TANF Final Rules as Required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

February 1, 2008

Author: Don Friedman

Introduction

The regulations summarized below represent the culmination, at least for now, of a process that began with the dramatic welfare reform legislation of 1996 – the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) – which was later modified by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA).  Following enactment of the DRA, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) drafted “Interim Final Rules.”  In the Federal Register of February 5, 2008, HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) made some modifications to the interim rules and published its “Final Rule.”  It is these final rules (regulations) that are summarized here.

There are many detailed explanations of the work rules, including the New York-focused Advocate’s Guide to the Welfare Work Rules, now available at www.empirejustice.org.  The Advocate’s Guide is the subject of a companion article in this issue of the Legal Services Journal; see also summaries on the website of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  What follows here are only the highlights of the final regulations.  Please also note that a more thorough analysis of these final regulations are posted on the Empire Justice website

A summary of the significant changes in the final rule

Listed here are the most significant changes from the interim rule to the final rule.  Each is discussed in greater detail in the complete text on the Empire Justice Center website:

• Pursuit of a bachelor’s degree can count as a vocational educational activity, but remember that vocational education is only a countable activity for a total of 12 months.  Despite the one-year limitation, this is a remarkable and welcome change in Federal policy.
• Additional time in education may be countable even after the 12 months of vocational education have been “used up.”  For example, certain educational activities, after being counted for 12 months as vocational education, may be countable as job skills directly related to employment, on-the-job training or even work experience.
• For virtually all work activities, there must be daily supervision.  The final rule clarifies that daily supervision does not necessarily have to be in person, meaning it can be, for example, by phone or electronically.
• Despite the daily supervision rule, people who are engaged in education as a work activity can also be credited with one hour of unsupervised homework for each hour of class time.  This one unsupervised hour can be counted in addition to supervised homework time, as long as the total does not exceed the amount of homework or study expected for that educational program.  This is another significant Federal change, and may help make it more feasible for public assistance recipients to engage in educational activities.
• The countable 6 weeks of job search/job readiness is converted to an hourly figure.\The definition of work-eligible can exclude, at state option, a non-PA parent who is receiving SSDI.  Previously, only if the parent received SSI could s/he be excluded.  This is important because the number of households with a work-eligible individual is central to the calculation of participation rates.
• The obligation to show “good or satisfactory progress” for certain educational activities has been eliminated. 
  

Background information

The DRA funds the TANF program through FY 2010.

These regulations take effect on October 10, 2008 (though certain components are already in effect). 

Various bonuses that were offered to states in the past have been replaced by $150 million for research and pilots to strengthen families to be distributed based on proposals submitted by states.

TANF and people with disabilities

There is a noteworthy discussion by ACF about public assistance recipients with disabilities.  This seems to have been included because so many commenters raised concerns about the insensitivity of the interim regulations to the particular needs and concerns of this population.  Among the points ACF makes:

• They will work with states to implement the DRA and regs, especially with regard to TANF adults with disabilities.
• They urge states to focus on capabilities, not limitations (that’s their way of saying we want to push participation, not exemption).  They will expand technical assistance to help states develop effective models.
• They frequently emphasize that the low 50% participation rate essentially provides states with all the flexibility that they need, that is that states should have no problem in meeting participation rates while still providing exemptions and accommodations where needed.  Many states and advocates do not agree with that assessment.
• They reiterate the states’ obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 
• For those working in this arena, a potentially valuable statement of Federal policy:  “In ensuring equal access, it is critical that TANF agencies have comprehensive and effective screening and assessment tools in place.”