right. Because we are dealing with 
individuals who have--they are in homeless situations. They 
might have mental health or behavioral, physical concerns. They 
might have substance use concerns. And so when we overlook 
that, and just putting them into a component, it doesn't end up 
the way that we would want it to turn out.
    We need to be able to come up with some type of way that we 
can measure the steps that they are taking when they are 
addressing those issues, and that be an outcome that we can use 
as showing them successfully partnering with our program. But 
that--we lose that human aspect when we don't include that 
with--when we are making decisions as far as our customers 
being successful in the program.
    Mr. CAREY. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Carey. I will turn now to 
Mr. Blake Moore of Utah.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member.
    Ms. REYNOLDS, a quick question. I want to jump in, just 
get--set us some context for today's hearing, and then I have 
got a few more questions. Overall, TANF as it exists today, 
what areas can we improve, right? How do we make sure that this 
is an opportunity to incentivize the dignity of work? Like, 
just give me your quick thoughts on that.
    Ms. REYNOLDS. Yes. What I would say is we need evidence-
based programs. So about--right now, 22 percent of TANF dollars 
are spent on cash assistance to families. The rest are spent on 
other things like workforce training and so forth. Those 
dollars that are supporting programs need to be backed by 
evidence. There is tons of programs that are being developed 
and already have evidence behind them that they work. Let's 
invest in those things.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Awesome. So has anybody--out of 
curiosity, has anybody on the stand here, on the witness stand, 
has anybody ever used the theory of change model or logic model 
in--associated with your work? Right?
    Like, so I get really kind of geeky about this, and I think 
back to my old consulting days, where--I mean, we have the 
whole set, we have the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, 
and impact, right?
    What are we doing to be able to move this down the value 
chain, so we are actually measuring success, as opposed to just 
how many hours you are working, what are you doing, what is 
the--what are the simple things you are doing? That is a part 
of it. I am never going to say that is not a key part of it. 
That is a part of the value chain. But what are we ultimately 
doing to move that down? I would love to just kind of hear your 
thoughts.
    Ms. FRANCIS, the most--not that Congress isn't amazing, and 
it is such a wonderful job, but the most impactful work I have 
ever done in my life was when I worked with Opportunity Youth 
prior to this role, and we worked with a big financial 
organization that was working with YouthBuild that was really 
trying to, you know, find ways for opportunity--youth, those 
that are 16 to 24-year-olds, that are neither working nor in 
school that are actually trying to get into the workforce, and 
they have to find--and you are right, there is a stratified 
approach. Some have certain basic needs met. Some have had 
major tragedy. And we need to meet where they are, so we can 
lift everybody up.
    What, in your opinion, can we be doing to capture the data? 
Because it is so important to be able to identify data and 
what--the things we need to be monitoring, so we can move down 
this value chain. And I will just kind of throw that to the 
table. Ms. Francis, if you would want to maybe offer some 
thoughts, because I know you love that stratified approach.
    Ms. FRANCIS. To capture the data, I think that we just need 
a better system of what our customers are actually 
participating in. We have vocational training, we have all 
these other instances. But we need--like I was saying before, 
if they have gone through trauma we need a way to address that. 
We need a way to measure that.
    And our--and where we come from, Mecklenburg County, we 
have social workers who assess them when they come in the door. 
And so we know where they are at, what their educational level 
is, and everything of that, and putting them in the most 
accurate component that will address those issues for them.
    But like you said, yes, we do need to come up with a 
better, more comprehensive way to measure what is being done by 
our customers----
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. In particular, is there anything the 
Federal Government is doing right now that actually hinders 
your ability to meet those individuals where they are at, and 
help them out?
    I mean, is there something we should be moving away from?
    Ms. FRANCIS. The rates that--I am sorry, but yes, the rate, 
because it does not measure. I mean, you can job search for 86 
hours for a month, but it does not measure what the customer is 
actually achieving. It is just a number.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Ms. Reynolds?
    Ms. REYNOLDS. Yes. I love your logic model. I geek out on 
logic models, too.
    What I would love to see at the very end of that logic 
model is families' dignity restored because they are living a 
life outside of poverty. And to me, I have seen a lot of our 
partners--something that matters to me is where it is living-
wage income, where they have no harmful debt, and they have 
appropriate savings, and then ultimately are off of government 
assistance, as well.
    I love how when Chairman LaHood talked about--opened up our 
hearing, he talked about people trampolining out of poverty. 
And as I think about my 11-year-old daughter on a trampoline, 
you look at a child on a trampoline, and they start bouncing, 
and then it gets higher and higher. And I think what we have to 
remember is when we are helping people trampoline out of 
poverty, they don't get to the end of that logic model 
overnight. They get a little better, and a little better, and a 
little better. And then they get that momentum so they can be 
out and free of government assistance.
    And so the more we can do to surround people with the 
supports they need to meet them where they are at today, and 
provide them with someone who will do life with them to 
navigate all of this, I think, can really work.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Collins, anything to add on that 
data perspective or in your work?
    Mr. COLLINS. I actually agree with the other panelists.
    It is important to move people ultimately to impacts, so 
that we can measure really what it was that we tried to do in 
the beginning. And I actually think that Congress can set the 
table by reframing what good looks like, so that states can 
build anti-poverty programs instead of anti-penalty programs.
    It is important that we improve from where we are. A lot of 
things got layered in over the last couple of opportunities to 
sort of look at TANF and reauthorization when I was there then. 
There is a tremendous amount of flexibility that states have to 
do various things, and I think we should preserve that element, 
but find ways to evolve where we are on the accountability 
side.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. And I will just say I think this is--the 
really neat thing about this committee, and why I am excited to 
be on this subcommittee is because, for Ms. Gray's testimony 
all the way down to Mr. Collins, there is a fundamental 
problem. If you have ever felt like, you know, additional 
income is actually going to hurt you, we need to address that.
    Ms. Gray, your testimony is emotional, and I just wanted to 
thank you for your time and what you have given to your family. 
And that issue that you brought up is something that I go to my 
state leaders and work on, and we find ways to actually make 
reasonable solutions there. So thank you.
