Dozens testify for and against returning ASPIRE TANF services to state control; sponsor cites 'catastrophic' contract failures

Representative Tiff Archer testified in favor of LD 943, a bill that would require ASPIRE, the state—s TANF employment and training program, to be administered by state employees rather than by the current private contractor. Archer and a stream of current and former ASPIRE participants, advocates and union representatives told the committee that they have seen poor outcomes and operational failures since the program was outsourced in 2016.

Archer called the current contract "a catastrophic failure" in some respects and urged the committee to consider returning administration to DHHS staffing. He cited very low work participation rates reported to the federal government in some months and questioned the accuracy and transparency of some performance data submitted by the current contractor. "These fit numbers are not just disappointing, they represent catastrophic failure," Archer said in his remarks.

More than a dozen people testified in support of the bill. Representative testimony and public witnesses described repeated service delays, high staff turnover at the contractor known as Fedcap, missed payments and inconsistent case management. Several former employees and current staff who testified said internal workplace problems harmed both workers and participants. Rachel Phipps, a licensed clinical social worker and former Fedcap employee, told the committee she found working conditions at Fedcap unsafe and described staff as "drastically overworked," saying that the contractor's approach "was like catching a falling knife." Current and former participants testified that promises of support—tuition payments, childcare assistance and timely case management—had been delayed or not fulfilled.

Maine Equal Justice advocates and others urged the committee to return control to state employees or at least require a different contract model. Orianna Farnham, an attorney with Maine Equal Justice, said her office had assisted hundreds of families struggling to access ASPIRE services and described repeated delays that sometimes required legal intervention.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Office for Family Independence (OFI) testified in opposition to an immediate statutory transfer, arguing that the agency has been implementing a new contract with revised performance measures that began in October 2023 and that the program is currently undergoing a shift toward longer‑term family stability measures rather than narrowly meeting federal work‑participation metrics. Ian Yaffe, director of the Office for Family Independence, told the committee the contract includes new monthly performance metrics and that DHHS is already seeing some improved outcomes under the October 2023 contract year: "An average of 80% of employment secured over that time period has employer sponsored benefits," Yaffe said, and he added that job retention and other metrics were progressing. Yaffe warned that an immediate transfer would be disruptive and costly: hiring and training state staff can take months and the state would still need to contract for specialized services.

Union representatives and employees testifying in support of the bill said state employment had historically provided stable local delivery of services and that returning the program to DHHS would improve accountability. Opponents argued that disruption to an ongoing contract could set back reforms and noted DHHS—s renewed oversight and the design of new metrics and participant surveys required by the LIFT report process.

Ending: Committee members asked for performance data, vacancy and turnover statistics, and the preliminary participant survey findings from DHHS before the work session. DHHS officials said they would provide an interim LIFT report and additional contract performance details for the committee—s review.