|
March 9, 2006
Re: Regulations Defining TANF Work Activities
Secretary Michael O. Leavitt
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
cc: Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn, Ph.D.
Dear Secretary Leavitt:
The undersigned organizations represent a variety of groups that work with and
on behalf of individuals with physical and mental disabilities, including substance abuse
problems. We also work with and on behalf of the families of these individuals,
including children involved with the child welfare system because of their parents’
disabilities. We are writing to request that you ensure that the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program regulations which your Department will issue in the
coming months help empower such individuals to address the challenges they face to
working and caring for their children. We believe that by developing regulations that
give states the flexibility to tailor services and required activities to address these
challenges, we, as a nation, can help more families move off welfare towards greater
independence. We also believe that giving states the flexibility to address the range of
challenges families face will help improve the outcomes their children experience.
Since the adoption of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act in 1996, states have recognized that a number of families receiving
TANF have a family member with a mental or physical disability, including a substance
abuse problem, that poses barriers to successful employment. A number of states have
used the flexibility afforded in the TANF program to provide a range of rehabilitative
services that assist these individuals in obtaining and retaining employment.
If the regulations called for in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) define work
activities too narrowly, individuals with physical and mental disabilities, including
substance abuse problems, could be assigned to inappropriate work activities – activities
that fail to recognize the individuals’ current circumstances and make it far less likely
that the individuals will be able to secure and retain employment that moves them and
their families towards greater independence. Similarly, if parents or other adult family
members are caring for a child or other family member with a disability, they may not be
able to participate in narrowly defined work activities at the levels required by the DRA.
If states sanction these families and remove them from the TANF program in order to
avoid penalties for failure to meet work participation rates, we are quite concerned that
many of these families will fail to get the services they need and end up in the child
welfare system. It is the most disadvantaged families, those with barriers such as mental
or physical disabilities, including substance abuse problems, that are at greatest risk of
making the transition from TANF into the child welfare system.
It is critical that the forthcoming TANF regulations allow states to comply with
the letter and spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). We commend HHS for the Guidance on
TANF and the ADA that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued in 2001, following up
on earlier guidance issued in 1999, and for the video training tape on the Guidance
produced by OCR and made available on the website this past year. However, we are
concerned that if HHS issues regulations without sufficient flexibility to address the
needs of those with mental or physical disabilities, including substance abuse problems, it
will be signaling to states that they need not comply with the ADA and Section 504. We
urge you to ensure that the regulations defining work activities reinforce the importance
of these laws and facilitate state’s compliance with them.
Specifically, we request that any TANF regulations issued by HHS do the
following three things:
- Define “work activities” to include necessary rehabilitative services.
The regulations should define the various work activities listed in the TANF
statute to specifically provide that a state will receive work activity credit for an
individual’s participation in rehabilitative services if the state has determined that
the person has a disability and such services are needed to assist the person to
move to greater independence, including work. There should be no time limit
placed on the period for which participation can count as work activity — that
should be determined based upon the person’s disability and how long he or she
will need to participate in the services in order to succeed in moving to greater
independence, including work.
- Define “work activities” to include caring for a disabled family member.
The regulations should define the various work activities listed in the TANF
statute to specifically provide that a state will receive work activity credit for the
hours a parent or other adult family member spends caring for a child or other
family member with a disability. Here too, there should be no time limit during
which caring for a disabled child or other family member can count as a work
activity.
- Provide penalty relief for states who engage individuals with disabilities in
appropriate activities.
The regulations should allow states that fail to meet their work participation rates
— and have not received work participation credit for some of the activities in
which parents with disabilities have been engaged — to provide HHS with the
information about those additional hours of participation and receive credit for
that participation as HHS decides both whether to impose a penalty on states for
failing to meet the requirements and, if a penalty is to be assessed, the magnitude
of that penalty. This is similar to how the regulations treat states that adopt the
family violence option if those states fail to meet the work participation rate
because of how they serve those dealing with domestic violence. Under this
recommendation, if a state can show that the reason it failed to meet the
participation rate — or the reason it did not come closer to meeting the
participation rate — is that it was serving people with disabilities and engaging
them in alternative but meaningful and appropriate activities, then HHS will
provide the state with credit for those activities as well when determining
penalties.
There are several ways that HHS could design regulations that give states work
participation credit when individuals with physical or mental disabilities, including
substance abuse problems, engage in rehabilitative services and when individuals provide
care to a child or other family member with a disability. For example, HHS could simply
count caring for a family member with a disability as work. Participation in many
rehabilitative services could be considered “community service” (as could caring for a
child or other family member with a disability). Activities that help individuals address
their disabilities, including substance abuse problems, can help them become more able
to work and also to engage in their children’s schools, faith based organizations, and
other community institutions. Some activities that help individuals develop work skills
could also be counted as “vocational education training.” Many activities that will help
individuals address mental or physical disabilities, including substance abuse problems,
could also be considered “job readiness” activities. However, the statutory time limit on
counting vocational education training and job readiness activities means that these
should not be the only categories under which rehabilitative services can be counted as
work activities. To allow states to tailor the services to address the specific challenges
individuals face, they need to be able to count a broad range of rehabilitative services for
the time it takes to address individual needs.