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Moore. I recognize Ms. Chu 
for five minutes.
    Ms. CHU. Ms. Gray, I want to thank you for your testimony 
today about the main barriers for families looking to 
participate in the workforce is access to affordable child 
care.
    Childcare across the nation is extremely costly. In my home 
state of California, families pay more than $13,000 annually, 
which is hard for middle-income families to afford, but even 
more out of reach for low-income families or those living in 
poverty.
    Now, currently, 30 percent of a state's TANF dollars can be 
transferred to childcare. But on average, states only spend 
about 17 percent of those dollars on childcare. You mentioned 
in your testimony that a lack of childcare options presented a 
barrier for you to go back to work. How might access to 
affordable, quality childcare have impacted this decision?
    Ms. GRAY. Great question. So for me, it was a medical issue 
of the child that hindered us from getting the child care. No 
one wanted to take on the responsibility of a child that had 
that medical condition. In my testimony that I sent in, it was 
only half of what she went through as a child when we took her 
in. Her medical issues were far more than I stated in the 
testimony.
    So it wasn't that we couldn't get it, it was that the child 
care system itself--no one wanted to take on the liability or 
the responsibility of a child that was that sick.
    The other thing is, in a lot of the grandfamilies that I 
work with, we are never told of what our options are. We are 
not told that this is available. Like in the beginning, my 
husband and I were not told about TANF. So to know that there 
is also childcare available under TANF would be a great help 
for a lot of the families. They don't know it exists.
    But we are also talking about 70 and 80-year-olds who have 
retired and are at home, so they don't really, like, need the 
childcare. But it is very essential to the caregiver to also 
have some time, or what we call, like, respite in order for 
them to get together and refocus in order to care for the 
children.
    As a grandfamily member myself, my goal was always to make 
it better for my grandchildren, even supporting them no matter 
which way it took, including depleting our finances.
    Ms. CHU. Well, thank you for that.
    And we know that the overwhelming majority of TANF 
recipients are children. That is, child-only cases in which 
only the child receives benefits, and not any of the adults in 
the household. And now we have a rising number of grandparent 
caregivers across the country. And in fact, grandparent 
households now make up a large share of child only TANF 
recipients. In your experience, would work requirements such as 
logging hours of community service or learning new skills for a 
minimum wage impact your ability to care for your loved ones?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes. So for me it would have, because what her 
medical needs were, my day was spent with cardiology, 
neurologists, ophthalmologists, infectious disease clinic. This 
is what we went through. And that is the reason I had to quit, 
because we couldn't find anyone to care for her at those needs.
    So when you are talking about an 80-year-old or a 70-year-
old going back to work, we don't have employers that are trying 
to take in 70-year-olds to hire them. And there is a lot of 
things that they can do on community service. But for me, and I 
can only speak for me in this instance, it was hard for me to 
leave my granddaughter because of her medical issues. There was 
so much that needed to be done for her on a--daily.
    Ms. CHU. Yes. Well, and then finally, let me ask about TANF 
and foster care. States that implemented full family TANF 
sanctions for lack of compliance with work requirements 
actually had an increase of 12.7 percent in children entering 
foster care.
    Now, research shows that access to public benefit programs 
such as TANF are an important protective factor to keep kids 
out of the child welfare system and out of foster care. So, I 
am interested in your thoughts on how cash assistance through 
TANF can help keep families together and out of the foster care 
system. Can you share a little bit there?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, ma'am. So in Arizona they had limited the 
TANF to 24 months, and then down to 12 months. When a 
grandparent would go to apply for the TANF, they were told that 
the biological parents had used the allotted time. So in 
Arizona they called it the grandparent penalty.
    At that point I went to speak to my legislators, and we 
were able to get that--what they called the grandparent 
penalty--removed, so that grandfamilies could access that 
money. It was really kind of tough and hard, because they look 
at a lot of things, but when they talk about situations they 
are not looking at the age of the families, and the 
grandparents are struggling.
    Ms. CHU. Yes. But because of that you kept your children 
out of the foster care system.
    Ms. GRAY. Yes.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Chu. I recognize Mrs. Steel 
of California.
    Mrs. STEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
this--hosting for this hearing, and thank you, all the 
witnesses, coming out, and this is very important meeting.
    By empowering people and connecting them with employers, we 
are setting up our constituents and communities to be 
successful. This can be generational change.
    When I was an Orange County Supervisor, I led the yearly 
job and hiring fair, and during the pandemic we still offered 
it, but virtually. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to help people gain skills by updating WIOA, Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act, and TANF.
    I just want to ask a few questions to Ms. Francis.
    In your testimony, you mentioned the 60 to 40 percentage of 
people who are ready to work and those with higher barriers to 
work. Would you share how you and your staff differentiate and 
approach ready-to-work individuals and higher barrier 
individuals?
    And do you have examples of how your staff handles these 
higher-barrier cases, and how Federal law might be hindering 
their efforts?
    Ms. FRANCIS. Thank you. Yes. So when a customer comes into 
our department, we do a full assessment. We assess them for all 
the needs of the family. We provide a two-gen approach: we are 
not just looking at the parent, we are looking at the entire 
family and their needs. And then the social worker will assess 
from that point what this customer needs for themselves and 
their family to be stable, because that is one of the main 
factors that is important, is stability of the family to be 
able to participate in the TANF program.
    And so once they come in and they--we assess them, there 
are some, like I said before, who have a high school diploma. 
They might have some other skills, and they just need a step 
up, like we said, the trampoline. They need a step up in order 
to get--so we might connect them to trainings, we might connect 
them to the local community college and things of that nature, 
just to get a certification or something of that nature.
    But then we have other ones who come in, and they are 
dealing with some amount of issues that are going on. So they 
might have mental health, they might be homeless, and things of 
that nature. And when we assess them, we partner with our 
community partners to provide resources to that family--so the 
whole entire family, not just the person coming in and 
applying. And so that is the way that we are able to support 
the family.
    And then we have a social worker who meets with them on a 
regular and consistent basis to make sure that they are 
reaching the goals that we have established on our agreement, 
and that we are providing support to them, as well.
