[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELFARE REFORM SUCCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2002
University Center, Michigan
__________
Serial No. 107-88
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
84-500 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Human Resources
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Advisory of March 25, 2002, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
Carter, Darnell, Detroit, Michigan............................... 16
Cascade Engineering, Fred P. Keller.............................. 19
Family Independence Agency, Lori Scorsone........................ 23
Hudson, Lisa, Grand Rapids, Michigan............................. 17
Koon, Carol, Evart, Michigan..................................... 15
Michigan, State of, Hon. John Engler, Governor, and National
Governors' Association......................................... 5
WELFARE REFORM SUCCESS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
University Center, Michigan.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., at
the Rhea Miller Recital Hall, Saginaw Valley State University,
University Center, Michigan, Hon. Dave Camp presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 25, 2002
No. HR-13
Herger Announces Field Hearing on Welfare Reform Success
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a field hearing on welfare reform success
stories. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, in the
Rhea Miller Recital Hall, Saginaw Valley State University, 7400 Bay
Road, University Center, Michigan, beginning at 11:00 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include Michigan Governor John Engler as well as former
welfare recipients, a welfare caseworker, and an employer who has hired
welfare recipients. However, any individual or organization not
scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for
consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed
record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), commonly referred to as the 1996 Welfare Reform
Law, made dramatic changes in the Federal-State welfare system designed
to aid low-income American families. The law repealed the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program, and with it the individual
entitlement to cash welfare benefits. In its place, the 1996
legislation created a new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block
grant, which provides fixed funding to States to operate programs
designed to achieve several purposes: (1) provide assistance to needy
families, (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government
benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage, (3) prevent
and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and (4)
encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
National figures point to remarkable progress in combating welfare
dependence and poverty since State and Federal welfare reforms were
enacted in the mid-1990s. The number of children living in poverty has
dropped by nearly 3 million and the African-American child poverty rate
has fallen to a record low; welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent
nationwide, as nearly 3 million families and 9 million recipients have
left welfare; and record numbers of current and former welfare
recipients are working.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ``Welfare reform
has been a tremendous success in terms of reducing poverty, ending
dependence, and promoting work. But behind all of the remarkable
statistics are millions of families working their way off of welfare
and into the mainstream of American life. This hearing will allow us to
hear some personal accounts of how reform has worked in Michigan, which
will help set the stage as we prepare to extend and improve the
national 1996 welfare reforms in the coming months.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The Subcommittee will review welfare reform outcomes in Michigan,
with a focus on the perspective of former recipients, employers and
caseworkers who have been instrumental in the success of the State's
program in terms of reducing poverty, ending dependence, and promoting
work.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, by the close of business, Tuesday, April 16, 2002. If
those filing written statements, other than invited witnesses, wish to
have their statements distributed to the press and interested public at
the hearing, they may deliver 150 additional copies for this purpose to
the district office of Representative Dave Camp, 135 Ashman Drive,
Midland, Michigan 48640, by close of business on Monday, April 1, 2002.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in Word Perfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a
total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call (202) 225-1721 or (202) 226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event
(four business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to
special accommodation needs in general (including availability of
Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the
Committee as noted above.
Mr. CAMP. Good morning. First of all, I want to thank
everybody for coming. I'm really pleased that this hearing is
taking place in Michigan, in Saginaw County, and at Saginaw
Valley State University. I want to thank President Eric
Gilbertson and Jean Hamilton for making it possible that we're
here.
I think it's important for the Congress to get the State
perspective on welfare reform, and a local perspective, not
just what we hear from witnesses that are able to travel to
Washington.
I also want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, Wally
Herger, for allowing this tremendous opportunity to have the
hearing in Michigan. Also, I want to acknowledge the invaluable
assistance that Matt Weidinger, the Subcommittee Staff
Director, Katie Kitchin, and Ryan Work of the Subcommittee who
have all provided, as well as my own staff, Dedra Clancy, help
to make this hearing happen.
Today's hearing will provide my Subcommittee Members and
other colleagues from Michigan an important background for this
year's re-authorization as we consider welfare reform outcomes
in Michigan. It will focus on the perspective of former
recipients, caseworkers and employers who have been
instrumental in the success of the State's program in terms of
reducing poverty, ending dependence and promoting work. With
Governor Engler's lead, Michigan was at the forefront of the
National Welfare Reform effort when it began experimenting with
welfare reform in the early nineties. It was the innovative
State thinking that the Governor and other legislatures--and I
know we have a number of them here in attendance--Senator Joel
Gougeon is here, Representative Jim Howell, Representative Tony
Stamas, and Representative Carl Williams. I also know that Chad
Arnold from Senator Dunaskiss's office is here. They have all
been influential in Michigan's innovative approach to welfare
reform.
Just through the year 2000, the decline in welfare
caseloads have resulted in the reduction of State spending on
welfare by almost $775 million. Spending on child day care,
employment programs, health care and other social services has
climbed by almost $3 billion.
On the national level, welfare reform has been a success by
almost any measure which you can devise; successful in terms of
reducing caseloads and moving millions of families out of
poverty through work. We know that nearly 3 million children
have been lifted from poverty since 1996. Employment by single
parents most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between
1995 and 2000. Also, welfare caseloads have declined by 9
million, from 14 million recipients in 1994, to just 5 million
today.
Welfare reform has increased work, boosted incomes,
improved child poverty, while also reducing dependency. I'm
proud of the achievements of the 1996 law and even prouder of
the millions of parents who are now working and making better
lives for themselves and their children.
We are honored to have some parents with us here today, and
we'll be hearing from them later. I look forward to learning
about how they took advantage of the improved work support
Michigan allows and how they were able to become independent.
In the coming months, we have the opportunity to build on
these successes and enhance this vital program. Congress should
continue to help more people successfully transition to work,
because work is the real and only permanent path out of
poverty.
I will say that joining us today will be the Governor of
Michigan, John Engler, as well as former welfare recipients
Carol Koon, Darnell Carter and Lisa Hudson. We are also joined
by Lori Scorsone, a welfare caseworker, and Fred Keller, an
employer who has hired welfare recipients. We look forward to
hearing from all of our witnesses.
[The opening statement of Mr. Camp follows:]
Opening Statement of the Hon. Dave Camp, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Good morning. First, I would like to say how pleased I am that this
hearing is taking place here in Michigan because it is important for
Congress to get the state perspective on welfare reform as well as a
local perspective. Second, I would like to thank Chairman Wally Herger
for this tremendous opportunity as well as acknowledge the invaluable
assistance that Matt Weidinger, Subcommittee Staff Director, Katie
Kitchin, and Ryan Work of the Subcommittee have all provided to make
this hearing happen.
Today's hearing will provide my Michigan colleagues and me an
important background for this year's reauthorization as we consider
welfare reform outcomes in Michigan. It will focus on the perspective
of former recipients and caseworkers and employers who have been
instrumental in the success of the State's program in terms of reducing
poverty, ending dependence, and promoting work.
With Governor Engler taking the lead, Michigan was at the forefront
of the national welfare reform effort when it began experimenting with
welfare reform in the early 1990s. Michigan's innovative thinking
resulted in a dramatic change in spending priorities. For example,
through the 2000 fiscal year, the decline in welfare caseloads had
resulted in reduction of state spending on poverty relief of almost
$775 million. However, spending on child day care, employment programs,
health care and other social services had climbed by almost $3 billion.
On the national level, welfare reform has been a tremendous success
in reducing welfare caseloads and moving millions of families out of
poverty through increased work. We know that nearly 3 million children
have been lifted from poverty since 1996, employment by mothers most
likely to go on welfare rose by 40% between 1995 and 2000; and welfare
caseloads have fallen by 9 million--from 14 million recipients in 1994
to just 5 million today.
Welfare reform increased work, boosted incomes, improved child
poverty while reducing dependency. I am proud of the achievements of
the 1996 law, and even prouder of the millions of parents who are now
working and making better lives for themselves and their children. We
are honored to have several such parents with us today, and look
forward to learning more about how they took advantage of the improved
work supports Michigan and now so many other states provide.
In the coming months, we have the opportunity to build on these
successes and enhance this vital program. Congress should continue to
help more people successfully transition to work, because work is the
only real and permanent path out of poverty.
Joining us today will be Governor John Engler as well as several
former welfare recipients: Carol Koon, Darnell Carter, Crystal McClain,
and Lisa Hudson. We also are joined by Lori Scorsone, a welfare
caseworker, and Fred Keller, an employer who has hired welfare
recipients. We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
Mr. CAMP. Governor Engler will be our first witness. He was
a key architect of Michigan's Welfare Reform, as well as,
testifying on numerous occasions and helping craft the 1996
Welfare Law.
It is a great honor to have an opportunity to hear from the
Governor of Michigan, John Engler. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN ENGLER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. ENGLER. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Camp. I
am delighted to be here today with you. I certainly want to
thank you and express my appreciation to Chairman Herger and to
the other Members of the Committee who asked me to testify
today.
I recall with great fondness 1995 and 1996 while there was
an extraordinary amount of work being done, the leadership that
you and then Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Clay Shaw and so
many others provided. It was an important bit of work that was
done. The results, as you just so eloquently stated, have truly
changed America. For me to be able to come here today as not
only the Governor of Michigan, but Chairman of the National
Governors' Association, to a field hearing that's in the State
of Michigan, it's an opportunity for us to talk about a record
that we're very proud of. A record of welfare reform success, a
record that shows, in our State, tens of thousands of families
who successfully transitioned from dependency to independence,
taking charge of their own lives, and taking charge of their
family. So, it's a wonderful opportunity.
I would also note, and I understand he's on business and
out of the State, but Michigan is not only privileged to have
you on this all important Subcommittee, but also Congressman
Sander Levin from Oakland County. So, we do feel as though, in
the policy debate in 2002, that our views will be heard and
hopefully will be part of the consideration. This hearing here
today shows that.
I also want to express our appreciation from the Michigan
officials, our Family Independence Agency (FIA) for my
Washington office to Matt Weidinger and his staff at the
Subcommittee level, as well as, the staff in the Minority. They
have all been very, very open to us. So, I'm thrilled to be
here.
What I'll do this morning is maybe take a few moments and
go through some of the prepared remarks.
Mr. CAMP. All of the testimony will be part of the
permanent record that will go back and be part of the
Subcommittee's official record on this legislation.
Mr. ENGLER. For some of our guests, we have--I just saw on
the table outside, actually a chronology of welfare reform
changes in Michigan, which is an interesting document. There
are, I think, some limited copies of most of the testimony I'm
going to present.
Let me begin back in 1995 and 1996, because it was in 1996
after two vetoes that Federal welfare reform was signed into
law. The date was August 22. There were skeptics and many of
them who had their doubts. They said bad things would happen.
We have even had, as I recall, employees resigning in protest
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the
argument was this: The States really weren't concerned or as
compassionate about their citizens as people were in
Washington. The argument was it would be a race to the bottom.
Some advocates for the old system even claimed that some 2
million children would be added to child poverty roles. The
evidence is in. They were wrong.
Welfare reform has worked and has exceeded the expectations
of many of its staunchest supporters. States took very
seriously the authority that was devolved by Congress, and I
think earned a claim and trust through their actions and
successes.
The Federal legislation that you wrote succeeded because
Congress debated, focused on and then sent overarching goals,
such as families going to work and making assistance temporary.