For the same reason, states also need to be able to count participation in
rehabilitative services as work activities for all the hours individuals participate. Some
disabilities may preclude an individual from participating in activities other than
rehabilitative services. Similarly, an individual caring for a child or other family member
with a disability may not be able to participate in other work activities. Thus, while some
rehabilitative services, such as job coaching, could be considered “job skills training
directly related to employment” or “education directly related to employment,” these
categories cannot be the only categories under which rehabilitative services count as
work activities, since hours in these activities count only after a person has engaged in
certain other work activities for at least 20 hours.
We want to ensure that individuals with physical and mental disabilities,
including substance abuse problems, receive access to the services they need to work and
to succeed. We believe it is critical to give states work participation credit when
individuals participate in these services (our first two recommendations). We do not
believe simply providing states penalty relief (our third recommendation) will adequately
facilitate state efforts to provide the needed services. Quite reasonably, states do not
want to be identified as having “failed” to meet a federal standard. They are likely to
design their programs to meet the program requirements, not just avoid penalties. The
fact that states may be able to get penalty relief for serving people with mental or
physical disabilities, including substance abuse problems, while useful, may not make
states feel comfortable designing programs that offer people rehabilitative services
upfront, if they know they cannot receive work participation credit for those activities.
We think the penalty relief provision is important, but as an addition to, not in place of,
our other recommendations that work activities be defined broadly enough to encompass
participation in critical rehabilitative services.
We believe that including these three provisions in the TANF regulations will
give states the ability to comply with TANF, as well the ADA and Section 504. These
provisions will also provide states the flexibility to empower individuals with mental or
physical disabilities, including substance abuse problems, to move towards work and
greater independence. Having access to critical rehabilitative services will also help
prevent vulnerable families from ending up in the child welfare system. We appreciate
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Addiction Treatment Providers of New Jersey
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Providers of New York State
American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD)
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association on Mental Retardation
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Humane Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Arizona Council of Human Service Providers
Arkansas Assets Coalition
Arkansas Association of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Association of Substance Abuse Programs of Texas
Behavioral Health Services Association of South Carolina
Blount County Children’s Home
Brain Injury Association of America
California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, Inc.
California Partnership
Capital Area Center for Independent Living
Center for Civil Justice
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Center for Public Policy Priorities
Central New York Citizens in Action
Child Care Law Center
Chicago Jobs Council
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Defense Fund
Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
Colorado Association of Alcohol & Drug Service Providers, Inc.
Connecticut Association of Substance Abuse Agencies
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.
Council for Exceptional Children
County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators’ Association of California (CADPAAC)
Delaware Association of Rehabilitation Facilities
Disability Rights Center of Maine
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC)
Drug & Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania
Drug & Alcohol Treatment Association of Rhode Island
Faces and Voices of Recovery
Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies
First Star
Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association
Fremont Public Association
Georgia Council on Substance Abuse
Holy Family Home and Shelter, Inc.
Hunger Action Network of New York State
IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association (ITCA)
Illinois Alcoholism & Drug Dependence Association
Iowa Substance Abuse Program Directors' Association
Kentucky Task Force on Hunger
Learning Disabilities Association of America
Legal Action Center
Legal Momentum
Legal Services of Southern Piedmont
Maine Association of Interdependent Neighborhoods
Maine Association of Substance Abuse Programs
Maine Equal Justice Partners
MANNA
Maryland Addictions Director’s Council
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Corporations of Massachusetts
Michigan Association of Centers for Independent Living
Michigan Association of Licensed Substance Abuse Organizations
Minnesota Association of Resources for Recovery & Chemical Health
Missouri Association of Alcohol & Drug Abuse Programs
Montana Addiction Service Providers
NAADAC- The Association for Addiction Professionals
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Association for Children’s Behavioral Health
National Association of Counsel for Children
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Council of Churches USA
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD)
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
National Network for Youth
Nebraska Association of Behavioral Health Organizations
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Nevada Alliance for Addictive Disorders Advocacy, Prevention and Treatment Services
New Hampshire Alcohol and Other Drug Service Providers Association
National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds
National Association of Social Workers - Rhode Island Chapter
National Mental Health Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
North Carolina Association for Behavioral Health Care
North Dakota Addiction Treatment Providers Coalition
Ohio Council of Behavioral Healthcare Providers
Oklahoma Substance Abuse Services Alliance
Oregon Center for Public Policy
Oregon Law Center
Oregon Prevention, Recovery, and Education Association
Partnership for the Homeless
Project IRENE
Public Justice Center
Rebecca Project for Human Rights
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
South Dakota Council of Substance Abuse Providers
South Dakota Peace & Justice Center
Southern Good Faith Fund
State Associations of Addiction Services
Substance Abuse Directors Association of Alaska, Inc.
Tennessee Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services
Tennessee Conference on Social Welfare
Tennessee Health Care Campaign
The Arc of the United States
The Poverty Institute at Rhode Island College
Therapeutic Communities of America
United Cerebral Palsy
United States Conference of Mayors
Utah Behavioral Healthcare Network, Inc.
Vermont Association of Drug & Alcohol Programs
Virginia Association of Drug and Alcohol Programs
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Washington Association of Alcoholism & Addiction Programs
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
Welfare Law Center
Welfare Rights Initiative
Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Women’s City Club of New York
cc:
Dr. Margaret Giannini, Office on Disability
Mr. Charlie Curie, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Dr. Wade Horn, Administration for Children and Families
Dr. Patricia A. Morrissey, Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Dr. Susan Orr, Children’s Bureau
Ms. Sidonie Squier, Office of Family Assistance
Mr. Winston Wilkinson, Office for Civil Rights
Mr. Charlie Curie, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
|