    Mrs. STEEL. And then could you share with the committee 
more about the work and partnership your office with NCW, North 
Carolina Works? How does this program connect with our WIOA 
outcome measurement?
    Ms. FRANCIS. I would say that--and I apologize, I am not 
familiar with every component of your question, but I will say 
that we do partner with WIOA to assist our customers 
financially to be able to go through training programs.
    So our vocational training--so we will send them through 
WIOA, they provide the funding, their support would connect 
them to a vocational training, and that is how we support our 
customers.
    Mrs. STEEL. So you are assessing those people that they 
have ability to work----
    Ms. FRANCIS. Yes.
    Mrs. Steel.--and they have some problems that they try to 
advise them that--how are you going to fix it, and then they--
you have training program to make them that they get trained 
and they are going to work.
    Ms. FRANCIS. Yes.
    Mrs. STEEL. Thank you.
    Ms. FRANCIS. Thank you.
    Mrs. STEEL. And Ms. Reynolds, are there states that are 
doing innovative programing with basic TANF assistance that you 
would point to as uniquely successful?
    How could this be replicated in other states?
    Ms. REYNOLDS. What I think has been most successful is when 
the Federal Government has said--given resources to states, and 
set expectations of the percentage of those resources that need 
to have rigorous evidence behind them that they work so we 
understand it is that service, it is that program that makes 
the difference, not some other economic condition going on. We 
have seen that with MIECHV, we have seen that with Families 
First legislation and some success there.
    What I would say is, if we could look at the resources that 
states have and then disperse those resources to often times 
private providers across the state who have evidence-backed 
programs that we know work like Goodwill Excel centers, I think 
we would be making tremendous gains.
    Mrs. STEEL. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mrs. Steel. I recognize Mr. 
Smucker of Pennsylvania for five minutes.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss steps that we can take to improve TANF, 
and ensure that it is effective for supporting those that need 
it.
    I want to first say thank you to each of you who, in 
different ways, are ensuring that you are helping those who 
need help in the community. And I think we are all grateful to 
live in a country where there is a safety net, there is help 
for people who need it, and that people care enough about their 
neighbors to ensure that that is provided.
    I do also want to say that, you know, I think we all 
believe that the best path out of poverty is a great-paying 
job, and a family-sustaining job. And that should be the goal 
of all of our programs. And I know that you all believe that, 
as well.
    I was interested in some of the discussion. I think Ms. 
Francis and Ms. Reynolds sort of talked about some of this--in 
fact, probably all of my questions have already been touched 
on, but specifically how we can find the right balance 
between--you mentioned, Ms. Reynolds, case management.
    I think it is really important that, at a local level, not 
only are case managers able to make the decisions that best 
channel the resources for a particular family or person in 
need, but also then that there is a coordination among various 
agencies or services that are available, and I am sure each of 
you are doing that.
    But what is the right balance on that? Because on the other 
hand, you know, from the perspective of a policymaker at the 
Federal level, when dollars are going out to states we want to 
ensure that there is some accountability there. So, you know, 
for instance, we want--you know, we want connection with a job, 
but we also want the caseworker to not just be incentivized to 
find the first job--maybe we do, but really, we want a job that 
is family-sustaining. And so, it needs to be outcome-based, 
rather than just incentivized on process.
    And so, you know, that idea of Federal accountability 
versus flexibility, what is the best balance? How can we think 
about that as we are reauthorizing or improving TANF?
    Ms. REYNOLDS. Yes. So the way I would specifically answer 
that is I think intensive case management that is one part, 
like, connection, meeting today's needs, and the other part 
about goal planning for tomorrow and trampolining out of 
poverty has got to be the right balance.
    The way I would encourage a drive to accountability is to 
measure what matters, and measure what you are saying, that a 
good-paying job--because you are right, that is the best anti-
poverty strategy there is. But allow for time for it to get 
there.
    One of our studies on Padua, Catholic Charities Fort Worth, 
the average amount of time it takes someone to go through that 
is about two to two-and-a-half years. It doesn't happen 
overnight. And so what we have to remember is that people who 
are trying to get out of poverty don't usually start at a place 
with a master's degree. Often times they are starting at a 
place where they are under-educated and need the skills to 
qualify for these wonderful jobs. And so giving that time is 
important.
    I do want to also note, one of the great things about 
building evidence is you can also do some cost estimating to 
really understand the ROI of those particular services. And so 
in the case I just explained, the great thing is people who 
came into the program employed, eight years afterwards the cost 
to provide that service was made up for. For those who come 
into the program unemployed, five years after they complete the 
program it made up for it.
    So often the return, the return on investment of these 
programs, can be strong. We just have to have a little longer 
vantage point.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. And the other thing I just want to 
mention--and I only have a minute left--is also WIOA, or some 
were referring to it as the W-I-O-A, or the Workforce 
Innovation Opportunities Act. I also--I serve on the Education 
and Workforce Committee, as well. And reauthorization of WIOA 
is something that we hope to do this particular year--or 
session, at least. And there are some performance 
accountability indicators built into WIOA that I think there 
ought to be, you know, maybe something, some kind of 
interconnectivity between the two.
    And so, you know, I don't know if anybody would want to 
speak to that. For instance, there is an indicator of 
effectiveness track if WIOA is meeting the critical workforce 
needs of the business community by measuring retention with the 
same employer. There are other measures which address WIOA's 
efforts to provide quality services to all employers and 
sectors within a state, local economy.
    What would be the impact if we took some of those same 
methods or measures and apply them to TANF?
    You know, would this--you know, could we learn from that, 
and could we tie them together in a way to hold states 
accountable?
    Mr. MAAS. I mean, Representative, I love where your head is 
at, and I appreciate you looking at WIOA reauthorization. We 
are hopeful that you get something done, too, this year.
    You know, for me, it is--it works well for our state, 
because our business solutions team is working with both TANF 
recipients and Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act recipients. 
So it makes a lot of sense, from our standpoint, to use those 
measures. It is a little easier for our state, then, right?
