Pathways to Independence Act of 2003 (S. 1523)

Sponsors: Senators Smith, Jeffords, Conrad

Qs & As

Introduction

On July 31, 2001, Senators Smith, Jeffords, and Conrad introduced S. 1523, the Pathways to Independence Act of 2003.[1]

The bill has two provisions, both designed to give states options in their TANF programs that will allow them to better assist families with a member with a disability, including substance abuse, to move to work.

Provision 1:  Allow states to count participation in rehabilitative services as meeting the work requirement for more than three months if the TANF recipient is progressively increasing participation in core work activities. 

Under current law, states have the flexibility—either due to a waiver or  the caseload reduction credit—to ensure that a parent with a disability, including a substance abuse problem, receives the rehabilitative services she needs in order to move towards work.  In recent years, more  states have used this flexibility as they became aware that some  parents require more specialized help to successfully enter the workforce and maintain employment. 

Under the TANF reauthorization proposals passed by the House (H.R. 4) and circulated by Senator Grassley, the amount of time states could count rehabilitative services as meeting the full work requirement would be capped at three months.  Under these proposals, states could count the hours an individual participated in rehabilitative services as meeting the work requirements only if the individual also completed 24 hours of countable work activities. 

These restrictions on the states are likely to be counter-productive for many families who will require more time to successfully prepare to enter the workforce and will likely discourage states from designing programs that meet the needs of those with the most severe barriers. 

S. 1523 would allow states to count participation in rehabilitative services as a work activity beyond three months as long as the rehabilitative services are mixed with work activity.   S. 1523 would make two changes to Senator Grassley’s current proposal:  

•           First, it would extend the period of time during which participation in rehabilitation services, including substance abuse treatment, can count fully toward the work participation requirements from three months to six months.  However, during the second three months, the state must require the individual to participate in a few hours of core work activities in addition to participating in  rehabilitative services.

•           Second, it would allow states to count individuals participating in rehabilitative services after  six months  as long as at least one-half of the hours in which the individual participates are in core work activities.

How rehabilitative services are treated under S. 1523

1.  How would the Smith/Jeffords/Conrad proposal work with Senator Grassley’s current proposal for full or partial credit at different bands of hours?

Senator Grassley’s proposal would give states full or partial work credit for a family based upon the number of hours of work activity completed each week.  The chart on the next page shows the “bands of hours” proposed by Senator Grassley (first four columns).  The remaining three columns show how S. 1523 would work for those individuals with disabilities including substance abuse problems the states determine need additional rehabilitation services beyond the six month period.

2. Why would states have a disincentive to help people with disabilities under existing TANF reauthorization proposals and how would this provision help?

Under the Grassley proposal (and the House bill), states will be required to engage a higher proportion of their caseload in core work activities and the proportion would increase over a five year period.  Recipients unable to find unsubsidized work quickly will have to be placed in work programs that can count toward the work participation requirements.  States will be very reluctant to engage TANF recipients with disabilities in the relatively more expensive programs that can help them address barriers to work if those efforts will not even count toward the work participation requirements.

 S. 1523 would not change the fiscal incentive states will always have to move TANF recipients into unsubsidized employment.   S. 1523 would ensure, however, that states that are providing the rehabilitative services that people with disabilities require to prepare for a transition to the workforce are not penalized for doing so.

Under S. 1523, states would understand that they can help these families move to work without jeopardizing their work rates.  They also will recognize that the investments in the first six months are worthwhile long-term investments as they will be able to secure ongoing partial credit after that period for families who continue to need rehabilitative services and progress into the hybrid group.

3. Aren’t the higher caseload work participation requirements necessary to ensure that the states actually engage these families in activities that will help them transition into the workforce? 

There are benefits and risks to higher work participation requirements.  While higher work rates do make it more difficult for states to ignore recipients with greater needs, the lack of flexibility and resources to help those with significant challenges actually provides states with strong incentives to move families into a one-size-fits all program and sanction those families who do not “fit.”  This risks pushing recipients with barriers off the rolls even if they are not moving into jobs that support their families. 