Then the strategies and the methods were largely left to the
States. The key word: Flexibility. Michigan and other States
have proven that given flexibility, States can design programs
that fit their needs, better programs, deliver better services
and bottom line, get better outcomes for families and
taxpayers.
Michigan's reform, as you've cited, alone have resulted in
over 308,000 Michigan families leaving welfare with earned
income. As we move forward now, this year, considering the
subject again and re-authorization, I think everyone agrees.
It's important to maintain work in unsubsidized private sector
employment as a key goal. Employment reduces welfare
dependency, strengthens families, and exposes our next
generation of children with the all-important work ethic. If we
lose work as a central theme, we would risk losing much of the
gains that we've made over the last decade.
I'm delighted that President Bush's proposal keeps work as
a central focus, and I support his efforts to raise the bar.
While some of the details are still emerging, we also believe
there is additional opportunity within the President's
proposal, as well as proposals that are coming forward in the
Congress. The opportunity is to fine-tune the details so that
current successful State programs can continue, and we can
achieve even greater gains. I look forward and the Nations
Governors look forward to being part of a process where States,
leaders in Congress like yourself, the Subcommittee, and the
administration work together to write a final product that
recognizes the goal of work. At the same time--balances the
changing mix of our caseloads. Some of the current State
programs, available resources which at the State level and
recent budget, really for sort of two budgets as we've dealt
with a national recession, have become somewhat strained and at
the same time certainly to maximize the all important
flexibility for States.
Again, the President's proposals are a tremendous starting
point, given where this debate began back in 1995 when the
proposals emerged from the new majority in the House and
Congress of the United States. I mean, that's really where this
debate began in 1995. Now, here we are a few short years later,
and the President's coming in with a proposal that would have
seemed absolutely radical in 1995 when we first began this
conversation.
Welfare reform is about strengthening families. Work
strengthens family. However, for some families, work alone
cannot be the only strategy to strengthen the families. In
Michigan we've done many things we think that are designed to
support strong family structures.
Early on, fairer eligibility standards for two-parent
families, targeted paternity establishment, priority of
reducing out-of-wedlock births, family reunification and
preservation initiatives, and a range of other family formation
activities. Again, as was with the focus on work, I think it's
critical that specific family formation strategies be largely
left in the States.
I'm pleased that the President has proposed for the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants, a level
of funding of the block. While at the same time, he's also
addressed some other concerns that I think are real, and were
in need of being addressed--a meaningful contingency fund for
emergency situations. The ability of States to formally
obligate unspent funds has been an open question during the 5
years of this welfare reform legislation. The ongoing
commitment of a multi-year block grant is, again, something
else that's welcomed.
Again, given the State's current physical situations, of
course we'll also be looking for any opportunities that may
arise to include other modest little economic increases or
inflation factors to further supplement base TANF funding,
should those materialize.
At the same time, another key opportunity is one that would
allow States to align and simplify other programs. Here, the
President's proposed ``super-waiver'' authority could be one of
the most exciting, innovative and effective things to come out
of Washington in years.
Families who receive cash are often caught in the trap of
multiple and conflicting bureaucratic systems and programs,
i.e., food stamps, housing, education, training systems, and
work force systems. Many of these systems don't work well
together because they have different origins, and they have
different Federal rules. They arose from different Federal
priorities, and they certainly have many different definitions.
Our take on this is that these differences send some pretty
conflicting messages to families. They create ominous hurdles
for our staff who try to make them work together. They end up
aggravating the public and me, even some of our dedicated
workers get a little bit aggravated who are trying to help
these families. The families themselves get kind of worked up
about this. I get upset, too, because what we all want is a
system that works better. I think it can and should work
better. This isn't really a question where if we make 1 or 5 or
10 changes in Congress each year, I think we can fix it. It
really is broader than that. I think it's giving the States the
flexibility, the authority to make real-time changes to align
programs in ways that give better services to families and make
program administration more manageable. For our taxpayers who
are listening today and who follow our activities, give them
more bang for their dollar.
I believe the bottom line is this: The more challenging the
family problems are, the more flexibility the States need to
address the problems. The old adage one-size-fits-all is
especially wrong for these most challenging of families that
remain trapped in the system. For those who say, ``Well, this
won't work, it isn't possible,'' I ask simply are they the same
people that said the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) entitlement couldn't be eliminated and that the TANF
block grant would not work?
I think that we've seen the partnership with Congress,
Governors, legislators, and legislatures in those like those
that are here today, have a closer relationship to the actual
people with the kinds of problems that they have in those
families where they need services. I would say the States,
again, in this debate, will approach it this way: The States
are willing to be held accountable, but the States really need
and must have the responsibility and authority that goes with
the accountability. To those who do not believe that greater
flexibility for States is a deserving worthy goal, I ask this:
What on Earth would it take to convince you, given the success
of recent years?
I think imposing flexibility for States is the equivalent
of saying that better services to families, the more
streamlined, efficient programs, somehow aren't worthy and
deserving goals.
In 2002, opposing State flexibility means more mandates and
rules from Washington. Mr. Chairman, we tried that for 40
years, and it didn't work. I'm proud of our record of reform in
Michigan. I'm proud of what Republican and Democrat Governors
have done across America. It's truly a remarkable transition
that's taken place. Interestingly, it has happened in large
States, in small States, with Democrat Governors, with
Republican Governors, with legislatures of both parties. It's
just been a change that truly was ready to happen. The Congress
in 1996 paved the way, stuck with it and prevailed. The rest
they say is history.
I think the relationship that we built with Congress, the
States and Nation's Governors back in 1995 and 1996 is one that
has continued to improve. The debates back then resulted in
historic reforms. Again, this year I think there's an
opportunity. We ought to seize that opportunity to ensure that
the historic reforms 1996 really are the foundation and that we
continue them and move to the next level of success. That's why
your hearing today is so important, that's why you honor us
by--I know it's coming home, but by bringing this hearing here
to your district and writing a record then that can go back to
the other Members of your Committee. Mr. Chairman, for that we
thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:]
Statement of the Hon. John Engler, Governor, State of Michigan, and
Chairman National Governors' Association
Congressman Camp, I want to thank you, Chairman Herger, and other
members of the committee for asking me to testify today. I also
appreciate that this field hearing is happening in the State of
Michigan, a state that has a proud record of welfare reform success.
Not only is the state well represented by Congressman Camp, but we
are privileged to have Congressman Sander Levin as a member of this
subcommittee as well.
I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of Matt Weidinger and
his staff at the subcommittee, as well as the staff of the minority
subcommittee.
I am grateful for the opportunity to take a few minutes to testify
before this committee and ask that the additional information I am
submitting on Michigan's welfare reform success be included in the
record.
In 1996, after two vetoes, federal welfare reform was signed into
law on August 22. Many skeptics had their doubts, saying bad things
would happen, effectively arguing that states weren't as concerned or
compassionate about their residents as Washington. They were wrong!
Welfare reform has worked and exceeded the expectations of many of
its staunchest supporters. States took seriously the authority that was
devolved and deserve trust through their actions and successes. The
federal legislation succeeded because Washington focused on overarching
goals, such as work and making assistance temporary, and left the
strategies and methods to the states. The key word: flexibility.
Michigan and other states have proven that given flexibility, states
can design a better program, deliver better services, and get better
outcomes for families and taxpayers. Michigan's reforms alone have
resulted in over 308,000 Michigan families leaving welfare with earned
income.
As we move forward, it is important to maintain work in
unsubsidized private sector employment as the key goal. Employment
reduces welfare dependency, strengthens families, and exposes our next
generation of children to the all-important work ethic. If we lose work
as the central theme, we risk losing much of the gains we have made
over the last decade.
President Bush's proposal keeps work as a central focus, and I
support his efforts to raise the bar. While some of the details are
still emerging, we believe there is opportunity within the President's
proposal, as well as others, to fine-tune the details so that current
successful state programs can continue. I look forward to being part of
a process of states, Congress, and the Administration in arriving at a
final product that recognizes a goal of work, while balancing the
changing mix of our caseloads, current state programs, available
resources, and maximizing flexibility to the states. The President's
proposal is a tremendous starting point, particularly given where we
began back in 1995.
Welfare reform is about strengthening families, and work
strengthens families. However, work does not have to be nor should it
be the only strategy to strengthen families. We have done many things
in Michigan to support strong family structures, including fairer
eligibility standards for two-parent families, targeted paternity
establishment, reducing out-of-wedlock births, family reunification and
preservation initiatives, and other family formation activities.
However, as with the focus on work, it is critical that family
formation strategies be left up to the states.
I am also pleased that the President has proposed keeping the block
grant level while also addressing other critical financial issues, such
as a meaningful contingency fund, the ability of states to formally
obligate unspent funds, and the ongoing commitment of a multi-year
block grant.
Nevertheless, given states' current fiscal situations, we will
still be looking for any opportunities to include other economic
increases or inflation factors to further supplement our base TANF
funding.
Another key opportunity is in allowing states to align and simplify
other programs. The President's proposed ``super-waiver'' authority
could be one of the most exciting, innovative, and effective things to
come out of Washington in years.
Families who receive cash are often caught in the trap of multiple
and conflicting bureaucratic systems and programs--like food stamps,
housing, education and training systems, and workforce systems. Many of
these systems don't work well together because of different federal
rules, priorities, and definitions. Different programs send conflicting
messages to families; they create ominous hurdles for staff who try to
make them work together; and they aggravate the public--and me--because
we want a system that works better. I believe it can and should work
better.
This is not about making one or five or ten changes in Congress
each year. It is about giving states flexibility and authority to make
real-time changes to align programs in a way that gets better services
to families, makes program administration more manageable, and provides
more bang for the taxpayers' dollars. For those who say this will not
work and is not possible, I ask them if they are the same people that
said the AFDC entitlement could not be eliminated or said a TANF block
grant would not work.
Governors and legislatures are closer to the people needing the
services. We are willing to be accountable, but we need the
responsibility and authority that goes with the accountability. I
challenge those who do not believe that greater flexibility for states
is a deserving and worthy goal. That is the equivalent of saying that
better services to families and more streamlined, efficient programs
are not worthy and deserving goals.
I am very proud of our record of reform in Michigan. I am also
pleased with the relationship that Congress developed with Governors
and states in 1995 and 1996 during the welfare reform debate. Those
debates resulted in historic reforms, and we have the opportunity to
ensure that those historic reforms continue and rise to the next level
of success.
With that, I would be happy to take questions.
Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much, Governor, and thank
you for taking the time out of what is a very busy schedule to
be here.
As you know, we'll be working in Congress, with the
Governors and especially with you in your role as Chairman of
the National Governors' Association on extending the 1996 law
for another 5 years. I hear what you're saying that flexibility
is a real key to serving families better.
The President has a proposal to expand the flexibility
that's been granted to the States by really developing what
former Wisconsin Governor and Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson calls a ``super-waiver'' proposal. How
do you think that could best be used to helping low-income
families better? What can we do to--or what can I do to help
make sure that Michigan obtains the flexibility to serve low-
income families better?