    The challenges with other states is you might have multiple 
people all reaching out to employers saying, ``Hey, I have this 
person, let me help you, you know, get them placed, and I have 
other resources to help offset with on-the-job training and 
other tools.'' The challenge with some of those business 
metrics, too, is there is no dedicated funding stream for 
business solutions, either.
    So, you know, I think, when I look at some of those key 
metrics that we want to track, it is the credential rate, it is 
entered employment rate, and ultimately, it is earnings, right? 
We want these people to have good jobs, and jobs that are going 
to sustain their family and be self-sustaining and break the 
generational cycle of poverty.
    And so I think, ultimately, you know, it comes down to some 
of those job metrics. But I truly appreciate where your head is 
at, and willingness to serve on both of these committees.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Yes, thank you. I know I am out of time, and I 
appreciate the chairman--the time, but hope to continue to have 
those discussions going forward.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. I recognize Ms. 
Moore of Wisconsin.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 
and I just really appreciate everything that the witnesses have 
said today.
    I would be so very easy to just say amen and yield back, 
because I agree with many of the things that you all have said. 
[Laughter.]
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. My time is limited, so just let me 
get straight into things.
    First of all, I just want to respond, Mr. Chairman, to some 
of the things that I have heard you say, and the chairman of 
the full committee say, and just sort of set the record 
straight on a couple of things.
    First, it is sort of the misnamed nature of this committee, 
that somehow restoring the work requirements are going to lift 
people out of poverty. I didn't hear a single one of these 
witnesses affirm that. They, in fact, have talked about the 
many barriers that they have, and the structure of the program 
being such that it doesn't enable people to get out of poverty.
    Mr. Davis made a point earlier that I just think is worth 
reiterating, as 77 percent of the people who are under the TANF 
program now are children, and 68 percent of those are under the 
age of 12. So, I don't know who it is we are imposing these 
work requirements on.
    We have heard testimony from all of our witnesses here, I 
think from Ms. Francis, that some of the countable activities 
that might help people get out of poverty activities, you know, 
like being able to go to the local vocational school to maybe 
become an LPN or something.
    If that took you two years, Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Francis, 
would that be allowed under the current TANF rules? No, it 
would not. And that would certainly be an activity that would 
help you trampoline out of poverty, to get a credential or 
certification, as Mr. Maas sort of indicated here.
    I have heard you talk about the case management and, Ms. 
Francis, you have social workers, people with MSWs? I don't 
know how that is scalable with the--you know, unless you use 
resources from your own state with the TANF dollars. It just is 
not feasible to give the whole population that kind of life 
coach helping them get in school and make sure they get their 
degree. And I don't see that as really being the case.
    I think it is more in line with what Mr. Collins has shared 
with us, and that is simply that states have flexibility to do 
what they want to do with the money. And instead of giving that 
kind of wrap around support, they give themselves bonuses, they 
give themselves a higher pay, they build--and, I don't know why 
people are ragging on poor Brett Favre. I mean, he is not the 
only person who did that. You know, he does not deserve to be 
ragged on like that.
    I have had communities in my district where they did, 
underground improvements for luxury apartments with TANF 
dollars. And so, I think that there is a disincentive in this 
program to actually help the people, because private agencies 
can use the money as they want.
    We don't allow people to get education and training. I was 
there at the scene of the crime in Wisconsin, when they ended 
welfare as we know it. And I know that 10,000 women dropped out 
of school the day we passed it.
    Okay. So, forget about helping lift people out of poverty 
through education. You know, quite frankly, the 11 million jobs 
that are open, let me just tell you something. I only have 57 
seconds. Let me tell you a little story. The last time I was 
arrested, I was arrested for protesting for a $15-an-hour wage. 
And then after that I went to sit with the good old boys on the 
south side of my district, and they said, ``Congresswoman, we 
don't--you know, with all due respect, we ain't going to work 
for no $15 an hour. We got car notes, house mortgages, kids in 
college. We are not going to do that.''
    In order to qualify for TANF, you have to make something 
like 50 percent under minimum wage. You could work for $7.25 an 
hour, 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and that would 
disqualify you to get Medicaid in my state. There is no 
incentive to--what is the incentive to work, if all it does is 
create a situation where you are ineligible for support?
    So, this program only works for those people that we supply 
and provide the low-wage workforce with its essential workers, 
employers that--their business plan relies on part-time people, 
people who--they can give them any kind of schedule they want, 
you work 4 hours today, 12 tomorrow. It incurs no cost for the 
business. They will take minimum wage, any old job.
    I can tell you we should do what Bill Clinton said we 
should do, and that is we should end welfare as we know it. We 
should do that, people. We should give people the Child Tax 
Credit. These witnesses have already told you. This woman here 
says she is an expert at Notre Dame. When you give people 
money, most of them will figure out how to take care of their 
kids.
    I want to--my time is expired, and I know you are going to 
gavel me. I don't get the magic minutes here. So, I want to put 
some things in the record without objection, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Gray, before I go, I just want to look at this 
application that you claim you had to fill out--and put this in 
the record--for you to get assistance, and just ask you a 
couple of real quick questions. You had this 30-page Arizona 
Department of Economic Security to fill out, and you had to 
have court-ordered child support paid, turn that over to them, 
child--adult dependent care expenses, medical expenses, what 
your mortgage payments were, your utilities, and other housing 
costs. Is that true?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. All right. So, I want to put this 
in the record, without objection.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Without objection, it is entered into the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Okay.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Moore.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much. And with that, I 
would unwillingly yield back, because I have so many questions 
to ask you all. [Laughter.]
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. But I do want to end by thanking 
you for your appearance here today.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Smith 
of Nebraska.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, 
thank you to all of our witnesses. I apologize I had to step 
out briefly. But this is important stuff, and so I appreciate 
you sharing your perspective.
    And I had the honor and privilege of chairing this 
subcommittee previously, and we held the multi-hearing series 
on TANF. And that series actually led to legislation that I was 
happy to introduce, the Jobs for Success Act, when it was 
introduced for the first time. And we--many of the factors we 
considered back in 2018 still remain true now.