Nonetheless, S. 1523 does not change the work participation rate at all.  If adopted, states would be required to engage the same number of recipients in welfare-to-work activities as would be required under the Grassley proposal.  What S. 1523 would do, however, is allow states greater flexibility to decide for themselves the mix of activities that has the greatest likelihood of helping recipients with barriers move from welfare to work.  This will allow states to create a progression of work activity hours combined with rehabilitative services over time that will assist in moving the family from welfare to work at a pace that is designed to lead to success for that family.

4.  What exactly are “rehabilitative services” that would qualify under this provision?

The terms “rehabilitative services” or “barrier removal activities” (the term used in the Grassley proposal and in the House bill) mean basically the same thing.  They cover the range of activities that could help a parent with a serious barrier, such as a disability or a substance abuse problem, to better function in a competitive work environment.  For example, if the state determines that a person has a learning disability that affects her ability to work, the state might place the parent in a program specifically designed to help adapt her learning style to acquire the skills needed to find employment.  Another person might need a job coach to accompany her to a job site for however long is necessary to allow her to perform the job satisfactorily.  Other examples include: substance abuse treatment; mental health counseling and treatment; participation in the state’s vocational rehabilitation program; literacy classes adapted to address the person’s learning disability.

5.  The GAO says that over 40 percent of TANF families have a parent with a disability.  Wouldn’t this provision create a large exception to our work activity requirements?

The GAO figure is very important because it tells us that there are many families on TANF who will need extra help to successfully leave the cash assistance program.  It confirms earlier research by the Urban Institute, the HHS Inspector General, MDRC, and many of the state-level “leaver studies.”  The data does not mean that all of these families need to participate in non-standard work activities for extended periods of time.  In fact, currently states have very broad flexibility to assign recipients to barrier-related activities because the effective work participation rates are so low.  States have not used this flexibility to exempt large numbers of recipients because they have a disability nor have they engaged vast numbers of recipients in non-standard work activities.  In fact, many states have utilized this flexibility to engage individuals with substantial barriers to employment in activities that, while not countable, have helped those families address their barriers to employment and prepare for a successful transition to the workforce.

Moreover, it is important to understand that S. 1523 does not create any exemptions from participation requirements.  Under S. 1523,  states would have to engage the same number of recipients in welfare-to-work activities as under the Grassley proposal or the House passed bill  S. 1523 simply allows states to utilize a broader range of activities to help recipients with barriers move to work.  In short, Senators Smith, Jeffords and Conrad are proposing a way to make the TANF program work for parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems.  Their proposal would give states credit when recipients with barriers are engaged in activities that help them prepare for work and, thus, will encourage states to assist families with barriers to progress towards work in a manner and at a pace that is more tailored to their needs and disabilities. 

6.  What if a state doesn’t want to provide this mix of services to people with disabilities or substance abuse problems?

Nothing in S. 1523 requires any state to provide any services to a person with a disability or a substance abuse problem as part of their TANF programs.  It simply provides them with a tool that will help them to secure credit for their work with families with disabilities or substance abuse problems.

7.  Why should this proposal include substance abuse treatment as a barrier removal activity?  

Substance abuse is a problem many TANF recipients struggle with and it impedes states’ ability to help those recipients transition into the work force unless it is adequately addressed and treated.  Most national studies have indicated that 10 to 20 percent of adult welfare recipients have alcohol and drug problems.  (As a comparison, SAMHSA found that 4.5 percent of American women reported past month drug use and 2.1 percent reported heavy alcohol use in 1995.)  More recent studies also have found an elevated prevalence of addiction in TANF caseloads.  In February 2001, Multnomah County, Oregon, found that 13 percent of TANF applicants screened positive for having an alcohol or drug problem.  An Alameda County, California, study estimated that 10 to 22 percent of TANF recipients in 1998 had an alcohol or drug problem. 

8.  How long do individuals need to be in substance abuse treatment for it to be effective?  Isn’t the three months that’s provided for in the Grassley proposal adequate?

Many women, especially women with children, benefit from long-term treatment programs that serve the whole family.   These treatment programs frequently are longer than six months, many ranging from 9 to 18 months, because they address the complex individual and family problems that often accompany a substance abuse disorder, including mental health issues, histories of trauma and abuse, need to address or improve parenting skills, and limited work skills and need for in-depth work preparation and job training. 