Mr. ENGLER. I think that there are a multitude of ways in
which that can make a big difference. If we look at the number
of programs that somebody might be eligible for, in a situation
maybe where it's a single parent head of the family, with a
couple of children, they may have needs that are in housing, or
transportation, or certainly healthcare. We cover that largely
through Medicaid, but there could be educational needs, an
array of different programs, and maybe that mother also is
pregnant with another child or has a very young baby. I used
this example at the press conference earlier this morning, but
just two obvious examples of programs that could easily fit
together: the food stamps and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Both
of those help with food and nutrition services. So, in our
hypothetical family here, which isn't all that hypothetical
when we look at our caseload, there would be an eligibility
there for additional formula and other needs that a mother of a
young child might have. It's interesting that the stores that
are licensed to participate in these programs, since it's done
by two different agencies, actually are--it can be different.
In some cases one store is able to provide food stamps, but not
the WIC program. It just doesn't make any sense. We've moved to
an electronic benefit's card for the food stamp program, much
simpler for the family to use. We should be able to put those
programs together and help provide that additional help.
I did promise a mother that I talked to a week ago when we
were surrounded--and I might comment for our audience. You see
all these achievers of the month, these posters here, these
represent men and women who are some of the success stories.
They're wonderful stories that you see. One of the moms, I
don't think she's in one of these pictures, but she came up to
me and she said, ``It's great to have the help when the kids
are little. I've got some teenagers now, and trying to feed
these teenagers is a whole different kind of challenge, and you
ought to do something that--I could get by pretty good on my
food stamp allotment when the kids were little, but these
teenagers are eating me out of house and home.'' She happened
to be somebody who moved off welfare. She continued, ``If I'd
been on public assistance with food stamps, I'm not sure we
would have had enough food to eat.'' So, she was saying for
those who are still in that system, we ought to look at that.
I said to her, that's a good point, you know, but with the
flexibility that we seek, we could actually even address that
kind of a question. It wasn't something I had thought about,
but that's one example. There may be situations where somebody
is entitled to assistance on housing, and yet their housing is
secured. It's the transportation need that's impossible. Or
it's even additional--you mentioned some statistics on child
care, and that happens to be an area that probably has
increased more dramatically in the Michigan State budget than
almost anything saved Medicaid expenses, and yet the child care
assistance is a great challenge where you're dealing with a
family with a single parent. What happens, how do they--how do
they work.
Another example of a program, and it's in the U.S.
Department of Education where they deal with the Head Start
program, and there may be ways in which we can help that
coordinate more effectively with a person going to work. We
have actually had conflicts of times where the Head Start
program said, ``No, you must come here and be in this classroom
this day of this week.'' The mother is saying, ``Well, I have
to also be at my job, how do I do both?'' You've got basically
people in two different programs, each resolutely pursuing
their goals of their program, and we need to be able to bring
that--bring that together.
Our workers get very creative in trying to figure all of
this out, but it is a lot of effort and I'm just suggesting it
could be made much more effective. So it is--that's why that
waiver is attractive to Governors. I do have, knowing that
there's an aspect of the Congress where the structure of
subcommittees and committees, and that is quite traditional.
Some of these are scattered through many various subcommittees,
and therefore try to get all the subcommittees to deal with the
``super-waiver'' proposal may be very difficult.
Maybe there's an opportunity, if we can't achieve this on a
national basis, for our Congressman from Michigan to write a
provision that would allow for a couple of States to pilot
this, and certainly I would volunteer to have Michigan be one
of those that would pilot this. We would come in with great--we
could be quite specific in terms of the things we would like.
Maybe then there would be an opportunity to validate what the
President's proposed in a couple of States, so that it could in
a future Congress be adopted nationally. If we fall short, and
I realize that we're in a desire to move the Welfare Reform
legislation fairly quickly in the Congress, and that desire to
move quickly may be in contrast to the physical requirements,
getting through all these subcommittees. So, we're always
looking, how do we work with you to try to accomplish the
objective. So, it's a very good question, and probably the most
important feature of how we can really make things work in the
future.
Mr. CAMP. I think it was, the real reason for the success
was the flexibility that was given in the past.
I'm glad you pointed out these pictures here, because I
understand last week, after 10 years of welfare reform, that
you recognized your 100th achiever of the month, and that is a
tremendous goal. Obviously, I know there's many more who would
also qualify for that.
I wanted to ask a question that related to that, that is
discussed in a lot of the meetings we have and hearings, and
that is that we have dozens upon dozens of ways of receiving
data and information and following people who have left
welfare, and I might add that's a stark contrast, and that
there was very little done to track people who had left AFDC in
the past. I wondered about your thoughts on additional
requirements on States to follow every person who has received
assistance, and if you have any thoughts on what some of the
welfare clients feel about that? What challenges might face you
if some of these were mandated? What this might do to the
resources? We all know the amount of resources are limited. How
does this data reporting or tracking fit into how welfare is
implemented in Michigan?
Mr. ENGLER. Well, it--you know, we're not quite to the
point of that being that big of brother to everyone where we do
track sort of everyone every year and know exactly what's going
on. On the other hand, many of these families we continue to
work with, because there, even as you're making this
transition, there may be retained eligibility of, say, for a
Medicaid program, and so--for a year or more, in some cases
where we're working with employers. There are ways in which we
stay in touch.
We also, because of the requirements of the 1996
legislation on a 5-year lifetime eligibility for benefits, had
to do more in terms of tracking families than we had
historically done. So we do know, I suspect, or are able to put
together more information. We in Michigan probably haven't
gotten too worked up on some of the reporting. It seems like
we're reporting everything and one of the more frustrating
things is how sometimes the same information is required by
different agencies to be reported in different ways.
I note that in the recent successful package of the No
Child Left Behind Education legislation, we're going to do
something that I do think is very important. We're going to
start following children from year to year in schools, so we
know how much progress is being made. I--that happens to be
something I do strongly believe is important, because I--and
wanting to--our goal in terms of the--and I'm pleased to see
that emphasis on education and strengthening families, because
while we're helping in--these are achievers of the month, and
these are people who have been able to change their lives. What
you really also want to see is that the children in these
families never go onto the system, but they're able to get the
kind of education that allows them to compete to be employed,
and to go through school, not become pregnant, a whole host of
changes.
So, I guess we'll--you tell us the information you need,
and we'll try to provide that for you. It isn't--we'd rather--
we want to make sure that whatever questions you're asking,
we've got some success stories to talk about, so I'd say, if
you want more information, then you will give us more
flexibility to run the program, we'll give you all the
information you want, and you give us all the flexibility we
need, and we'll have a bargain.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Then I just have one last question. A big
part of the President's proposal is the work requirement, and I
know that you've recently signed a law that moves Michigan to a
40-hour work requirement already, and I wondered your thoughts
on the President's proposal there.
Mr. ENGLER. Well, we think that the way the proposal is
structured with the requirement of 40 hours, but also allowing
for some of that, up to 16 hours, to be met with additional
training or skills development, that that could be--that that's
something that we can achieve. We appreciate very much the
phase-in period because it will--there are very, very few
States that could comply today with where that bar would be
set.
I said in my testimony, we support raising the bar, we
support the focus on work. We will need--as we lose the credit,
which we've had, and someone in our audience may not understand
how this has all worked, but there's been a--as families are
successful and go to work, there's actually a credit that was
applied, and so for many States we were able to exceed work
requirements in part because we were having success. That made
some sense to take the credit away, that's fine, but it--but
then make sure that we have--because as we get further and
further out there, the cases get harder and harder. There's--
you know, where maybe somebody had two major issues, now there
may be five issues in a family.
I've got some cases, I don't need to go into them, but,
they're pretty remarkable when you just--when you think about
it. Here's a--I mean, a two-parent--this happens to be a two-
parent household, father is employed, six children, 3 months to
9 years. The mother is Arabic, language barriers, minimum
education, multiple barriers, transportation issues, child
care, some kids in school, others needing all-day day care,
mother has limited skills, education, language barrier.
We've got a husband and a wife, four children. Each parent
spent 45 days in a drug rehab program, and then they took turns
being with the kids. The father has a nighttime job in a town
that's 40 miles east of where they live, actually may well be
constituents, I won't name the counties, but, then the mother
got a part-time job days at a--40 miles south, and that's 20
hours per week. Neither one has a driver's license because they
were suspended for alcohol abuse. They got to rely on volunteer
drivers. In this case, the Michigan Works Agency is helping
them to pay for transportation for 30 days. Then after that
they're suppose to be on their own. Volunteer drivers are from
a local dial-a-ride that charges 43 cents a mile.
So, you've got, just a multitude of problems. Trying to get
that family at 40 hours a week and stay there, is difficult. Up
north we had families working at ski resorts, at restaurants or
motels. When it didn't snow earlier in the winter, people got
laid off.
So, those are some of the challenges. So, when we--when I
look at what you just asked me in terms of how this all plays
out, I think we can get there. You're just going to have to--
it's going to have to be--it'll have to be phased in or we're
going to have to look hard at what are these other activities,
and some of the definitions there will matter very much.
I would also argue that since you can meet the 40-hour test
with as much as 16 hours of other education or training, maybe
there's a way that on a--if somebody can move beyond taking the
16 hours away from the 40. It's 24 hours at work, maybe if they
can move that in terms of being on payrolls up higher, there's
a credit that offsets. Maybe it's if you work an extra hour you
get credit for 2 hours of that other activity. The average job,
according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics, is really
40 hours, if we look at--now, a lot of the jobs are in the 32-,
33-, 34-hour range, and so, it gets--and if somebody is
working--actually let's say they're working 34 hours, maybe we
ought to be saying that the rest of that time ought to be there
for their family. Maybe there's a way to structure that. Make
it 40 hours. At the same time, these are--these are--some of
these families are pretty fragile as well. I don't want to have
a set of policies which end up somehow being counter-productive
to strengthening the family. The family formation is something
else that is an initiative in this legislation.
So that's--again, we're willing to work, and I think the
way we can really master this among the States is for the
Congress to set goals, and they can be very high goals, and
then tell the States let's go out and compete, because I'm
going to learn something each time somebody tries it.
You mentioned Secretary Thompson, and I don't know if he'll
read our testimony or not, but when he was Governor of
Wisconsin we used to have quite a competition on both sides of
Lake Michigan about who was doing what. I think it worked well
for the people in Wisconsin, worked well for the people of
Michigan, and it put us in a position where we had, by the time
the 1995, 1996 debate rolled around, a lot of real experience
that could be relied upon to sort of predict how some of these
changes might lay out.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony, and your time here today. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. ENGLER. You're welcome.
Mr. CAMP. Well, the Governor has agreed to join me up here
while we hear from our second panel, and I would like to have
Carol Koon, Darnell Carter, Lisa Hudson, Fred Keller, and Lori
Scorsone, please.
Why don't I start, Ms. Koon, with you, and each of you take
about 5 minutes. We'll let everyone make their statements so
that everyone has a chance, then I'll come back, and we'll have
hopefully some time for some questions and dialog. So why don't
you begin. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CAROL KOON, EVART, MICHIGAN
Ms. KOON. Well, my name is Carol Koon, and I am a former
Osceola County FIA person. I came to FIA in July 1999. My
husband lost his job, and we were without any savings. I was
working minimum wage in a local grocery store. We had four
children, uncertain how long it was going to take before he
received unemployment benefits, or how long it would be before
he found another job. So, we went there and applied not sure
what or how everything would work, if we'd even get any
assistance or anything. We were met by some extremely friendly
people who did not make us feel that we were bad in any way for
coming there, the stigmatism to it.
