Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998 Page: 3,702
3631-3764 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
pacted both by participation rate performance measures and
local resources and funding. DHS will refer teen parents ap-
plying for TANF services who are the head of the assistance
unit to the program for mandatory workforce orientation ses-
sions and employment planning sessions. These teen parents
are to be served in accordance with rules at 811.17, relating
to Choices Services Strategies. Local program planning should
promote collaborative arrangements necessary for providing or
referring both mandatory and voluntary teens for appropriate
educational, supportive, and workforce services.
Comment: A commenter suggests that subsection (b)(1) of this
section needs clarification as to whether people who reapply
for TANF after being denied are also considered applicants and
therefore required to attend an orientation.
Response: The requirement for applicants to attend a workforce
orientation session is included in the rules of both DHS and the
Commission. Technically, anyone who requests an application
is considered an applicant, regardless of whether the person
previously received TANF and was denied. Therefore, as
currently worded, the rule applies to all applicants. DHS
determines who must attend an orientation session. The
Commission has made no change to 811.12(b)(1) because
of this comment.
Comment: A commenter requests that subsection (b)(2) of this
section be clarified to specify that a sanction can be initiated for
someone who is scheduled for more than the federal minimum
participation requirement.
Response: The Commission disagrees that 811.12(b)(2) re-
quires clarification about initiating a sanction for noncompliance
with participation requirements beyond the federal minimum re-
quirements. This section does not address sanctions for non-
compliance which are included in 811.14. We believe that the
rule as currently worded is sufficient in that it addresses recip-
ients being required to participate in activities for the required
number of hours per week as stipulated in the federal require-
ments or in an employability plan. The rule then clarifies that
compliance is based on the number of hours in the employabil-
ity plan, even if that number is greater than the federal minimum
requirement.
Comment: A commenter asks if staff will be required to
monitor the ancillary services in subsection (b)(4) of this section
as outlined in 811.18. The commenter questions if the
activities count toward participation since 811.16(b) specifies
that counseling or other services to address family violence
and other crisis situations may be included in the participant's
employability plan.
Response: Monitoring all components of a participant's employ-
ability plan is part of effective case management and is neces-
sary to determine program compliance. The intent of 811.18
is to ensure frequent tracking and reporting of employment ser-
vices activities and provision of timely intervention necessary
for both client participation monitoring and quality client ser-
vices. If ancillary services are included in a participant's em-
ployability plan, and the hours of required activity can be veri-
fied, those hours can be included as participation provided they
qualify as an allowable activity. No changes have been made to
811.12(b)(4) as a result of the comment. The Commission has
changed the language in the first sentence of 9811.18 to clarify
the intent of monitoring and to provide for more local flexibility,
as explained in responses to 811.18.Comment: A commenter asserts that instead of requiring
recipients to participate in ancillary services as specified in
subsection (b)(4) of this section, the statement should allow
flexibility for the employment goal to be changed. If the recipient
chooses not to utilize the ancillary services, the Choices staff
should be allowed to reassess the recipient regarding the
employment goal.
Response: The Commission does not believe that the rule lan-
guage at subsection (b)(4) of this section precludes prudent
case management or staff decisions about updating employa-
bility plans to accommodate individual needs of program clients.
The intent of this rule is to list the participation requirements.
The key word in 811.12(b)(4) is "required." If ancillary services
are found to be required in order to remove barriers to participa-
tion or to obtaining a job, and the participant refuses to accept
the service referral or participate in the services, then nonpartic-
ipation could be an issue. An example would be someone who
participates in job search for the number of required hours, but
does not obtain a job because he appears for interviews ine-
briated. Program staff may include drug and alcohol treatment
or counseling for the individual in an employability plan and, if
necessary, give the client good cause for a period of time to
allow for services to be effective. Failure of the client to follow
through with the ancillary services could be cause for a sanc-
tion.
Comment: A commenter requests a clarifying change in sub-
section (b)(5) of this section to stipulate that "if the job offer pays
at least minimum wage, the recipient must accept it."
Response: This provision is covered in 811.13(8) which
allows the client to show good cause for failure to accept
a job offer paying less than the minimum wage. Therefore,
the Commission has not made the suggested change to
811.12(b)(5).
Comments regarding 811.13 Good Cause are as follows.
Comment: A commenter suggests that 811.13(1) should
be modified to insert the words "or permanently" between
the words "temporarily" and "ill." The commenter states that
it would not make good sense to grant good cause to a
temporarily incapacitated person, while denying good cause to
a permanently incapacitated person.
Response: The Commission's rules at 811.13, relating to good
cause, are the same as current policy under the state welfare
waiver approved by the federal government. Therefore, the
Commission will not make substantive changes to 811.13(1).
Good cause determinations are applied when a non-exempt
TANF recipient demonstrates a reason for inability to participate
in work or employment-related services. Permanent incapacity
or disability would result in the recipient's referral to DHS to
redetermine employment services or exemption status under
the rules at 40 TAC Chapter 3.
Comment: A commenter supports the purpose of 811.13(2),
but requests that the rule be amended to include meetings with
probation or parole officers as good cause. The commenter
bases this request on the high percentage of people on parole
or probation in the state. The commenter suggests that the
intent of the rule should not exclude persons who are required
to meet with a state or federal probation or parole officer.
Response: The Commission agrees that good cause could be
applied to a participant required to meet with probation or parole
officers. However, the Commission believes that making the23 TexReg 3702 April 10, 1998 Texas Register
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998, periodical, April 10, 1998; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth113834/m1/72/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.