Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998 Page: 3,705
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:
Comments regarding 811.20 Employment Retention and Re-
Employment are as follows.
Comment: A commenter asks if the intent of the requirement in
811.20 (a) is to monitor individuals as long as they remain
eligible for temporary cash assistance or as long as they
receive cash assistance. The commenter suggests that some
individuals who remain eligible may choose not to receive those
benefits due to employment, and it would be difficult to monitor
employment for persons not actually receiving cash assistance.
Response: The Commission agrees that the rule on monitoring
and reporting of employment hours at subsection (a) of this
section should be clarified. The rule is therefore revised to
read, "Monitoring of employment retention and reporting hours
of employment are required for at least the length of time the
participant receives temporary cash assistance."
Comment: Two commenters ask for clarification about the
timeframe in which employment retention and re-employment
services may be provided. Can an individual request services
at anytime after denial of cash assistance regardless of how
long the individual has been denied?
Response: The Commission believes it is unnecessary to set
a maximum timeframe in which employment retention and re-
employment services may be provided to persons who have
been denied temporary cash assistance. The extent to which
these services are provided, as well as the timeframe, is
a local decision. Subsection (c) of this section states that
"employment retention and re-employment services may be
made available...beyond denial of temporary cash assistance
benefits." Allowing a local workforce development board to make
this decision is consistent with the philosophy of local flexibility
throughout the rules in Chapter 811.
Comment: The commenter asks how long an individual would
be eligible for child care under subsection (c) of this section and
what is the appropriate funding source.
Response: Transitional child care is available for up to 12
months or 18 months after cash assistance denial for employed
individuals as specified in 811.83. Transitional child care for
unemployed individuals may be provided for up to eight weeks
to complete education or training and for up to four weeks to
seek employment. Section 811.20(c) is revised to provide a
cross-reference to the child care rules at 40 TAC Chapter 809
to clarify eligibility for child care. Child care provided beyond the
time limits for transitional child care would use child care funds
for income-eligible clients through the Child Care Management
System or welfare-to-work grant funds, at local option.
Comment: A commenter requests that the phrase "as quickly
as possible" in 811.20(c)(5) and (6) be defined or that the rule
language be modified to specify that this timeframe is to be
determined by the local workforce development boards.
Response: The Commission believes that "as quickly as
possible" is not a phrase that must be defined. It depends on
many variables, such as the condition of the local labor market,
resources available, and the client's individual situation. The
Commission has modified the language in 811.20(c)(5) and
(6) to indicate that the provision of job readiness, job search,
job placement, and job development services is a local decision.
Comments regarding 811.42 Subsidized Employment are as
follows.Comment: A commenter suggests that 811.42(b) conflicts with
811.13(3) that states that caretakers with children under the
age of six cannot be required to participate more than 20 hours
per week. The commenter asks if this requirement does not
apply to subsidized employment.
Response: The hours per week requirement for subsidized
employment in 811.42(b) is not in conflict with the rule for
good cause in 811.13(3). The rule language specifies that
the participant is encouraged, not required, to work between 35
and 40 hours per week. If a participant claims good cause due
to the weekly hours required for the specific position, then the
client would not be required to participate in that activity or in
the specific position. Consideration could be given to assigning
the client to a subsidized employment position that is 20 hours
per week, or including some other appropriate activity in the
client's employability plan.
Comment: A commenter supports the goal of same wages and
benefits incorporated in (c)(2) of this section.
Comment: A commenter has questions and concerns about
specifications in (c)(4). The commenter questions who will be
responsible for writing the contract with the employer, including
determining the amount of the wage subsidy.
Response: Consistent with legislative intent, 811.42 supports
local control for local workforce development boards electing
to operate this program and encourages public and private
partnerships. Local workforce development boards have the
authority to negotiate subsidized employment contracts with
employers; to decide which participants are enrolled in this
activity; to determine the length of any individual subsidized
employment placements not to exceed four months; to set
the amount of the wage subsidy; and to negotiate policy and
contract provisions determined necessary to protect the local
workforce development board, the intent of the program, and
the participants.
Comment: A commenter states that the rule is not clear how
the diverted benefits will be distributed to the employer, and is
concerned that the rule divides responsibilities between local
staff and the Commission. The commenter believes this may
create parallel systems at the state and local level as well as
unnecessary reporting.
Response: The term "Choices staff," as used throughout
these rules, includes Commission staff and contracted services
providers. The term is not meant to impose dual responsibilities
on Commission staff, local workforce development boards, and
contract staff. However, the wage subsidy is derived from public
assistance benefits that are under the jurisdiction of another
state agency. Therefore, it is prudent to have a degree of state
control over the system of transferring benefits for the subsidy
portion. An interagency agreement between DHS and the
Commission establishes a state methodology for the diversion
of the public assistance benefits. The Commission is committed
to developing the most efficient and cost effective procedures
for distribution of payments to participating employers.
Comment: A commenter suggests that language be added
to ensure that employers retain participants who successfully
complete the contract in order to eliminate misuse of this
program and the participants.
Response: The Commission agrees that the purpose of imple-
menting subsidized employment is to provide placements that
lead to unsubsidized employment and self-sufficiency for theADOPTED RULES April 10, 1998 23 TexReg 3705
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/m1/75/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.