Anyways, we were referred to the Work First program to look
for work through them. While I was there, I saw an ad for a
secretary for one of the 911 centers in our area. It said,
well, you wouldn't believe what we have available. We have a
program right now, where we're training people to become
certified dispatchers for one of the local 911 centers. What
the problem was, is that Lake County was one of the last
counties in Michigan to go to emergency 911. They needed to
employ, I believe, up to 12 people at that time, and did not
have the funding for all of the training that needed to be
done. So, they set up with Work First to offer a program for
people. If they passed the test, went through the training,
they would be able to become certified and possibly gain
employment with them. If not, they would still be totally
trained to go to employment anywhere else in the State of
Michigan or any State.
So, that's what I did. I signed up for the program, I
continued working, I dropped down to 20 hours a week, and took
the 40 hours of training each week. Upon completing the test, I
was fully certified by the end of September. In December, I was
hired full-time with them. I am still currently employed there.
We stopped receiving our benefits in September. It was not
long after we had gone there that we stopped because we
received his unemployment, which put us over the income levels.
Without that training, I am not certain that if my husband was
to have lost his job again we wouldn't be in the position to
need assistance. Now that I have a career also, we are
financially stable.
The training was an extremely remarkable program. I can't
say enough for the people that were so extremely dedicated,
that were there to make sure that I succeeded, whatever was
needed. I remember right before I started the job, my
alternator went on my vehicle. I thought, I can't believe this.
Sure enough, they said we'll get this taken care of.
That's why I'm here today. I want to say thank you for the
assistance that I received, for the compassionate people that
were there to help. I think they need to have more of these
programs available for people, not only to receive a job, but
maybe to receive a career. So, that they're in a position to
make some good choices.
In my area, we're a rural area, there's not a lot of job
opportunities. So, if maybe they could set something up for
rural areas designed around what is available in the area, that
would be a wonderful thing.
That's why I'm here today.
Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. KOON. You're welcome.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Carter?
STATEMENT OF DARNELL CARTER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Mr. CARTER. Yes. First of all, good morning, ladies and
gentlemen, and thank you for inviting me out.
I would like to first say that I appreciate the opportunity
to come before this Committee today to give my personal
testimony of the impact of welfare reform, what it's had on my
life, and to also be a voice for the people regarding the
matter.
Last Thursday I attended a ceremony, achiever of the month
ceremony with Governor Engler and Director Howard, and we
celebrated the 100th achiever of the month. It was a nice--it
was very nice. A reporter came up to me and asked, said, ``Mr.
Carter, do you believe that Governor Engler's reform is
creating working poor?'' What I said was, no. I don't think
it's creating working poor.
I believe that welfare reform has been successful thus far.
In Michigan, I know the caseloads are down tremendously
compared to 1996 when the reform law was implemented. As a
single parent with sole custody of two children, a 12-year-old
daughter, that's Egypt, and an 8-year-old daughter, that's
Christian, working is a winner for us, hands down. Even though
we still face some of the challenges that plagued us before,
such as child support, child care and medical coverage, working
makes it a whole lot easier. I'll let you know that right now.
I'm not going to worry about the situations that I face now
because I have a strong belief in God. I know that he'll pull
me through whatever I face, but I know that not everyone will
see things the way that I see them.
Now, I offer you a different perspective, and that is as a
case manager for our Michigan Works Agency, dealing with the
customers, helping them make the transition from welfare to
work.
I have been employed, almost 5 years. May 29 will be my
fifth year, next month, with the Michigan Works Agency, and
over the years I have met thousands of people and helped them
make the same transition. It seems that everybody has a general
question, where are the programs for low-income fathers? Where
are the programs at? I'm not sure if there are even 50 of them
here in Michigan statewide, and the few programs that I know
are up and running, they serve as a liaison for some services
to assist men, versus a training component, to assist low-
income fathers and rebuilding their lives and reconnecting them
to their families. This has to change. Just like mothers,
fathers are unique in their own way, with very different needs,
such as more skilled jobs training, educational opportunities
and many of them need help with legal matters.
In conclusion, I believe that if we develop, implement and
provide more funding for programs for low-income fathers, then
we will further meet our goal of strengthening Michigan
families, and be an example for the rest of the country. Upon
doing this, I believe that welfare reform would truly reach its
goal of strengthening families and reducing government
dependency. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
Statement of Darnell Carter, Detroit, Michigan
Good Morning Everyone,
I appreciate the opportunity to stand before this committee today
to give my personal testimony concerning welfare reform and its impact
on my life, and also to be a voice for the people regarding the matter.
A reporter at an achiever ceremony I attended with Gov. Engler
asked me a question, ``Do you think that Gov. Engler's welfare reform
initiative was creating the working poor?'' I replied by saying,
``No''.
I believe that welfare reform has been successful thus far. In
Michigan welfare caseloads are down tremendously compared to 1996 when
the welfare reform law was implemented. As a single parent with sole
custody of two children, my 12-year-old daughter Egypt and 8-year-old
daughter Christian, working is a winner hands down even though I still
deal with some of the challenges that faced me while I was on
assistance such as child support and daycare. I'm not going to worry
because I have a strong belief in God and the ability to see my goals
and make them come true despite what challenges are before me. But not
everyone can see their lives that way. Now I will offer to you a
different perspective as a case manager assisting recipients in making
the transition from welfare to work. I've been employed for almost 5
years and have met thousands of people at the very work first program
that I attended. And my question along with countless others is,
``Where are the programs to assist low-income fathers?'' I don't
believe that there are even 25 statewide. And of the few programs I
know that are operating they function more as a liaison for some
services versus being a training component to assist low income fathers
in rebuilding their lives and reconnecting them to their families. This
has to change! And just like Mothers, Fathers are unique in their own
way with very different needs such as more skilled jobs training,
educational opportunities and to many help with legal matters.
In conclusion, I believe that if we design, implement and provide
more funding for programs to assist low income fathers that we will
further meet our goal of strengthening Michigan families and be an
example for the rest of the country. In addition I believe that once we
do this we will begin to see even more progress with welfare reform and
truly reach our goal of strengthening families and significantly
reducing government dependency.
Thank You.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Ms. Hudson?
STATEMENT OF LISA HUDSON, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Ms. HUDSON. My name is Lisa Hudson, I'm an employee at
Cascade Engineering. I have been there for 2\1/2\ years now.
Before I started at Cascade Engineering, I had all sorts of
jobs, 3 months here, 7 months there. As you've heard before,
there's always been certain situations, transportation, child
care, something always happening to where I had to quit or
something like that.
Well, in August 1999 I applied for assistance with the FIA,
and I had to report to the Work First program. This is where I
came in through the welfare to work program. I met Ron
Jimmerson from Cascade Engineering at the Work First office,
and I got hired in at second shift. I wasn't sure how long I
was going to stay. I was a first shifter and I needed first
shift, but it ended working out fine. They offered me
transportation, child care, and the FIA was on site.
I was nervous, of course, because I had never worked in a
factory. I figured I would save some money, get a car, go
somewhere else or do something. Cascade Engineering's logo, if
I can call it that, is a Company of Families. I felt right away
that I was a part of this family. The people are not just human
resource or supervisors--they are actually friends and family
to me. Cascade Engineering offers pay for contribution. This
consists of completing different levels, learning more skills
and making more money, which I have accomplished.
I started out at $8.50 per hour. I am now at level B,
making $11.35 per hour. Effective April 5, I will be at level C
making $13.35 per hour. I have met with Joyce Bosscher, my FIA
worker out at Cascade Engineering. She's working on advancing
my career at Cascade through Human Resource Department.
The FIA caseworkers, Joyce Bosscher and Gary Loew, are on
site. Before, I had caseworkers that were down at the office on
Franklin, and I didn't feel like they really cared about me at
all. I understand they have their job to do, they have a lot of
cases, but it just wasn't personal. So, I really do like how
the FIA is on site at Cascade Engineering. We can get personal,
and we know each other by face. We call each other when we have
a problem or things of such.
During my employment at Cascade Engineering, I have faced
many serious family issues, as I have before, but now I'm not
alone. So, the issues kind of changed because before my kids
were younger, and it was mainly child care. Now, I have
teenagers, and it's a totally new ball game.
I am a single parent, and Joyce has been there all steps of
the way. She's offered--well, referred me to counselors. So, I
have in-house counseling now for me and my children. It's
getting a lot better.
Oh, I want to also say, she has assisted me with car
repairs, money management classes, Section 8, Habitat for
Humanity. I could go on and on all day, but I won't.
Also, I would like to say, my supervisors and other Cascade
Engineering representatives have been a blessing in my life.
Cascade Engineering is truly a Company of Families, and FIA has
provided the resources and continued caring for my children and
myself.
I truly feel that through all these accomplishments--I have
become a good role model for my children, which will help them
in the future as they become adults.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hudson follows:]
Statement of Lisa Hudson, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Before starting at Cascade Engineering I had all sorts of jobs that
I worked at for maybe 3 months here and there. I had to quit these jobs
due to family problems such as transportation, child care, etc. In 8/99
I applied for assistance with FIA and had to report to the work first
program. This is where I came in through the Welfare to Work Program by
meeting Ron Jimmerson from Cascade Engineering at the Work First
Office. Cascade Engineering hired me at a 2nd shift job
although I did need 1st. Second shift ended up working out
for me and it was because of the many programs at Cascade Engineering
and Family Independence Agency's support. One of the examples was the
transportation provided to me to get to work.
I wasn't sure how I felt at first. I was nervous and I have never
really worked at a factory job. I figured I would save enough money to
purchase a car and try other employment later. Cascade Engineering's
logo is a Company of Families. I felt right away that I was a part of
this family. The people are not just human resource of supervisors,
they are my friends and family. Cascade Engineering offers "Pay for
Contribution" which completing different levels, learning more skills
and making more money which I have accomplished. I started out at $8.50
per hour. I am now at Level B making $11.35 per hour. Effective 4/5/02
I will be at Level C making $13.35 per hour and have met with Joyce
Bosscher my FIA caseworker who has arranged a meeting with my Human
Resource representative at Cascade Engineering to work on advancing my
career at Cascade Engineering working in the Human Resource Department.
The Family Independence Agency caseworkers, Joyce Bosscher and Gary
Loew are onsite at Cascade Engineering. Before I had my caseworker
onsite at Cascade Engineering I did not have a caseworker that I really
thought cared about me and the issues I was dealing with. During my
employment at Cascade Engineering I have faced many serious family
issues that I previously had to deal with on my own while trying to
maintain a job which I could not do. With the help of the Family
Independence Agency on site I have made these accomplishments happen. I
have four children. Childcare is not the problem because I do have
daycare assistance. It is the two teenagers that I am having
difficulties with being a single parent. I don't know where I would be
or what I would be doing if it weren't for Joyce directing me in the
right direction for counseling for my teenagers and myself which has
helped me continue at my job. I have counseling set up once a week that
was set up through FIA. I also have had assistance from Joyce with car
repairs, money management classes, Section 8 and am presently
participating in the Habitat for Humanity Homeownership Program so I
may provide a better home and stability for my family. My supervisors
and other Cascade Engineering representatives have been blessings in my
life. Cascade Engineering is truly a Company of Families and FIA has
provided the resources and the continued caring for my children and
myself.
