Ways and Means Banner with Picture of One of Four Sculptured Eagles from Ceiling in 1100 Longworth, Main Committee Hearing Room


What's New

Committee Schedule

Prints and Publications

Rules and Jurisdiction

Legislative Resources

Search the
Committee's site

Committee Membership

Committee News Releases

Chairmen's Portraits Page


FULL COMMITTEE

Tax Issues Only

SUBCOMMITTEES:

Trade

Oversight

Health

Social Security

Human Resources

Select Revenue Measures


Privacy, Copyright, and Permission to Link Statement

Committee on Ways and Means
 

For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office 202-225-8933
July 31, 2002

HHS Releases Latest Study
on Welfare Reform

Work -- Not Education -- Is Key to Success

WASHINGTON - The non-partisan Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), under contract with the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education, released a new report from its comprehensive study of 11 welfare-to-work programs.

The report, “Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS),” provides rigorously evaluated evidence in support of the successful “work first” features of the 1996 reforms, which are strengthened through the House-passed welfare reauthorization bill (H.R. 4737).

In contrast, the welfare bill proposed by the Senate Finance Committee promotes more long-term education and less work, which, according to the report, has led to lower earnings, greater dependence on welfare, and higher costs.

Key Findings of the Report

Long-term education did not yield higher earnings or better jobs. “Relative to the LFA [Labor Force Attachment, known as “work first”] approach, the HCD [Human Capital Development, known as “education focused”] approach did not produce more earnings growth or increase the likelihood of employment in good jobs.” (Page 32)

Recipients in long-term education stayed on welfare longer. “The LFA approach moved people into jobs and off welfare more quickly than did the HCD approach - a clear advantage in an era of time limits on welfare receipt.” (Page 32)

Work yielded similar or better results in terms of income and child well-being. “The LFA and HCD approaches did not differentially affect income or children’s well-being in the full NEWWS sample. However, for one subgroup - non-graduates - the LFA programs had a larger impact on income than did the HCD programs.” (Page 35)

In addition to other benefits, work produced savings for taxpayers. “The LFA approach was much cheaper to operate than the HCD approach.” (Page 32)

The report is available online at the Department website.  Click here to view.

 


BACK

PRINT
(printer friendly version)