Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998 Page: 3,703
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:
suggested language change in 811.13(2) would be considered
a substantive revision to the state waiver provisions. Therefore,
the Commission prefers to provide additional guidance on
addressing a participant's legal matters through written program
guidelines.
Comment: A commenter suggests that 811.13(3) seems to
indicate that persons who have not completed high school have
less good cause than high school graduates, and notes that the
reverse is more logical.
Response: The rule as proposed is consistent with the state's
welfare waiver. Therefore, the Commission declines to change
811.13(3). Both state and federal welfare reform statutes
emphasize the requirement for parents to complete high school.
Excluding a caretaker who has not completed high school from
claiming good cause for not participating more than 20 hours
per week, regardless of the age of the child, is consistent with
policy governing school attendance.
Comment: A commenter states that 811.13(4) is similar to the
good cause provision in 811.13(10), and asks if it is necessary
to make the distinction between someone who is a caretaker of
a physically or mentally disabled child and someone who has a
family crisis.
Response: Although the Commission agrees with the com-
menter that family crisis could fit some of the other specific good
cause provisions, we are maintaining the rule as proposed in
order to be consistent with the good cause policy in our state
welfare waiver.
Comment: A commenter recommends deleting 811.13(8)
which allows good cause for an individual not accepting em-
ployment offers below minimum wage and changing the lan-
guage in 811.12(b)(5) to specify that recipients must accept a
job offer unless it results in below minimum wage employment.
The commenter suggests that this could eliminate some work
associated with good cause determination.
Response: The Commission agrees that this could be an al-
ternate method of incorporating the policy. However, substan-
tive changes to good cause provisions would impact the state
waiver. Prior to any need for determining good cause, there
must be some form of nonparticipation, such as failure to ac-
cept a job offer. Therefore, the Commission declines to revise
the rule.
Comment: Two commenters request a change to the six-month
timeframe as specified in 811.13(10). The commenters state
that the limits for granting good cause for domestic violence
purposes should be consistent with state law rather than the
proposed TANF federal regulations, which have not yet been
finalized. House Bill 3428, passed by the Texas Legislature
in 1997, provides for waivers of certain eligibility requirements
for victims of domestic violence, including work requirements.
The state law further specifies that the requirements would
not be waived for more than one year. The proposed federal
regulations for TANF specify a six-month limit for granting
good cause exemption for domestic violence purposes, and the
preamble to those regulations states that such an exemption
could be extended. The commenters request that the language
in the last sentence of 9811.13(10) be changed to read, "Good
cause shall not be extended beyond one year for domestic
violence purposes," or that the rule be changed to provide for
an extension of the good cause provision for up to a total of one
year, depending on the needs of the individual.Response: The Commission has revised 811.13(10) to provide
for extensions of good cause for family violence purposes not
to exceed twelve months. This is consistent with state statute
and the preamble to the federal TANF regulations.
Comments regarding 811.17 Choices Services Strategies are
as follows.
Comment: A commenter requests that the Commission clar-
ify the rule relating to the Work First service delivery approach
and service strategy described in subsection (b) of this section.
The commenter asserts that the state-established guidelines
referenced in this subsection should be reviewed to ensure that
sufficient flexibility is provided for local workforce development
boards. The commenter asserts that the local workforce de-
velopment boards should determine the services, approaches,
and length of service as long as they are in accordance with
the Work First philosophy.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter that
flexibility for local areas to set policy and plan service delivery
is important. The Commission believes that subsection (f) of
this section provides the local flexibility as requested. We are
committed to ensuring that, to the degree possible, program
rules and policy will not restrict local authority and decision
making. Throughout the development of these program rules,
we evaluated the requirement and need for state policy as it
related to local authority and flexibility. The Welfare Reform
Division will involve local workforce development boards and
local Commission staff in the development of written Choices
Program guidelines. Prior to release of the final guidelines,
there will be a state and local review and comment period.
Comment: A commenter asks whether the rule on Work First
precludes the option of providing short-term skills training for
high demand occupations for those most qualified for the
training. The commenter asks if a recipient would have to go
through the Work First model and fail before being allowed the
opportunity to participate in short-term training. The commenter
references 811.62, which indicates that education and training
services may be authorized under the program.
Response: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportuni-
ties Reconciliation Act sets forth expectations for programs and
communities to move welfare recipients into the workforce. The
Commission's Work First philosophy, policy, and service strat-
egy contained in this rule are based on federal law and state
welfare reform legislation in House Bill 1863, which emphasize
time-limited benefits, personal responsibility, work, and reten-
tion of individuals in the labor market. Texas Human Resources
Code 31.0126 requires DHS and the Commission to develop,
by rule, a Work First program that offers a participant job readi-
ness training, employment information, and employment ser-
vices to motivate the participant to find and apply for a job.
Section 31.0126 also requires development of alternate work
programs and activities for persons needing work-based expe-
rience and training to obtain unsubsidized employment. Section
811.17(b) of the proposed rules does not preclude considera-
tion of short-term training or skills development for participants
engaged in job search services if it is determined they need
education or training in order to be considered for available job
openings in the job market. Additionally, basic skills and training
may be combined with employment and work-related activities
to assist participants in obtaining higher-level positions.
Comment: A commenter suggests that 811.17(b) be reworded
to reflect that local workforce development boards may delegateADOPTED RULES April 10, 1998 23 TexReg 3703
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/m1/73/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.