Countdown to Time Limits

October 1, 2001

Author: Susan C. Antos

At the end of the year 2000, the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) launched "Countdown to Zero," a project name with two meanings.  The project focused on monitoring the number of families that would reach the end of the five year TANF time limit in December 2001. These families had been continuous TANF recipients since the beginning of welfare reform. As of October 2000, 76,203 families (63,222 in New York City) were expected to be subject to the five year time limit. The project also focused on encouraging local districts to reduce the number of cases hitting the time limit to zero through job placement, child support collection and transitional support services, and targeted case management.

Countdown to Zero is apparently meeting with success, at least by OTDA standards. In early September OTDA announced that approximately 43,000 families (36,000 in New York City), would be hitting the time limit, a reduction of 44% of their previous estimate. In fact, after factoring out any cases exempt from the time limits, Fulton, Hamilton, Yates, and Schoharie counties will have no persons hitting the five year time limit.

Data collected by OTDA shows that many of these recipients have done what OTDA has asked them to do to become self-sufficient. Twenty-nine percent have earnings (35% outside of NYC), and 22% have child support orders (32% outside of NYC). (1) Still, their income is not high enough for them to survive without a cash supplement.

Despite the indication that these families are playing by the rules, OTDA has elected to throw a new hurdle in their path which may lead to the churning of many families off the assistance rolls. OTDA had previously reassured advocates that the transition from TANF funded Family Assistance benefits to state funded non-cash safety net would be a smooth process, similar to the current process where someone switches category from Family Assistance to Safety Net. Currently, state regulations at 18 NYCRR 350.4(b) exempt a person whose assistance category is being reclassified from having to re-apply for assistance. The switch is a matter of changing computer codes. The state has proposed an amendment to 350.4(b), which would create an exception to the exemption for able-bodied individuals who become ineligible for Family Assistance because of the time limits. The last date to comment on this proposed regulation is October 27, 2001.

The state justifies the need for a reapplication on the basis that repayment agreements and assignment of future earnings have to be signed by Safety Net Assistance recipients, and CAP recipients may no longer be eligible. Neither of these reasons justify a reapplication. The repayment agreements and assignments could be mailed to recipients.(2) Workers are well aware of the incomes of CAP recipients and could simply send them a notice of discontinuance if they are no longer eligible. OTDA has indicated that a further reason for the reapplication is that reaching the time limits is a "milestone event" which should be noted with a new application.(3)

Sanctioned Families at High Risk for Churning

On August 30, 2001, OTDA issued GIS 01 TA/DC032(4) and imposed a reapplication requirement upon all Family Assistance recipients reaching the five year time limit. Beginning on September 17th local social services districts will begin conducting SNA application interviews for cases that are about to reach the time limit. The GIS advises districts to start with households with adults who are in sanctioned status because of non-compliance with work rules or child support requirements. Fourteen percent of those cases about to hit the time limits are under a sanction (19% outside of NYC).(5) It is with this population that it is likely that most of the churning will begin.

OTDA and DOL have long railed against "happily sanctioned families," their term for households in which a sanctioned adult no longer receives a grant, while benefits for the children continue. For every household that OTDA imagines thumbing its nose at the work rules, advocates point to a family that has suffered through work rule sanctions so that an adult in the household can finish a post secondary educational program that was not approved by a local social services district and which conflicted with a work assignment. Advocates can also point to a mother who has chosen to stay home with a severely disabled child and was denied a work exemption because she was ostensibly free to work while her child was in school--the only time during the day that she had to do shopping, buy groceries, or clean the house. This reapplication process will assure that many of these families leave the rolls because the penalty for an applicant who fails to comply with a work rule is a denial rather than a sanction. Interestingly, the GIS message reminds social services districts of this fact.

Application Interviews Separate from Reassessment Interviews

The reapplication process is in addition to the time limit reassessment that was described by 01 ADM -03 and GIS 01 TA/DC019, "Sample Call in Appointment Letter - Time Limit Reassessment" (6/1/01). The purpose of this face-to-face meeting is to determine if a person is exempt from the time limits because they have :

1. a physical or mental impairment that is expected to last more than 6 months (corresponds to employability code 36 or 43);
2. a physical or mental impairment that is the result of domestic violence and is expected to last three or more months;
3. a physical or mental impairment of a child that is the result of domestic violence that requires the adult family member to remain in the home to care for the child; or
4. another member in the household with a physical or mental impairment that requires the adult family member to remain in the home to provide full-time care (corresponds to employability code 38).(6)

Persons who do not qualify under the rules above but who are exempt from employment requirements or who are HIV positive will be eligible for cash safety net assistance, as opposed to non-cash safety net assistance.