I truly feel that through all these accomplishments I have become a
good role model for my children which will help them in their future as
they become adults.
Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Keller?
STATEMENT OF FRED P. KELLER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CASCADE ENGINEERING, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Mr. KELLER. Well, thank you for this opportunity,
Representative Camp and Governor Engler.
Just by way of background, Cascade Engineering is a
manufacturer, about $200 million in sales, about 1,100
employees, and we've got nine plants here in the States and one
in Hungary. We've had a long-term interest in being business
partners to improve the quality of life in our community.
Beyond just the impact of doing business in the traditional way
of giving back, rather it's been a matter of how we engage the
community, how do we get involved in helping to solve some of
the most important problems that are in the communities, and
arrive at better solutions; applying, in a sense, the--kind of
business skills that you learned in the manufacturing world to
some of our most difficult problems in the community.
I do believe that we have got sufficient resources in the
existing agencies and the existing streams of revenue. If we
can only learn how to leverage them better, we could in fact
make a massive improvement specifically in our continuing cycle
of poverty that does exist in America today.
I believe the Nation has an opportunity to make significant
new progress in reducing poverty. I believe that Cascade
Engineering has demonstrated that moving people from poverty to
not only a job, but to a career. That really is our intent, we
call it welfare to career, not just welfare to a job, then it's
possible. We have learned this is not rocket science.
There is, in fact, application of known principles that can
take us from where we are to massive improvement. We have, most
of all, learned that all these results are not the work of any
one sector. It's not the government sector, it's not the
business sector, it's not the folks that are in poverty, it's
all of us that have to work together in a systemic problem-
solving way for us to be able to significantly reduce the
welfare roles and move people out of poverty.
Fully, 22 percent of the people that we added to our rolls
last year, in terms of entry level jobs, were people that were
formerly receiving welfare benefits. This continues our rate of
about 100 people or more that are in that category, that have
formerly been on welfare, that are now working at Cascade
Engineering. We moved our monthly retention rates from a pretty
poor 60 percent or so, but now have been over 90, actually in
the mid-nineties, for the last several months.
As a result of this program and calculations by the FIA
would show that we've saved the State of Michigan about
$850,000 from our program alone. These savings, I can assure
you, will continue year after year, because we are committed to
this program.
Our program did gain some attention from the Conference
Board. We have been written up in their Corporate Community
Development report, which we have copies of, if anybody would
be interested in them? Further case study is being written up
by Cornell University. So, we are looking at ways in which we
can improve what we are doing through these case studies as
well.
Mainly we found that there are three main ingredients as to
why it works for Cascade Engineering. The first one is the
nature of the culture, an accepting culture, one that is open,
one that values diversity, values people as individuals.
Second, there's a lot of education. We had to educate
ourselves, as much as educating those folks that are coming to
us from welfare. Education around the area, and I will speak to
that a little bit later, but specifically understanding what it
means to be in poverty was very important for us to learn as
employers.
Most importantly, a system of support for the people moving
out of poverty as they learn new skills and are faced with
really a daunting task of living in two worlds. Retaining and
even building the dignity of the individual making this move is
really essential. Again, this is not rocket science. It's
putting known principles into action. The government sector is
critical to its success, and yet it cannot do it alone. It is
essential that business engage the community and work with the
local agencies. Primarily among them is the welfare industry
known in this State as the FIA, and there are many critical
elements. Having full-time social workers, as you heard from
Lisa, in our plants, helping on a daily basis to keep our
people working has been essential. By being integrated in our
factories, they're making the calls to agencies to keep them on
the job and working with them to find solutions to typical
barriers, to continue in employment, such as child care,
transportation, health care, emotional support.
Placing the agency in the midst of our work force and
making it clear that the objective is to have fully productive
employees is really wonderfully simple, yet exquisitely
effective. Little problems, when caught easily helped to avoid
a disaster for the welfare to career employee later.
I would also say encouraging local experimentation and
publishing best practices, can only accelerate the rate of
positive change. We have found that having these local FIA
workers do employment readiness assessments for us has been
very helpful. Those who are most likely to succeed are selected
for employment now and the balance, have assignments to work on
so that they will be ready to be employed in the near future.
A critical part of what we learned is that we needed to
teach both our current employees, especially our frontline
leaders, and the people who have been on welfare, the hidden
rules of the classes as outlined in Ruby Payne's book, A
Framework for Understanding Poverty. This is our text that we
used as understanding. This process helps both sides understand
the behaviors and actions of the other.
So, the result has been gratifying, as you can hear the
stories. I can tell you, that--but there's much more to it than
that, more than just the idea that some people are helped. It
really is good business. The organization feels good about
itself. It has the ability to know that it's a part of doing
something good in the community. There's more energy. I don't
know how to measure that necessarily, but you can feel it, it's
palpable.
So, the State of Michigan benefits by saving some money,
the community benefits, the welfare recipients benefit, the
business benefits. There's no losers here. It's an all-win
game. There is a traditional thinking that says it's a zero-sum
game. That if you're building a social capital, that you're
taking away from profits, but in fact it's not the case. I
think we're demonstrating that that's not the case.
So, I guess if the question is how can the government
sector help, by supporting this kind of experimentation? I
think that you heard today about flexibility, and some earlier
testimony of the Governor. I couldn't agree more. Flexibility
is a key. We were able to have FIA workers on site because of
that flexibility, because the State was able to allow us to do
that.
Encouraging those local experimentations and then
publishing best practices has got to be able to help. I would
say by further supporting programs that keep people out of
poverty as much as those that are supporting them. So, we
recognize that people that are coming out of poverty, it takes
a while. There are situations where they fall back and they
have difficulties. They need to be supportive in that very
critical time when it's one more thing, as the Governor was
pointing out, one more thing that comes up that could send them
right back. We've got to be able to hold that line, and with
that, the kind of flexibility that you're talking about. Thanks
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
Statement of Fred P. Keller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Cascade Engineering, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Cascade Engineering is a manufacturer of products for the
automotive, office furniture and waste container markets. We have about
1100 people employed including those in our nine U.S. plants and one in
Hungary. Sales are about $200 million. I founded the company in 1973.
We have been working with our community for a long time to solve some
of its toughest problems. I believe that we have an opportunity as
business partners to improve the quality of life in our community
beyond the impact of doing business in the traditional way of ``giving
back'' when we have some available money. In addition I believe we need
to engage our communities to apply systems thinking to the problems to
arrive at better solutions. I believe that we have plenty of resources
in existing agencies, and revenue streams and if we could only learn
how to leverage them better, we would be in a position to make massive
improvements, specifically in our continuing cycle of poverty that
exists in America today.
Summary:
I believe the nation has an opportunity to make significant new
progress to reduce poverty!
I believe Cascade Engineering has demonstrated that moving people
from poverty to not only a job, but a meaningful career, is possible.
We have learned that it is not rocket science, but the application
of known principles that make a meaningful reduction in poverty
possible.
We have most of all learned that these results are not the work of
the government sector alone, not the work of businesses alone, and not
the work of social service agencies or people in poverty or any one
segment alone. Rather we have demonstrated that by the concerted work
of all working together in a systemic problem-solving manner, we can
effect a significant reduction in not only the welfare roles, but of
the number of people actually in poverty.
What will it take?
Fully 22 percent of the 168 people that we added to our entry-level
payroll in our Grand Rapid's facilities in 2001 came from generational
poverty. This raised our total to over 100 people now working in our
factories who were formerly receiving welfare benefits. Our monthly
retention rates have gone from 60 percent two years ago to over 90
percent in recent months.
As a result of this program, calculations by the FIA show that we
have saved the State of Michigan $850,000 last year alone in reduced
payments for assistance. These savings will continue year after year,
because we are committed to this program.
Our program gained the attention of The Conference Board and is the
subject of a research report titled ``Corporate Community
Development''. Reference report R-1310-02-RR
(http://www.conference-board.org/products/researchreports/
dpubs.cfm?pubid=R-1310-02-RR)
A further case study is being written by Cornell University's
Johnson School of Business to document our efforts and to further study
the underlying principles for its effectiveness.
How does it work?
We have found that there are three main ingredients in a successful
program of moving people from welfare to a career:
1. An accepting culture in the organization. Businesses must simply
work very hard at building a culture of trust among all employees and
learn to value each human being that is employed simply for who they
are, as well as the work they do. We have been working for years on
this issue and try very hard to make this a reality.
2. Education of not only the incoming employees, but also of our
existing employees, about what it means to be in poverty. They learn
together why people who have been in generational poverty think and act
differently than those who have been in the middle class.
3. Most importantly a system of support for the people moving out
of poverty as they learn new skills and are faced with the daunting
task of living in two worlds. Retaining and even building the dignity
of the individual making this move is essential.
This is not rocket science. It is putting known principles into
action. The government sector is critical to its success, and yet it
cannot do it alone. It is essential that business engage the community
and work with the local agencies--primary among them is the welfare
agency known in this state as the Family Independence Agency.
There are many critical elements, but having full-time social
workers in our plants helping on a daily basis to KEEP our people
working is essential. By being integrated in our factories they are
making the calls to agencies to keep them on the job and working with
them to find solutions to typical barriers to continued employment such
as child care, transportation, health care and emotional support.
Placing the agency in the midst of our workforce and making it clear
that the objective is to have fully productive employees is wonderfully
simple, yet exquisitely effective. Little problems, when caught early,
help to avoid a disaster for the welfare-to-career employee.
Encouraging local experimentation and publishing best practices can
only accelerate the rate of positive change. We have found for instance
that by having our FIA social workers do an employment readiness
assessment, those who are most likely to succeed are selected for
employment now and the balance have assignments to work on so that they
will be ready to be employed in the near future. A critical part of
what we learned is that we needed to teach both our current employees,
especially our front-line leaders, and the people who have been on
welfare, the ``hidden rules'' of the classes as outlined in Ruby
Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty (http://
ahaprocess.com/AboutRubyPayne.html). This educational process helps
each group understand the actions and behaviors of the other.
The result?
Well, to hear the stories of people whose lives have been
positively affected by this program should be enough, but I can tell
you that there is much more to it as well. The organization actually is
more energized; people are more focused because they know that the
organization values everyone there. We actually get more done and make
more progress because people like to work for an organization that they
know cares not only about them, but the quality of life in the
community.
The State of Michigan benefits, the community benefits, the former
welfare recipients benefit, our employees benefit, the company
benefits! There are no losers in this equation. The traditional
thinking that this must be a zero-sum game is plain wrong! When you
build social capital in the workplace and the community you are not
taking away from the profitability of the corporation. On the contrary
you are building it up.
How can the government sector help? By supporting this kind of
experimentation:
LCreate additional incentives for corporations to
participate in the problem solving process and to not only
employ people on welfare but learn about how to retain them.
LEncourage local experimentation of solutions, and
publish the best practices.
By further supporting programs that keep people out of poverty as
much as programs that simply reduce the cost of maintaining people in
poverty.
LWe have found that once committed to employment in an
accepting environment, people generally want to sustain this
positive track.
LInvesting in preventive programs similar to what we
have done will reduce future costs of maintaining the current
system.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Scorsone?
STATEMENT OF LORI SCORSONE, FAMILY INDEPENDENCE MANAGER, FAMILY
INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, SAGINAW, MICHIGAN
Ms. SCORSONE. Yes. Good afternoon, Governor Engler,
Chairman Camp. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
comments regarding our welfare reform success in Saginaw
County.
