"Welcome to today's hearing. This is the second in our hearing series on welfare reform topics. Today, we will explore what we know about the effectiveness of programs designed to help low-income families get ahead. We have a talented set of witnesses with us to review what we know about how current programs perform, and how we can improve that performance to help more families move up the economic ladder. 

"Unfortunately, as we will hear in today’s testimony, while we all want to know about whether programs are working or not, what we actually know is quite limited. According to two former White House officials—one Republican, one Democrat—'based on our rough calculations, less than $1 out of every $100 of government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence that the money is being spent wisely.'

"And among the few programs that have been rigorously evaluated, the evidence suggests most don’t work. According to nonpartisan experts, 'Since 1990, there have been 10 instances in which an entire federal social program has been evaluated using the scientific 'gold standard' method' of random assignment. Of those 10 programs that were evaluated, nine were found to have weak or no positive effects.

"Some programs do worse than just waste money—they may actually harm those they are meant to help. For example, the former Mentoring Children of Prisoners program was intended to support children with an incarcerated parent. However, one in five mentorships lasted less than six months, and research shows such short-term mentoring relationships reinforce feelings of insecurity and abandonment, likely leaving children worse off than they would have been without this 'benefit.' Another program designed to prevent juvenile crime actually increased the chances that participants were later incarcerated. Having—and using—data like that would not only let us direct taxpayer funds to better uses, but prevent us from causing unintended harm to the very people we want to help.   

"Think about the information that many use every day to make the best decisions with our own money. If you’re my age and your family’s washing machine breaks, you might turn to Consumer Reports to find the most reliable replacement for your money. Many people might check online rating services to find the right phone or car for them. In both cases, consumers have a wealth of data to compare one brand to another and make an informed judgement about where their money is best spent. Yet policymakers don’t have the same sort of data about the effectiveness of government programs—which millions of families depend on for both basic financial needs and for the hope of a better life for themselves and their children. That’s just not good enough. 

"What we are left with are more questions than answers. Is the money we are spending today on the best mix of policies and programs to help people get ahead? What are we spending money on now that could be better reinvested elsewhere? If we had more money to invest, where should we put it? More often than not, we just don’t know. 

"The bottom line is this: We need to evaluate every program, determine what works, and focus resources on effective programs so more people can get ahead. Low-income individuals and taxpayers alike deserve programs that are effective in promoting opportunity and helping people improve their lives. This effort to fund what works is not about ideology or about cutting government spending—it’s about doing what’s right, especially for those who need the best help we can give. 

"I look forward to all of our testimony today."

###