    Overall, workforce participation rate is below 63 percent 
and remains well below what it was when we had the 2008 
financial crisis. Employers everywhere desperately need 
workers, and starting wages for people returning to the 
workforce actually reflect that, as well. Unfortunately, many 
of the problems with TANF, which had arisen over the past two 
decades, I think they still remain.
    The good news is, however, is that we found several 
potential areas, I think, for bipartisan agreement back in 
2018. We can do more to ensure TANF is focused on helping those 
most in need. We can ensure states do more to help get 
Americans--getting--to help get Americans off the sidelines by 
working with them one on one whenever possible to connect them 
with employers who need them. And we can do more to ensure 
states are empowered to help people successfully remain in the 
workforce when--after they get that full-time job.
    So it is not just about getting a job and staying in place. 
It is about an upward trajectory that I think we all can agree 
would be better in many ways, but primarily for the individual 
in need.
    Mr. Collins, could you go into details for the committee on 
some of the games that states might play to meet their work 
participation rate, and how exactly does the small check scheme 
work, and what states are the biggest offenders?
    Mr. COLLINS. Okay.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Not to put you on the spot. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. COLLINS. So, assume you were a state that had a rate to 
meet. The first problem is that, because of the generosity of 
the caseload reduction credit, most states really had a, 
effectively, zero rate to meet, but some did actually have a 
rate to meet.
    What they were able to do is to, at their discretion, 
remove from the TANF participation denominator adults likely to 
un-meet the rate by what we call solely state-funding those 
cases. So they could just pull them out of the denominator, 
which would just increase the numerator as a result. The state 
could choose to solely fund enough cases to meet the rate in a 
month, or they could do it at the end of the year, and just go 
back and sort of buy out a number of cases so they would 
actually meet the rate.
    So there is three different ways a state could use the 
solely state-funded option.
    As far as the small check scheme, it is almost in the 
reverse. A state would be able to find a TANF profile case, an 
adult working already with a child, and then bring them on the 
caseload by providing a very small amount of TANF, 20 or $30 a 
month. That would be enough to put them in the rate. So on the 
one hand, you solely fund out and then you can do a token TANF 
payment to put more in the rate.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. And I think it is safe to say that, 
in any of those cases, individuals are not necessarily helped.
    Mr. COLLINS. Absolutely. The concern--yes.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. And certainly not a brighter 
future----
    Mr. COLLINS. No.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska [continuing]. For individuals facing 
scenarios like that. So I appreciate that insight.
    Mr. Maas, in your testimony you spoke about how the work 
participation rate doesn't always align with a client's needs. 
What are some of the problems with the work participation rate, 
and do you have some specific examples?
    Mr. MAAS. Yes. I think probably one of the biggest examples 
is the success story that I submitted in my written testimony.
    So we had an individual that lacked a high school diploma, 
or GED. She lacked transportation and some of the basic 
services that we can provide, and we were able to enroll her 
into GED, and we did it full-time. So she met her requirements 
as to what we were asking her for. But technically, we failed 
performance for that individual. And we not only failed it for 
her, but we failed it for her husband, because she came to us 
as a two-parent family. So he also was enrolled in GED.
    But we know that, with these supports and by doing 
something that felt ethically right, even though we were 
failing some of the local performance, we were able to get her 
her GED. We were able to get her a certified nursing assistant, 
and we were able to get her a job, which is probably most 
important, right?
    And so, you know, with that she is now working full-time, 
and the employers filled a much-needed position as a certified 
nursing assistant, which a lot of our employers are struggling 
with today. So, you know, that is just one example.
    There are other examples around job search and the fifth 
week not counting towards participation. I am not sure why that 
happens, or how it happens, but we get flagged in our system 
what week the fifth week is. On the short months it becomes 
very challenging for that, and then also individuals that get 
referred to us mid-month, if they start the middle of January, 
we are going to have a hard time meeting those hours for the 
month, so that person is probably going to count against our 
performance too, even though they have done everything that we 
have asked them to do during the short window that we have had 
it.
    So I don't know why things aren't prorated. You know, it is 
a little above my head or pay grade, or maybe my knowledge 
base. I feel like you need a PhD to understand these work 
requirements, and I do not have one, unfortunately.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I recognize Ms. 
Tenney of New York.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member. 
This is great.
    You are a tremendous witnesses. I have been involved in a 
lot of this as a state legislator and in New York, where we 
have particular issues, and we really appreciate your input on 
how to solve this problem. I was on the Social Services 
Committee, and we never really solved it. In fact, I just read 
an inspector general's report for New York State that gives us 
lousy scores.
    But I want to talk about a couple quick things, if I can. 
Number one is--every one of us have touched on this, but the 
real problem with employers--and I am an employer in New York 
State, and if I walk into any store, any shop, any business, 
any manufacturing firm, everybody needs employees. It is a huge 
problem.
    New York is lagging behind all the other states, pretty 
much, except, I think, for six in labor participation. In fact, 
we are down 104,000 jobs as of where we are--stand today. And 
if we kept pace with the rest of the country, on average, we 
should have--in our last data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
would have had 320,000 more private-sector jobs. So we have an 
issue getting people to work, but we recognize this is not such 
an easy climb.
    And I love my colleague Ms. Moore's reference as calling us 
life coaches, or calling you life coaches in what you do in 
TANF, but I do think--and I want to address this to Mr. 
Collins, because I know a number of you have already kind of 
jumped on this.
    But, you know, you made some really good statement in your 
early testimony, and you talked about, you know, this state of 
TANF being an anti-poverty versus an anti-penalty reform. And 
it really struck my interest, because, you know, it is the 
outcomes versus process issue. And I am a former divorce 
lawyer. So I will tell you, lawyers in divorce law, it doesn't 
matter what the outcome is; as long as they can milk the file 
and keep it going as long as possible, they make a lot of 
money. And I am getting the impression this is how TANF works 
in some cases.
    Like a state like New York, you know, the incentive is not 
to get the person to gainful employment and success, it is just 
to keep the hours going and not really get, you know, get an 
outcome. So can you explain to me a little bit about that 
process, and how we can maybe give flexibility to the states, 
how we can give incentives based on outcomes and getting people 
to gainful employment, at least on the road to gainful 
employment?