I'm Lori Scorsone, a Family Independence Manager with
Saginaw County FIA. I am honored to be present today to offer
testimony on behalf of our agency, and to recommend the re-
authorization of the Federal Welfare Reform Law.
In 1990, I was hired as an Assistant Payment Worker for
what was then known as the Department of Social Services. At
that time, an Assistance Payment Worker's primary goal was to
determine if an applicant was eligible based solely on their
eligibility. We were processing applications focusing more on
gathering income verifications, processing paperwork and
meeting deadlines rather than focusing on the applicant's
family's needs. We had little opportunity and fewer resources
to focus on the individual, the reason there was a need for
assistance, or barriers that prevented an individual from
becoming employed. Further, there was not an understanding that
assistance was expected to be only temporary, or that the
applicant or the Department had a mutual responsibility to see
that it was actually temporary.
Since the Welfare Reform Law has been enacted in 1996, we
changed our name to the FIA. The title, Assistance Payment
Worker, was changed to Family Independence Specialist. The new
titles imply the new goals and objectives of the agency and the
staff due to the Welfare Reform Law.
Since 1996, the Agency has been able to focus on the
individual's need for assistance and what can be done to
abolish obstacles to their becoming self-sufficient.
Our staff serve our customers today as individuals and as
families. Today, we are able to work together with the customer
to not only identify barriers that prevent them from becoming
employed, but to help them remove these barriers, move them
into the workplace, and help them maintain the employment.
Today, the FIA works together with customers and other
community partners to resolve issues such as: lack of day care,
transportation, education, substance abuse and domestic
violence.
We're all familiar with reports and surveys and statistics
that have been published giving us an idea of how the welfare
roles have declined since 1996. Reports have illustrated that
there are fewer families on assistance and more single mothers
are working. Through my duties as a Family Independence
Manager, I have been able to witness firsthand the achievements
of welfare reform. I have seen and heard former assistance
recipients talk about the joy at being able to be role models
for their children as they move from welfare to employment.
This extremely gratifying experience has proved to me that the
new way of doing business has been successful in ways that the
statistics and the reports cannot communicate. To continue
delivering services as we have since welfare reform was
adopted, will allow our agency to make even more positive
changes and longer lasting changes. It will allow us to develop
other ways to provide the help and support needed by the people
we serve. It will allow us to educate and instill a work ethic
for our customers, thereby reducing the welfare roles even
more.
Welfare reform helped launch Project Zero, a program that
focuses on customers who have no earned income. The FIA
specialists are now doing assessments of every new customer
coming to our agency for help. Assessments allow the specialist
to ascertain what barriers a customer may have that prevents
them from becoming employed. We look at their family
circumstances, their educational background, availability of
transportation and child day care. We try to determine any
evidence of drug or alcohol discrepancy or if there are signs
of domestic violence.
Prior to welfare reform, assessments were not done. Workers
were processing paperwork, getting the cases opened and
forgetting about them. It was a system that seemed to help
continue a person's and their family's dependence on welfare.
Prior to welfare reform, we were not dealing with the cause of
the problem.
Today, we determine the cause and work together with the
customer to resolve the problem. Our customers know this and
are willing partners in this process. Two primary barriers for
customers in Saginaw County were transportation and child day
care. Saginaw County now employs the services of the Michigan
Department of Transportation to supply transportation for
customers in need. Customers who need transportation receive
help to get to and from work. Their children receive help
getting to and from their day care provider. Saginaw Valley
Regional 4C, a day care referral service, is currently housed
within our agency, making it more easily and readily accessible
to the customers.
These services are something we were not able to provide
prior to welfare reform. Because of welfare reform, many of our
customers are realizing for the first time that they're capable
of doing more than they ever dreamed they were capable of
doing. Additionally, the specialists are able to give the
customers some guidance and direction, something we have not
given them in the past. The statistics and the graphs can never
demonstrate to the general public the difference in a person's
attitude when they bring home their first paycheck, how it
completely changes their attitudes and opinions of themselves,
and how it empowers them and gives them the encouragement and
the desire to continue to do well, to be self-sufficient and no
longer depend on the agency for their livelihood.
Welfare reform, in no small way, is responsible for the
successes I've witnessed in the last several years. We've made
tremendous strides in determining some of the barriers our
customers have that have prevented them from becoming self-
sufficient. There's still much more that must be done to help
families realize their full potential.
For years we have fostered our customers' dependency. To
reverse this will not happen overnight. Welfare reform must
continue so we are allowed to work with our customers, partner
with outside resources, learn the true cause of need, and
determine together how to resolve it. Re-authorization of the
Federal Welfare Reform Act, along with proper staffing, will
allow us that opportunity. I respectfully request that you
strongly consider doing so. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scorsone follows:]
Statement of Lori Scorsone, Family Independence Manager, Family
Independence Agency, Saginaw, Michigan
Good morning Chairman Camp, and honorable members of the
Subcommittee. I am honored to be present today to offer testimony on
behalf of the Saginaw County Family Independence Agency and to
recommend the reauthorization of the federal welfare reform act known
as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
In 1990, I was hired as an Assistance Payment Worker for what was
then known as the Department of Social Services. At that time an
Assistance Payment Worker's primary goal was to determine if an
applicant would be approved or denied for assistance based solely on
eligibility. We were processing applications focusing more on gathering
verifications, processing paperwork, and meeting deadlines, than
focusing on the applicant and their need. We had little opportunity and
fewer resources to focus on the individual, the reason there was a need
for assistance, or barriers that prevented an individual from becoming
employed.
Further, there was not an understanding that assistance was
expected to be temporary, or that the applicant or the department had a
mutual responsibility to see that it was actually temporary. In 1996,
we changed our name to the Family Independence Agency. The title
Assistance Payment Worker was changed to Family Independence
Specialist. The new titles implied the new goals and objectives of the
agency and staff due to Welfare Reform. Since 1996, the agency has been
able to focus on the individual's need for assistance and what can be
done to abolish obstacles in their way of becoming self-sufficient.
Implementation of TANF has allowed staff to serve our customers as
individuals and families. Today we are able to work together with the
customer to not only identify barriers that prevent them from becoming
employed, but to help remove these barriers, and help them maintain
employment. TANF has allowed the Family Independence Agency to work
together with the customer and other resources within the community to
resolve issues such as lack of day care, transportation, education,
substance abuse, and domestic violence.
We are all familiar with reports, surveys, and statistics that have
been published giving us an idea of how welfare rolls have declined
since 1996. Reports have illustrated that there are fewer families on
assistance and more single mothers are working. Through my duties as a
Family Independence Specialist and Manager, I have been able to witness
first hand the achievements of Welfare Reform. I have seen and heard
former recipients talk about their joy at being able to be role models
for their children as they have moved from assistance to employment.
This extremely gratifying experience has provided personal evidence
that the new way of doing business has been successful in ways that
statistics and reports cannot communicate. I can only hope that the
specialists are allowed to continue to provide the services they've
been able to provide since 1996. Doing so will allow the agency to make
even more positive changes, and longer lasting changes. It will allow
us to develop other ways to provide the help and support that is needed
by the people we serve. It will allow us to educate and instill a work
ethic for our customers thereby reducing the welfare roll even more.
Welfare Reform helped launch Project Zero, a program that focuses on
customers who have no earned income. Specialists now do an assessment
of a customer in need of the agency's help. Assessments allow the
specialist to ascertain what barriers a customer may have that prevents
them from becoming employed. We look at their family circumstances,
educational background, availability of transportation, and child day
care. We try to determine any evidence of drug or alcohol dependency,
and if there are any signs of domestic violence. Prior to Welfare
Reform, assessments were not done. Workers were just processing
paperwork; it was a system that seemed to help continue a person's and
their family's dependency on welfare. Prior to Welfare Reform we were
not dealing with the cause of the problem. Today, we determine the
cause and together work with the customer to resolve the problem. Two
primary barriers for customers in Saginaw County are transportation and
Child Day Care. Welfare Reform has given Saginaw County the opportunity
to employ the services of the Michigan Department of Transportation to
supply transportation for customers in need. Customers are taken to and
from work. Their children are taken to and from their day care
provider. Saginaw Valley Regional 4C, a day care referral agency, is
currently housed within our agency making it more easily and readily
accessible to our customers. These services are something we were not
able to provide prior to Welfare Reform. Because of Welfare Reform,
many of our customers are realizing for the first time that they are
capable of doing more than they ever dreamed they were capable of
doing. Because of Welfare Reform, the specialists are able to give the
customers some guidance and direction. Something we have not given them
in the past. The statistics and the graphs can never demonstrate to the
general population the difference in a person's attitude when they
bring home their first paycheck, how it completely changes their
attitudes and opinions of themselves, how it empowers them and gives
them the encouragement and desire to continue to do well. To be self-
sufficient and no longer depend on the agency for their livelihood.
Welfare Reform, in no small way is responsible for the successes I
have witnessed in the last several years. We have made tremendous
strides in determining some of the barriers our customers have that
have prevented them from becoming self-sufficient, but there is still
much more that must be done to help families free themselves of the
barriers and realize their potential. For years we have fostered our
customer's dependency. To reverse this will not happen overnight.
Reformation of welfare must continue so we are allowed to utilize our
customers, partner with outside resources, learn the true cause of
need, and determine how to resolve it. Reauthorization of the Federal
Welfare Reform Act along with proper staffing will allow us that
opportunity. I respectfully request that you strongly consider doing
so.
Thank you.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Governor, do you have any
questions? I have a couple.
Mr. ENGLER. Why don't you go ahead. I've got a couple, but
I'll----
Mr. CAMP. I just wanted to ask the three of you what was
the biggest help or benefit that you received, I mean obviously
it may be different, from the FIA? What thing occurred that
helped the most?
Ms. KOON. Well, I would have to say, for me, it would have
been the training. That was definitely the key for me, was to
give me the opportunity to further myself.
Mr. CAMP. All right. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Well, I would say the overall assistance of my
caseworker at that time. I mean, she deferred me from Work
First temporarily so that I could finish up my schooling, which
I received an Associate of Arts degree back in 1997. Upon
completing that I went to her, and she referred me to Work
First to assist me in becoming employed--giving me some
different outlets. So, I would just say the overall assistance
that I received, period.
Mr. CAMP. Having a plan?
Mr. CARTER. Excuse me?
Mr. CAMP. Having a plan?
Mr. CARTER. Yes.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Ms. Hudson?
Ms. HUDSON. I guess mine would be that they're on site at
my job, in that they're there constantly for whenever or
whatever.
Mr. CAMP. Then I wanted to ask for each of you, what was
the biggest challenge that you saw as you were attempting to
become employed and get a job, what were your biggest
challenges? I want to go back in reverse order. Ms. Hudson, do
you--or maybe there wasn't just one.
Ms. HUDSON. Could you explain what you mean?
Mr. CAMP. The biggest challenge that you might have faced
as you were dealing with the Agency in trying to get to work
and get started--what did you see as the biggest hurdle or
barrier that you had?
Ms. HUDSON. The biggest barrier for me was transportation,
meaning I had to get to work. At that time I didn't have a car,
so I was on the bus. Before I got to work, I had to get on the
bus to take them to the day care provider, which sometimes
wasn't on the same route. So, I had to be up 3 to 4 hours
before it was time to be to work, to get the kids ready and
then get off on the bus. That was the hardest part.