9.  How effective are drug and alcohol treatment programs that serve TANF recipients and what are their outcomes?

Numerous studies have demonstrated that drug and alcohol treatment programs serving women with children, including women on welfare, have many positive health, welfare, and child welfare outcomes.  According to data from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment’s Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Infants programs, after treatment:  67.4 percent of women were not using drugs or alcohol; 90.3 percent of women were not involved with the criminal justice system; and 86.5 percent of children were living with their mothers.   In addition, employment rates increase for individuals who receive drug and alcohol treatment.  An Oregon study found that individuals who completed drug treatment received 65 percent higher wages than those who did not complete treatment.

Provision 2: Allow states to count as a work activity the time that the adult in the TANF family spends caring for a child with a disability or an adult relative with a disability. 

It is very difficult to find safe, accessible, and appropriate child care for a child with a disability.  This is often the case regardless of the family’s income.  In addition, the nature of some children’s disabilities and health conditions means that parents are called from work regularly to assist a school with the child or to take the child to medical appointments — jeopardizing their ability to retain employment.  Other TANF recipients are providing care for an adult relative who depends on them for that care.  They face a serious dilemma when they are told they must work away from home but leave an elderly parent or other relative with a disability without the care they need to continue to live in the community. 

At the same time, there are many parents who are providing care to a family member with a disability who would like to maintain as much employment as they can or secure the training they will need to gain employment when they are no longer needed in the home to care for their family member

 S. 1523 will allow states to receive work credit for the time that a parent spends caring for a child with a disability or adult relative, if the state has determined that this is the most appropriate way to secure needed care.  The provision specifically states that it does not prevent a state from designing a plan with the parent that combines some amount of in-home care as work activity with other activities that will help the parent prepare to enter the workforce at a time that is appropriate in meeting the needs of the child or adult relative with a disability.

10. What steps would a state need to take in order to count a parent’s care as a work activity under this provision?

S. 1523 would allow the state to count hours that a TANF recipient spends providing “substantial ongoing care” for a child or adult with a disability.  In order to count such care, the state must determine that the child or adult has a significant physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments, that has been verified through “a medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic technique.”  The state must further find that, as a result of that impairment, the child or adult needs “substantial ongoing care” and that the TANF recipient is the most appropriate person to provide that care.  Due to the caretaking responsibilities, the state must determine that  the recipient is not able to participate fully in other work activities.  In addition, the state will be required to conduct regular, periodic evaluations of the recipient’s family to determine whether there is a continuing need for care provided by the recipient and include regular updates on this in the recipient’s self-sufficiency plan.  

11. Does this provision exempt people from work?

No, a similar provision included in last year’s Senate Finance bill—offered as an amendment in committee by Senator Conrad—would have allowed states to exempt parents from the work requirement.  Under S. 1523, the state’s focus will be on counting the parent’s effort as work activity and, where appropriate, building additional activities and services into the family’s plan as well. 

For example, a state might decide that a parent was needed in the home to care for the child with a disability for 20 hours per week.  The state may then determine that the parent should be working or participating in another core work activity for an additional number of hours per week—either the number of hours needed to be able to count the family as meeting the full work requirement or, for fewer hours if the state determines it is appropriate, and the state can receive partial credit.  For another family, the state may determine that the parent must be in the home full-time to provide the care.  Over time, this assessment may change depending on the caretaking needs within the family and the parent may be able to engage in more work activities outside the home.  This provision provides the state the tools to be responsive to the family’s need to care for their child or adult relative with a disability. 

Providing work credit fits nicely into the concepts of universal engagement and of helping families to get the individualized plans they need so that they ultimately succeed.  As it allows the state the flexibility necessary to tailor a plan that can evolve with the changing needs of the family, it can help facilitate the development of a family-centered helping relationship that may be non-existent when families are simply “exempted” and, perhaps, forgotten on the caseload rolls.

12. Are states required to give work credit for these families?

No, but if they do, the family will count towards the state’s work rates.  This helps families to care for their family member with a disability while also helping the state to meet its work rate. 

For further information, please contact members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) TANF Task Force, including any of the co-chairs:

Sharon McDonald, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 202-638-1526, ext. 109, smcdonald@naeh.org

Donna Meltzer, Association of University Centers on Disability, 301-588-8252, dlmeltzer@aucd.org

Laurel Stine, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 202-467-5730, laurels@bazelon.org

Kirsten Beronio, National Mental Health Association, 202-675-8413, kberonio@nmha.org