    And I know you are an expert on this.
    Mr. COLLINS. Great. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    So the first thing I would want to let everybody know is 
that states right now, as I mentioned before, have a very small 
actual work requirement. So, the concern that I have with that 
is that most states meet their rate by actually having people 
in work. And that sounds odd. What I mean by that is, if you 
are not in work, there is probably no other activity that you 
are doing that counts towards the rate.
    So states have a tremendous amount of flexibility to do 
whatever activities they deem necessary to move somebody to 
self-sufficiency, including all of the pre-work that you have 
to do with individuals that are homeless, or individuals who 
have challenges with substance abuse treatment. There is a 
tremendous amount of state flexibility currently there for 
states to be able to take advantage of that.
    Ms. TENNEY. Well, let me ask you this. Is it true that one 
of the biggest limitations of the work rate is that states 
don't need to move TANF recipients into actual paid employment 
to meet the rate?
    Mr. COLLINS. So there is 12 allowable activities. Almost 90 
percent of participation comes from putting people in jobs. So 
my concern is slightly different.
    I want to make sure that everybody gets an opportunity to 
be helped into work. And the challenge is right now that is not 
going on. What is counting are people in work, and only people 
in work. So if you have a pathway that you need to go through 
before that, my challenge is let's get everybody in the game, 
so that we can get them where they need to be.
    So the--my, really, point is that the flexibility is 
tremendous. And I think what we need to do is we need to 
tighten some of that in terms of an accountability measure to 
make sure that states are doing what I just mentioned.
    Ms. TENNEY. Great, thank you.
    Mr. MAAS, I just wanted to mention--I go back to my life 
coach example from Ms. Moore, but I used to work for a group, a 
volunteer, called the Work--the Women's Employment Resource 
Center, which was once called the Displaced Homemakers. We had 
to modernize our terminology, but it was a great group, and it 
was--they actually did act as life coaches, and we worked with 
women to bring them up to speed.
    And I was just going to ask you if you could talk about a 
little bit of your interaction with workforce development 
boards in getting people to that point where they can actually 
identify employers, employees, and work with people who are 
desperate to find good employees, so that we can get them on 
the path to success.
    Mr. MAAS. Yes, we are really fortunate. We have a women's 
resource center in West Michigan, too----
    Ms. TENNEY. Oh, great.
    Mr. MAAS. So that is interesting. So they have been great 
to partner with early on in my career.
    But we have a business solutions team that works both with 
TANF and WIOA, Trade Act, as well as Wagner-Peyser 
participants. And so, you know, we are able to leverage those 
relationships with those employers, that it doesn't matter 
which funding stream the person came from, but it is more about 
that relationship with that employer. So it has worked really 
well for us.
    The challenge, as I mentioned, there are very few states 
across the country that are integrated like our state is. 
Obviously, we would love to see more. It is my own bias. You 
know, our board is heavily focused on outcomes of getting 
people jobs and getting them placed into meaningful employment. 
And I know there are other boards across the country. I think 
there is 550 across the country that are doing similar work, 
and great work in each of your states.
    So thank you for that question.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. My time is out, and I wish you could 
all come and do a roundtable discussion in New York.
    And I want to just especially say thank you to Ms. Gray for 
fostering all those children. We are really lucky to have you, 
and so are they.
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you.
    Ms. TENNEY. So thank you for your warmth and your 
compassion for these people. I appreciate it.
    I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Tenney. I recognize Mr. 
Evans of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, my life coach, Ms. Moore----
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Evans. He is 
yielding to me.
    Listen, I am not going to take all of your time. I just 
want to just double back on a couple of things.
    In 2021 we heard all of you all reference that as being 
sort of a point at which most states had, like, zero caseload 
reduction. Now, that was during COVID, remember? I mean, I 
remember because my oldest son almost died of COVID on January 
1st, 2021. People hadn't had any vaccines. So, I just want to 
put this in some context when we start talking about--and we 
suspended time limits and stuff because people couldn't go to 
work. It was kind of hard to go find a job during COVID. I just 
want to clean that up before we leave.
    Also, you know, Mr. Collins talked about, you know, 
allowable activities. And so, I just want to know, Mr. Maas and 
Ms. Francis, you guys got dinged on your workforce 
participation when you helped that woman become a CNA and her 
husband. You got dinged, didn't you?
    Mr. MAAS. Just a little bit. You know----
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. You didn't meet----
    Mr. MAAS. I am happy to take those bumps and bruises.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. You didn't meet your expectations 
because you actually helped somebody out of poverty, and you 
got dinged for it, is that right?
    Mr. MAAS. We have enough across the region to be able to 
still meet work participation rate----
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. But, I mean----
    Mr. MAAS [continuing]. As an organization.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin [continuing]. Manipulated, and it 
kind of got around, and----
    Mr. MAAS. Well, we have had a great partnership with the 
state representative that allowed us that flexibility. And that 
is where they use those caseload reduction credit in what I 
would say a good way, right?
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. But if you did that too much, you 
would mess up.
    Mr. MAAS. Oh, I would get in real trouble, Representative.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. You would be in real trouble if too 
many people got on that trampoline and got out of poverty.
    Thank you, and I yield back to Mr. Evans.
    Mr. EVANS. Thank you.
    Ms. Gray, to what extent did TANF help you feed and care 
for your grandchildren and foster children? Can you please 
expand how TANF worked--work requirements made giving more 
difficult--getting more difficult for you and your husband 
(sic)?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, sir, thank you. We never received TANF. In 
the beginning we weren't told about TANF. And then, when we 
applied, we made $75 too much. So with that went our credit 
cards, our savings account, and going into our retirement fund.
    Mr. EVANS. From your own experience, and from what you have 
heard from the other grandparents, caregivers, can you please 
speak to the burden of managing complicated paperwork, stated 
scheduled meetings, and other challenging requirements while 
trying to provide a safe, nurturing home for your grandchildren 
and foster children?