Mr. CAMP. Did you get help with that transportation problem
through FIA?
Ms. HUDSON. Yes.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Mr. Carter, what was your biggest barrier
or hurdle or challenge, I might say?
Mr. CARTER. Let's see, I know of a barrier, child care. I
was able to get assistance through the FIA and--the referrals,
because I didn't know personally of any sources. As I mentioned
about the fatherhood programs, I had been searching for some
that could assist me, but I wasn't able to find anyone. So, I
just believe my biggest challenge was child care, among some
other things. It worked out, setting the plan up, so things
worked fine.
Mr. CAMP. Okay.
Ms. KOON. Thankfully enough, I really didn't have a hurdle
to overcome. At the time my husband wasn't working while I went
through the training, so we didn't have the child care issues.
I think that maybe I would have had hurdles if I hadn't had
such support, the encouragement. I'm not just saying that if
they hadn't been there to be so much of a support system, I
could have failed.
Mr. CAMP. Well, I want to really thank all of you for
coming here and traveling on this fine spring day, this type of
weather. It's not easy to come and talk about yourself,
especially in a format like this. This isn't the easiest format
to get a conversation going, but this is very good. It is going
to be very helpful to the Committee, and I appreciate this very
much. There may be some other questions later, but I had a
question for Mr. Keller.
I wondered, how is it that a FIA person is located on site
at your business, how did that come about?
Mr. KELLER. I couldn't tell you the exact day that that
decision was made, but I can tell you it was made in
cooperation with the folks that are part of Cascade and the
FIA. Actually, Ron Jimmerson, who heads our community group
within Cascade and is our H.R. Director for Community
Activities, would be able to tell you that better. He's sitting
in the audience. The point is that it is a collaboration that
resulted in this as an answer. It was a very important
decision.
Mr. CAMP. Have other employers in the area kind of followed
your example? Have you seen that or are any of them asking you
about maybe becoming involved to the same extent Cascade is?
Mr. KELLER. Yeah, we have. I can't say there's a line at
the door, but there are certainly others that are looking at
it. We have one in particular, Butterball Farms, who has been
working very closely with us and is now working with a
collaboration of 10 other employers in their area to see if we
can have another format of this. Which is maybe why we don't
have the FIA worker directly on site because these are smaller
organizations, and maybe they can be visiting several or can
have regular business hours, if you will, at several different
places. So, we're experimenting with some new formats.
Mr. CAMP. Then lastly, I wanted to ask you, do you have in
mind any incentives that might be available to employers to
help them become involved in transitioning people from welfare
to work?
Mr. KELLER. Government is real good at figuring out those,
but the concept of--the best thing I could think of would be a
tax incentive that would basically take a look, and in very
clear terms, at how many people you got employed today that are
involved in formally being on the FIA rolls, and that you're
keeping them. There's a whole lot of work that has to be done
to get there.
The educational piece, the cultural piece, is really--they
have to want to do that. Providing some incentive, I think,
could be stimulating for this.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Scorsone, thank you for your
testimony, too. As we consider this 5-year extension of
welfare, what's the single most important message I can take
back in terms of how the current law has benefited working--
low-income families in Michigan?
Ms. SCORSONE. I think the most important message that you
can take back is that it is working. We need to be able to
continue doing what we've been doing. As I mentioned in my
testimony, it took years to get where we are, and it's not
going to happen overnight. Allowing the State to use the money
as they see fit in different areas of the State, everybody's
different, if we're allowed to do that, I think that we'll see
more success. I think we're better able to serve the people who
are in need, by having that flexibility.
So, if we're able to continue it, that along with the
proper amount of staff to do these things that need to be done,
I think we can get there.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much. Governor Engler?
Mr. ENGLER. Just a couple of questions, perhaps, and I
think the Chairman has asked some excellent questions. I'm
curious from Ms. Koon, Mr. Carter, and Ms. Hudson. Of people
that you may know who are still on public assistance, what
advice would you give us to help some of your friends that you
know who are sort of still stuck? What is there differently
that might be done to help somebody you know who hasn't made
the break the way you have been able to do it?
I don't care, if you want, we can start down with Ms. Koon.
Ms. KOON. Sure. I believe that--I know in my situation,
that there are a lot of these different programs to help
strengthen your work skills, help you with resumes.
I think there needs to be more advertising for that. Until
we were in the position that we needed assistance, we didn't
know that that was out there. I believe that there are still
plenty of people even now that are on assistance who don't
realize what all is really available.
Mr. ENGLER. Was this through a Work First agency?
Ms. KOON. That was through a Work First, yes. So, that's
something that they need to do, is get the word out more.
Mr. ENGLER. Interesting. Okay.
Mr. CARTER. Just to piggyback off of what Ms. Koon said, I
believe the current programs are functioning well. We could
tweak them some to include more training as far as basic social
skills and communication. People need to know how to
communicate with their employers as well as the parent, the
mother to the father, the father to the mother. We're dealing
with men, more programs to help develop them totally so that we
can glue the pieces back and reconnect the family.
Mr. ENGLER. Sure.
Ms. HUDSON. I think one of the main reasons some people
haven't transitioned over is because of fear of being
dependent--being independent. You know, you got the Medicaid,
you got the food stamps, they pay the rent, and the thought of
doing that on your own is scary to some people out there having
it.
Mr. ENGLER. Okay. We've--in some communities, we have
actually worked with outside organizations, faith based
organizations in some cases or community based organizations. I
know in west Michigan, in Ottawa County, there was a coalition
of religious organizations and some of the areas of Detroit it
was the Salvation Army. We tried to get, in effect, somebody to
try to deal with just that question because it was pretty clear
that that was something where you're talking about generational
poverty. This is a very big step. I mean, we had--we literally
had some families where there wasn't anybody in the family that
hadn't been on public assistance pretty much most of their
lives. Trying to break the cycle, we're trying to help the
adult who we're dealing with right now, plus change things for
the kids, and it's a big change.
Ms. Scorsone, you sort of--you see this from the Agency
standpoint. I think the evidence would be that we've got--as we
move further out, we get many more difficulties that we arrive
with each case. I mean, it's easier if somebody's brand new to
poverty or brand new to that situation, trying to get them back
into the work force. Ms. Koon's situation might be a good
example of that. Where it's generational, at least talking to
workers, that's just really much more complex to deal with, and
I'm curious if--sort of the same question in terms of some of
the people that haven't made the break, what do you see?
Ms. SCORSONE. I would have to agree with Mr. Carter. I
would like to see more training programs for them, develop
social skills, work skills. It can be something as basic as
them needing to understand that they need to call into work
when they're not going to show up because they're sick. They
don't know to do that, a lot of them, or how to react on the
job in a hostile confrontation with a coworker or with an
employee or employer. I have seen this over and over again, you
just need to shove in the right direction, and if you don't
know, you don't know. Once you're able to tell them about it,
then they understand. They're able to use it and stay in a job,
look for better jobs.
Mr. ENGLER. That is actually in the proposal that Congress
has from the Administration, the 16 hours are exactly what's
allowed for those kinds of activities, and so that's one of the
things we're saying. They will vary slightly from even regions
within a State, and so they--we think some of this actually
could be done by the employer, but the difficulty is if the
employer's doing it, then that's time off of task. So there is
a cost to that, but collaborative approaches that we--all of
you had connections.
We think the Work First system seems to have some
strengths, and that's another area where we're actually saying
make that a lot more flexible because so much of the job
training stuff is very narrowly targeted. When, in fact, what
you're all describing is the need to sort of cut across because
any job would require what about three of you have just
mentioned as needed and certainly as Mr. Keller has testified
to.
Mr. CAMP. Part of what we're trying to do is have the 16
hours be a State definition of the 40 hours. Whereas now under
the 30 hours, the 10 hours is a Federal definition of education
training. If it's a State definition, it would seem to me there
would be more flexibility to offer what I also refer to as sort
of social skills, communication part of it, that would help not
only in the workplace, but also at home is what I'm hearing.
Hopefully, that would be where that would fit in.
Mr. KELLER. I would just chime in a little bit that perhaps
the employers should not be left out of that equation
unnecessarily. It really--we found that by having education
available on the job or in--on the work site, it does save this
transportation problem issue. It does save a lot of other
issues that the recipients can have trouble with. So, we found
that doing education right there and making it a part of our
standard curriculum--for instance, we teach Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People to all our employees, not whether
they're--wherever they come from, and that gives us a language
to talk about in terms of how you treat people, conflict
resolution, beginning with the end in sight. All of those
things are very important for life skills. We found those to be
very helpful.
Mr. CAMP. Yeah, that's a very good book. I've given it to
everyone in my office as well. It's a good start.
Mr. KELLER. It works.
Mr. ENGLER. I'm curious, in your testimony also there was a
mention about the--sort of the education of your frontline
leaders on the hidden rules for the classes, and you mentioned
that a Ruby Payne book. I'm curious, what are the most
important things that you got to teach the--those frontline
supervisors and coworkers about work environment?
Mr. KELLER. Well, you know, we have tried doing this for
years, and kind of our first approach was--the thinking is just
give somebody a job and that's what you need to do. You kind of
tell them what the rules are, and if they don't live up to the
rules, they're out of there. That's kind of classic business
style.
We learned that doesn't work, and that tends to be what our
frontline leaders are used to. Let's read them the rules and if
they don't live by them, well, we got three ways to write you
up and so on, so forth. Eventually you're out.
So, the biggest thing was teaching the fact that people who
have been on generation welfare really value a friend, really
value having a relationship in the organization. We had to
genuinely do that. It's not something you just kind feel like,
but it's you know that somebody is your friend. That--working
that as a supervisor is different from traditional business, in
a sense.
Mr. ENGLER. What do you--any of you have to say about the--
there's one system that we spend about $14.5 billion on
annually Federal, State, and local monies, it's the K-12
education system, and I'm curious. What changes would you make
there--I don't know how broad this question is, I apologize for
that, but I'm specifically kind of interested in education
systems where we've got a lot of activity going on there and a
lot of money being spent, but to sort of try to deal with maybe
children who have had backgrounds in poverty or how do we--
there we do have the kids for a long period of time for a lot
of years, what is there something that ought to be done there?
Maybe that gets at what Mr. Keller just talked about, at the
work site there's--some of that is probably equally applicable
for how do we break through and get an education, because we've
got a lot of young people who transition through the schools.
Even if they finish, they don't have any skills that you find
applicable or necessary to run a computer--that's probably
managing some line.
So, I don't know everybody's--how far anybody has
progressed in school or how--if at some point, Ms. Hudson, you
were pregnant and left school or how that worked, but what is
there that you might say to school leaders from your various
perspectives?
Ms. SCORSONE. A common denominator with the customers that
I have served is that they really are unaware of their
capabilities, for whatever reason. I think in school, if the
teachers were able to let them know, they can do what they want
to do. I have to assume it didn't come from parents of the
people I'm helping. So, if it can come from a different
direction, then that would be great. They really don't think
that they're capable of having better, and they all are.
Mr. KELLER. I'd love to respond to that. I would love the
opportunity. It's a very important step that we now are looking
at, as we're talking today, about pulling people out of
welfare. Really, the next logical step that we have looked at
is how do we keep people from going into that trough in the
first place. We have a little experimental program, we like
experimenting in our place, and we're doing it. It's called
school to career progressions, and we're trying to work.