It is beyond understanding why these two appointments can not be combined into one, especially since the first task during the SNA interview is to determine if the able-bodied adult has had a change in his/her situation (since the very recent Reassessment interview) which would qualify them for an exemption, or if they are exempt from the work rules and are eligible for non-cash assistance. In such case (which would have been determined at the recent interview), they do not have to apply for SNA! Any district that has not yet done a reassessment, can do a reassessment and reapplication at the same time. (7)

Effect of 45 Day Waiting Period

The GIS message makes clear that the 45 day waiting period is waived in any case "where the district is unable to schedule" the SNA Application Interview 45 days prior to the end of the five year time limit. What happens if the district schedules the appointment, but the recipient is unable to get time off from work or has an illness or transportation difficulties at the time of the interview? Although the GIS message says districts "should be sensitive" to those working full- time or with transportation difficulties, it does not define what "being sensitive" means. However, Robert Sharkey, Director of Policy Development at the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, says that an ADM is forthcoming which will clarify that any person who comes in prior to the expiration of their time limit will not be subject to a 45 day wait.(8)

Not a Non-Cash Program Anymore

As originally envisioned, families hitting the time limit would have had little access to cash benefits and would have had to use an EBT type swipe card to make purchases. This plan is now on "indefinite suspension," according to Robert Sharkey, who says that non-cash safety net will not be fully implemented. Only rent, heat, and utilities will be on voucher.(9)

Recoupments

Safety net individuals are subject to a 15% recoupment rate, a rate 5% higher than that imposed upon Family Assistance recipients. The state has amended 18 NYCRR 352.11 and 352.31(d)(2) effective December 1, 2001 to provide that recoupments for those on Family Assistance and Safety Net Assistance are both 10%.

Earnings Disregards

Welfare reform increased the earnings disregards available to families to 49% of earned income. Because this disregard applies both to any family containing a dependent child, both Family Assistance and Safety Net households with children will continue to get the disregard. Social Services Law 131-a(8)(a)(iii); 18 NYCRR 352.20(c). Thus, those transitioning from Family Assistance to Safety Net should not lose earnings disregards.

Emergency Assistance to Families (EAF)

Families who are no longer receiving TANF because they have reached the time limit are nonetheless eligible for EAF if they otherwise meet the eligibility criteria in 18 NYCRR 372 and the need does not extend beyond four months. This is because EAF meets the federal definition for non-assistance, which has no time limits. Thus, EAF can not be used to meet an ongoing or recurrent need for time-limited families. 00 ADM-3, p.13.

Essential Persons

The concept of "essential person," including a person on the FA case who is necessary for the well-being of the family, does not extend to safety net. Thus, any essential persons in time-limited cases must become separate safety net cases.

00 ADM-3. p. 14. These persons, who will no longer be members of households with dependent children, will not be eligible for enhanced earnings disregards.

Other Provisions

Loans are not considered income for family assistance purposes, but they are considered income for safety net families. 00 ADM-3, p. 14.

Unlike Family Assistance, an SNA parent may not decline to apply for a child in his or her care.

If a household member has a pending SSI case, an interim assistance agreement will have to be signed. However, it is expected that most applicants for SSI will be considered exempt from the time limits.

The 60 month time limit should have no effect on Medicaid eligibility. An able-bodied adult's failure to apply for safety net assistance or to comply with safety net assistance should have no impact on Medicaid eligibility.

1. Robert Sharkey, Director of Policy Development, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance on September 21, 2001 at Welfare Task Force, Syracuse, New York.

2. These repayment agreements allow the state to impose instant garnishment upon the wages of those leaving public assistance to recover public assistance overpayments. Social Services Law §158(7)(ii). Taking 10% of the wages of a low income working person is contrary to state policy regarding the provision of transitional services to those leaving assistance. Section 158(7)(ii) was unsuccessfully challenged in Hayden v. Wing (Alb. Co. Sup Court, Index No. 4430-99), as a violation of 46-c of the personal Property Law, due process, and Article 17. Although a notice of appeal was filed in the case, the plaintiff died shortly thereafter, and the appeal could not be continued. A copy of the unreported decisions, pleadings, and memoranda of law in the case are available from GULP, Albany.

3. Robert Sharkey, supra, note 1.

4. Available at www.wnylc.com.

5. Robert Sharkey, supra, note 1.

6. "Full-time care" needs to be defined. Some fair hearings have upheld sanctions against parents with severely disabled children whose children are in school year programs. These parents can only shop, clean, do laundry, and make personal appointments while the child is in school. Although these parents put in more than eight hours a day, including full-time weekends and school vacations caring for their children, some social services districts have refused to exempt them on the basis that they are available for work while their children are in school. In Matter of K.H., fh # 3222621N (12/16/99).

7. Robert Sharkey, Director of Policy Development, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance on September 21, 2001 at Welfare Task Force, Syracuse, New York.

8. Robert Sharkey, supra, note 1.

9. Robert Sharkey, supra, note 1.