    Ms. GRAY. Yes, sir. So we are talking about grandparents 
that are in their seventies and eighties. They have mobile 
issues. Some of them can't get around. And so when it comes 
time for a meeting, they have to get to the meeting. They also 
usually have to bring the children with them.
    And so that creates that problem, because child care is not 
available. So when they are doing that, they are already in 
this mode that I can't do it, I am just going to have to not 
make the meeting, and those type of things. A lot of meetings 
were done during COVID virtually, which did help a lot of 
families make those meetings. But the thought of getting the 
children together to go to a meeting or finding someone to 
watch them was very hard.
    Reading through the TANF paperwork, there were forms and 
things that they were asked to fill out, and some of the things 
were hard to do if it was related to getting the parents for 
child support, when they know that the family has already--the 
biological parents have already, like, threatened to come and 
get the kids.
    So there were a lot of things that the grandparents go 
through that is very hard. They are torn between the love of 
their child and the love of their grandchildren. But in the 
long run, they are retired. They have done the work that they 
need to do, and they weren't looking to take in children.
    And in a lot of cases--like, one of my grandmothers, she 
was a great-grandmother. They placed a set of twins, 15 weeks 
old and the 18-month-old brother with her. And she lived on a 
second floor with no elevator. There was so many things that 
hindered her from getting out and doing the things that needed 
to be done.
    And a lot of the requirements don't make sense for--when 
you talk about TANF--don't make sense for grandfamilies. There 
needs to be a special section that helps grandfamilies.
    Mr. EVANS. I thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Evans. I recognize Dr. 
Wenstrup of Ohio.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here. It is wonderful to hear all 
that you do. I can tell you, as a physician, there is nothing 
more rewarding than taking care of someone in need, and that is 
what all of you are doing.
    You know, in Washington you hope that the name of a program 
or the name of a bill lives up to its billing, right? And so 
temporary, one, is the first word, Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, right? Very appropriate.
    And, you know, look, all families all look different. They 
are not all the same. And not only that, every member of the 
family has different needs. And I think that that is sometimes 
what we miss out on this.
    Mr. Collins, you hit on something just as I came back in 
about the opportunity. You know, it is one thing to have a 
requirement, but the requirement is nothing if there is not an 
opportunity. And so how do we enhance the opportunities?
    And that is what I have always been about. You know, it is 
nice, you can just say, well, you are required to go get a job. 
Well, that is easier said than done. You know, there is--it is 
just not that simple for somebody who is starting out in 
poverty, and then suddenly they need transportation to get to a 
job, they--there are all these factors that we all know come 
into play, and they are the barriers.
    So I think, if we can focus more on opportunities or at 
least allow at a local level that you can enhance opportunities 
for people, then the requirement, I think--I like what you 
said, if you--if I understood, Mr. Collins. It is like the 
requirement should be that you participate in the pathway to an 
opportunity, then to a job. That should be the requirement, and 
will I agree with that 100 percent. Merely just saying it here 
doesn't mean it happens. We do that a lot here in Washington.
    Anyway, so--and it is not just the requirement, it is the 
result. And how do you--what does success look like? You know, 
that is the key. And, you know, I have got some great 
caseworkers in my district, and they are like, ``If they just 
left me alone to do what these people need, this family needs, 
this child, this individual or family, I can do so much more.'' 
And sometimes they have the opportunity, sometimes they just do 
it anyway and beg forgiveness later, right?
    You know, I meet a family with six kids living in a one-
room cabin, and he says, ``I can't take that third shift job, 
because I got nowhere to sleep when I come home.'' Okay? Do we 
need paperwork here to fix that, or can somebody who is looking 
that family in the eye take care of that situation? In that 
case she was able to, and they went to work.
    So there is the--what does assistance look like, I think, 
is a case-by-case basis, and not something we can define right 
here in Washington, D.C. And that is where I think, as we go 
forward and we want to make adjustments to this program, we 
enhance that.
    And also, is there a way to reward the success we are all 
talking about, which is somebody getting into a job no longer 
needing assistance?
    And by the way, when you get a job, we don't want to make 
it so that you are worse off than you were before you got the 
job, as far as financially and what your family can eat.
    So I think we need to focus on a lot of local flexibility 
for caseworkers. And you know, like I said, needs differ. 
Whether it is getting your high school degree to be able to get 
that job, let's make that happen. You know, if it is 
transportation, let's find a way to make that happen. Whether 
it is childcare, let's find a way to make that happen. So I 
would be glad to hear from any of you to help us as we might 
change the parameters so that you all can be successful.
    And you know, you are all wonderful people, but, Ms. Gray, 
I don't think I have met a living saint in my life, but you are 
right up there.
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Collins.
    Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. I think we 
need--there is more that we can do to reward work. Given all of 
the tools that are now in play, I think different than in 2005, 
states, I think, are trying to avoid penalties. They need to 
build an anti-poverty program and, in so doing, find more ways 
to reward work, spend more resources on rewarding work, and 
helping people, you know, ladder-up once they get in.
    For example, income credits, there might be asset-building 
match-savings programs that can be added to when individuals go 
into work. And I think that is where we are. It really is about 
improving it, and adding that kind of accountability from the 
Federal level to allow states and counties, really, to innovate 
and to think through what is best for that family right there 
on the front lines.
    Ms. REYNOLDS. And I would just add, ideally, that would be 
backed by evidence. You are a physician, and often, I would 
guess, when you treat your patients you make sure you treat 
them in a way that the evidence backs up that treatment, that 
pill, that drug, that surgery is going to align.
    And unfortunately, in too many of our anti-poverty programs 
across this country, we don't treat our poor people that way. 
We don't give them the dignity to give them services that 
actually work and have that causal evidence like you would in 
the medical community. And we should demand that of our states.
    Ms. GRAY. I would just like to say that our grandfamilies, 
some of them are not in poverty. They have worked, they have 
saved, they are now living the life that they want to live in 
retirement. And then they get a phone call, and they are placed 
with children in their care. They are making $2,500 a month, 
and getting denied from TANF because they responsibly saved 
their money for their retirement. And now what do they do? They 
are at an age where they are not always employed, or get 
employment. Or if they are able to, they are medically disabled 
or they have got health issues and they cannot work.