Actually, we've developed a curriculum much like we have in our
own organization, we're teaching the Seven Habits, Conflict
Resolution, we're teaching what it's like to be at work, we're
also exposing these kids, students, to all different kinds of
careers, not just manufacturing, but the health care field, and
so forth. We're finding that pretty good, interesting response.
The first year we took 23 at-risk kids that everybody
thought was going to basically not go on; 18 of them are now
either working or in school. We're in our second year, we're
expanding it, we're having some fun trying some new things, but
I think that--I like to call it a pull system of education
where students understand where they are going, what they want
to accomplish, and they pull themselves through the educational
process as opposed to us pushing them through with a standard
curriculum that we think they ought to be interested in.
Mr. ENGLER. Do you have a comment on that, Ms. Hudson?
Ms. HUDSON. Yeah. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking,
but, I got pregnant at the age of 14. I never dropped out of
school. I had four children--I'm stair-stepping. I never
dropped out of school, but I still feel--I'm not sure exactly
what it is you can do in the school. I will always feel it
starts at home. I feel like now that I am more productive, and
my kids see that I'm more productive. They feel that's the way
it's supposed to be. You're not supposed to be on assistance.
It's not a way of life, it's a stepping stone.
I'm in college now, so my teenagers feel they are supposed
to go to college now. You know what I mean? I feel like it's
actually at home. I am not really sure what you could do as far
as at school, though.
Mr. ENGLER. What would you do to try to help--is there
anything we could do--Michigan is actually--again this is
something that Chairman Camp is very much involved with. I'll
break for him, because he need not say it, but there was a
bonus actually put into the Federal legislation in 1996 for
States that would work to try to reduce the number of teen
pregnancies. Clearly, had you not been pregnant at 14, and
again maybe at 16, things would be different. Try to
communicate that to the young women and the young men.
Mr. Carter's situation, I happen to know a little bit about
it from just last week. He's rather remarkable because he
didn't know he was a father until later, and then he found out
and stepped forward. His child had been placed in foster care,
and he didn't know he had a child. He worked hard then to have
his child come and be a father to his child. Now he's a
remarkable success, but clearly--and we've had some success in
Michigan, but it's not where we would like to be. Trying to get
a message across and to have a set of policies, it would be one
thing that we've looked at, and either--is the number of
pregnancies of teens, very young teens, and the case at 14,
actually it's against the law, for whatever that means, but I
mean for the young man, it's criminal sexual conduct, that's
what it's called under the law. At 14, the age is too young, we
have said, well, probably aren't going to put this person in
the law, somebody should go to prison, but are there ways to
send signals or messages or how do you help? How do you change
that?
Ms. HUDSON. I am not really sure. I'm happy that my kids'
father wasn't put in prison. He went off to the University of
Connecticut, he played basketball, and now he's a teacher for
the Grand Rapids Public Schools and they need that. I really
talked to my daughter, my oldest daughter about everything I
went through. I have taken her to the doctor, and I put her on
birth control even though she's not--because you can't take any
chances these days.
As far as the males, I'm not sure if I'm on the same
subject, but I think we need to grab them, get a hold of them
and--at a younger age than we are, because like now we have a
system where it's mainly you don't do anything. Okay, like I
have a teenage son, and he's not doing anything really bad, as
far as the law, but he's starting to get, worse. Sooner or
later it will eventually be something, and there's no program,
for kids before it gets bad. You know what I mean? I don't
know, I wanted to say that, but, I think if we have programs
where you can grab these kids before something has happened,
you wouldn't have so many kids that you have to worry about,
now and----
Mr. ENGLER. Yeah. Okay.
Mr. CARTER. I would say more in-school job skills and life
skills training programs for our children and after-school
preventative programs, also. I would target grades 6 through
12, because as we know, the hours of after school until about 8
p.m. is when, they're probably at risk the most. For those
after-school programs to include a component that the parents
can come in with the children and get some kind of educational
training or whatever is going on in the programs.
Mr. ENGLER. Interestingly enough, one of the things we've
talked about in trying to comply with the Federal law is these
kinds of--this may well be that 16 hours, some of that could
fit right there, and you could actually--again, given the
flexibility, that's why I wrote the record on that topic. It is
possible to almost have parents sort of being trained to be
volunteer supervisors, and taking these kinds of programs that
you kind of--could actually sort of fit together, if we got
very creative to do this stuff.
Again, it's, something--there are costs involved. So, you
not only need the flexibility to be able to design the program,
but in some cases access different funding streams which may be
in somebody's design they were set up for this purpose, and
only this purpose. In reality we need to be able to move it
over here. So, there's--that ``super-waiver'', we get back to
that because that's an extraordinary thing. We didn't explain
it very carefully, or I didn't in my testimony, but it's any
program operated by the Departments of Health and Human
Services, Labor, Education----
Mr. CAMP. Agriculture.
Mr. ENGLER. Agriculture and HUD, the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development Department, I believe is the fifth one. So I mean,
you could get very, very creative with those kinds of programs.
We can do some of the things that all of you are being
advocates for, and just it would--and if you let 50 States try
this, within the further experimentation that Saginaw might do
it different than Grand Rapids--or Saginaw County might do it
different than Kent County, you'll get so many lessons
happening. Fred, I mean, the thing we stress, we even changed
in the Governor's Association, our research arm, we call it the
Center for Best Practices, with the idea being that it is silly
to try to reinvent the wheel. Let's just--if we--everybody did
the best thing that somebody else is doing, we would all be a
whole lot better immediately. So----
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Carter, you see these programs as primarily
strengthening families----
Mr. CARTER. Yes.
Mr. CAMP. Program? Obviously would have to be valuable,
because you don't want to have a program over-load type thing
develop where people are going to too many things.
Mr. CARTER. Right.
Mr. CAMP. I guess that--I actually think something like
that would be a very good idea for part of the 16 hours,
flexibility that I think hopefully we'll be able to have the
State be able to define that.
I wondered, do you think people would be receptive to that,
parents would be receptive to----
Mr. CARTER. Yes. Hands down, yes, I know they will. Like I
said, I have serviced thousands of customers through Work First
over the years, and everybody seems to sing the same song. This
is what the people are saying. I know in Detroit, that's what
the people are saying.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. KOON. I would have to agree with him wholeheartedly. I
believe they need to keep the career development programs that
they have in the schools going, and I believe that there needs
to be after-school programs. I do believe that parents would be
involved. I would love to see more things available for my
children. I work sometimes 12 hours. I am not home in those
evenings, if my husband works late we're not home either. I
think that there needs to be more available opportunities for
them to enjoy some fun and incorporate some learning in there.
I think that would be the wonderful solution.
Mr. ENGLER. Did you have to take a drug test at your place
of employment?
Ms. KOON. Yes.
Mr. ENGLER. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Yes.
Mr. ENGLER. Fred, is that a requirement at the office?
Mr. KELLER. Yes, it's a requirement.
Mr. ENGLER. Would you have--would it be helpful if somebody
could be referred to you? I don't know if there's any
percentage--what happens? What percentage might not pass a drug
test who are referred by the office? Do you have any knowledge
or is there--there would be someone, I presume.
Mr. KELLER. Yeah, I don't have the numbers on that, but
the--the concept is pre-employment screening and then really is
to identify the barriers that each individual has and kind of
go on a program of getting them helped in those areas.
Mr. ENGLER. One of the things that we've--I'm just curious,
the reaction, if we said one of the parts of an application for
assistance was also a drug test so that we can identify that as
a barrier earlier, is that--one of the things that we're
finding at Work First agencies is we can work with someone. We
might put them through the skills development we just talked
about, they go off to the first interview, everything is fine,
oh, no, you go over here and take the drug test, not so good.
We'd like to identify that earlier. We actually tried to do
that, we got sued and a Federal judge blocked us, but it
strikes me that makes some--there's logic to this. One of the
things Congress could do is at least authorize States to
require drug tests on the front end because we're finding it
too late. If we've made an investment in the training, again,
the logic would be invest in those who are ready to go to work
first. If somebody's got the drug problem, then let's help deal
with that, as best we can. So, we can then go on and make the
next investment. I don't know, Ms. Scorsone, are you--I don't
know if you want to comment on that or not, but----
Ms. SCORSONE. On whether I think they should have drug
testing at application?
Mr. ENGLER. Yeah, could we--what if we required that, or--
whether we refer to Work First, maybe just at the time they
wrote the application, maybe that's the first step over at Work
First. Somewhere it's got to happen, it's going to happen at
the employer.
Ms. SCORSONE. I honestly have mixed emotions about whether
they should do it at time of application with our agency. I
wouldn't be opposed if each employer had mandatory drug
testing.
Mr. ENGLER. Well, most do.
Ms. SCORSONE. At that point, if they're turned down, or
turned away, maybe something could be implemented where they're
turned over to another agency that can help them. I'm----
Mr. ENGLER. My difficulty with that is that we may have
invested--maybe we've invested 6 weeks of preparation to get
the person ready to go to work----
Ms. SCORSONE. Getting it too late----
Mr. ENGLER. Then they fail the job--then they fail the drug
test and that 6 weeks. Had that been given to somebody else who
could pass the drug test, they could go to work. So, that's
our----
Ms. SCORSONE. I understand your point of it. I'm just torn
as to whether it's the right arena for it.
Mr. KELLER. I would just say that I think establishing the
barriers at some point in time, and some of them are maybe drug
or alcohol abuse, or there may be other barriers which they
have, and identifying those barriers early on so that we can
have established individual programs for them seems to be the
smart thing to do.
Ms. SCORSONE. Another thing, excuse me, with our agency, is
being able to do an assessment for them. You may not be doing
an actual drug test, but you can determine early on if drug
dependency is a problem. It is addressed at that point. They
get to know the families pretty intimately during the
assessments and their work with them before they go into the
work force. I don't think that it's not being caught. There are
some probably that are----
Mr. ENGLER. Sure. From an abuse and neglect situation,
though, if there's a substance abuse problem in the home, then
that cost of dealing with the addiction is coming out of a
budget that's pretty meager to begin with already. So, I would
argue there's another logic there for--just with kids'
perspective, even aside before the work.
Ms. SCORSONE. Right.
Mr. CARTER. I believe that instead of having drug testing
done on the State level, that maybe we can incorporate it on
the Work First level, the Michigan Works Agency level to when
they're referred to orientation. That's part of their
orientation. We can catch that early on, because I do see
sometimes that you spend time preparing our customers to go to
work. They have all the skills and the sharp image, but then
they can't pass the drug test.
Mr. ENGLER. We know alcohol is every bit worse a problem
than the other drugs and so forth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CAMP. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you all for coming,
again. I really appreciate it. I think this is invaluable, and
I really appreciate the testimony you made.
I wanted to note that any person or organization wishing to
submit a written statement for the printed record of the
hearing, needs to send that electronically because of a change
in the House mail policy, to
[email protected], and then fax a copy
to 202-225-2610 by Tuesday, April 16. So, that's roughly 2
weeks.
Also, anyone may send a written statement to me at my
district office, which is at 135 Ashman in Midland, 48640. If I
receive that within the next week, I will be able to
incorporate that in the record. Again, thank you all for being
here.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
-