    So the program needs to take into consideration that every 
family is not the same, and that these families that were 
grandfamilies that saved and put their life together are now 
moving into poverty simply because they are now willing to take 
care of their children, and keep them out of the state's care.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you all very much. Very helpful.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup.
    Our last member is Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, who is not 
on the subcommittee, but thought this committee's topic today 
so important that we welcomed her to the subcommittee today.
    So welcome, Mrs. Miller.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I used to be on this 
committee. [Laughter.]
    Mrs. MILLER. So my heart is still here with so many of the 
issues and the years that I spent in the State House dealing--I 
am from West Virginia. I understand poverty. I understand, and 
I love the word ``dignity,'' because it is so important with 
what we are doing.
    And I can repeat, there have been no significant changes in 
TANF since 2005. And you would think that we would have been 
further along, but we have had lots of issues, and we have had 
COVID come through. So this hearing, I think, is in the right 
step for the right direction in addressing the loopholes and 
the gaps. And it is our duty to help Americans in poverty to 
move out of it, to move--to have that feeling, that self-
satisfaction. And so I do believe in--welfare-to-work is an 
important step, and we have just got to find effective policies 
and proposals to remove those barriers that you all have been 
talking about.
    I just reintroduced my legislation that I had had in 
before, called the Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce 
Act--now of 2023, which would reserve up to $100 million from 
the TANF Contingency Fund to subsidize the wages of TANF 
recipients for up to 12 months while they are trying to work by 
incentivizing their employers, like paying for part of their 
salary of--to these TANF recipients. The new employees will 
then receive on-the-job training, valuable experience.
    Business owners also understand that it is expensive to 
train people to work. And so this is--it is a wonderful 
addition to the valuable experience that they will have in 
giving them a career. And so my legislation would invest in the 
well-being of the families in the TANF program by creating a 
direct pathway to employment for opportunities and success.
    So Ms. Francis, Mr. Collins, any of you, can you speak to 
the importance of the public-private partnerships in helping 
welfare recipients move into jobs, retain work, and increase 
their--to increase their earnings over time?
    Ms. FRANCIS. Thank you for that question. I think what you 
brought up was a perfect example of how we could collaborate 
with jobs. We need to be putting our individuals, our customers 
into higher-paying positions. We all--we know that minimum wage 
cannot support a family, and I do believe that employers will 
be more willing to accept people onto their payrolls if they 
were--if they did have an incentive to add those people on.
    And if someone can be trained on the job, get that skill, 
they are not going somewhere else but they can get it on the 
job, they know that they are going to have that position, 
something that they can carry on forward or move up in that 
position, I think that that would be something that would be 
very beneficial to our customers.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.
    Mr. COLLINS. Yes. The beauty of the block grant is that the 
State of West Virginia can do what the state needs to do, and 
provide opportunities that way. And each and every other state 
has that same opportunity. So I think that is important to 
preserve.
    I would also always say that there needs to be from this 
body some level of accountability that drives more people 
through those pathways than the current framework does. The 
current framework allows way too many loopholes that don't give 
states enough pressure to get as many people through whatever 
activity that a case manager deems as important for them to do.
    So I think we need to close some of those loopholes up so 
that there are more opportunities to get people to higher-
paying jobs that--the employers that need those employees right 
now.
    Mrs. MILLER. Either of the other--any of you. And I do want 
to talk to grandma at the end. [Laughter.]
    Ms. REYNOLDS. I was just going to add, once you get your 
act passed into law we would be more than happy at Notre Dame 
to study the impact of it so you can build evidence, so we can 
decide should it be expanded over time.
    Mrs. MILLER. Yes.
    Mr. MAAS. Is a great question, Representative, and thanks 
for being here.
    I would echo a lot of the statements that have already been 
provided. You know, early on in my career I worked directly 
with employers and offered on-the-job training contracts and 
helping, you know, take the risk on hiring somebody with maybe 
a little lower skill set than what the employer had. And it 
always has been and still continues to be a valuable tool in 
our toolbox when working with employers and getting those job-
seekers connected to employment.
    So thank you for being here.
    Mrs. MILLER. And I just want to say bless you, Ms. Gray. In 
our state, sometimes we even have great-grandparents----
    Ms. GRAY. Yes.
    Mrs. MILLER [continuing]. That are taking care of kids 
because, you know, we have had drug addiction and various 
things that have directly affected the family unit. And so you 
are so brave and so loving, and I just want to say thank you.
    Ms. GRAY. Thank you.
    Mrs. MILLER. I turn it back to you, boss.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller.
    Well, that concludes our question-and-answer from our 
members here.
    I want to just mention one thing. We have heard a lot about 
grandfamilies today. And just to remind folks that 
grandfamilies don't have work requirements in TANF. They are 
considered child-only. We aren't proposing work requirements 
for grandparents, I just wanted to make that clear.
    Let me just say in conclusion, as I have listened to the 
testimony of all five of you today and the questions and 
answers here today, it has really been remarkable. You have 
been here for over two hours, but your testimony and the 
question-and-answers, I think, have been very compassionate and 
informative and instructive in many ways, and helps guide all 
of us here as we look at policy solutions on how we reform 
TANF, and what we can do to make the program better, because we 
are always looking at how do we make government more effective, 
efficient, and accountable. That is really what today is all 
about. And you guys were a big part of that.
    So again, thank you. We are grateful.
    I would just lastly say welfare reform was based on one 
simple idea shared by people of all political stripes: the 
belief that the best way out of poverty is a job, and that 
reducing poverty should be about helping people move from 
welfare to work.
    And so, as we conclude today, again, we are grateful, and 
thank you for your testimony, and look forward to working with 
you.
    Please be advised that members have two weeks to submit 
written questions to be answered later in writing. Those 
questions and your answers will be made part of the formal 
record here today.
    I want to thank Dr. Davis for your work with us on this 
subcommittee.
    And with that, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
      

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

                              [all]