|
|
MHANJ Position on Work First New Jersey
Program
October 3, 2002
Re: Work First New Jersey Program. N.J.A.C. 10:90
Miguel Mendez, Administrative Practice Officer
Division of Family Development
P.O. Box 716
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0716
Dear Mr. Mendez:
On behalf of the Mental Health Association in New Jersey, we are
pleased to comment on the changes to the Work First New Jersey
Program. Significant numbers, and perhaps a growing percentage, of
individuals still on the welfare rolls are individuals with
significant barriers to work. One of these significant barriers is
mental illness. It is estimated that between one-fourth to one-third
of welfare recipients have mental illness. Such impairments can make
it difficult for a parent to work or to understand and comply with
state rules concerning TANF eligibility. Having a child with a
disability can also make it hard for parents to meet the program’s
work requirements. Federal, state and local governments must ensure
that people with disabilities have equal and meaningful access to
the Work First program. The proposed regulations fail to fairly take
mental illness into account when crafting these more restrictive
regulations.
NJAC 10:90-2.4. The statute and the regulations provide that an
individual who is permanently disabled shall be exempt from the 60
month time limit on the receipt of benefits. The proposed
regulations seek to narrow the definition of permanent disability in
a way that is far too restrictive. Under the proposed definition,
many people with mental illness who are unable to work would not be
considered disabled. Mental health consumers who are unable to
maintain full time employment should be deemed disabled, regardless
of their ability to attend school, vocational training or community
service or other work activities.
It seems that mental health consumers who are not found to be
permanently disabled under the proposed regulation would have a good
chance of being exempted from the 60 month cap, on the basis of
being chronically unemployable. Assuming that the DFD review team
recognizes that the client has experienced mental health problems,
repeated crises and traumas, or has borderline intelligence, etc.
Since no medical documentation is used here, it depends on welfare
workers to document these.
We are also concerned if a mental health consumer is not deemed
“disabled” but “chronically unemployable” that this would have a
negative impact on payment level. As we read in the regulations,
individuals found entitled to an exemption from the 60 month limit,
as “chronically unemployable” (N.J.A.C. 10:90-2.4) do not appear to
meet the definition of “unemployable” for the determination of
payment levels. Would the mental health consumer who is “chronically
unemployable” receive payment at the “employable” rate of
$140/month, rather than the “unemployable” rate of $210/month?
N.J.A.C. 10:90-4.10 (a)10ii. The current regulations provide that an
individual may be deferred from the work requirement if they are the
sole caretaker for a severely disabled child or other disabled
family member. The proposed regulations seeks to narrow this
provision, “During the time a severely disabled or ill dependent
child or family member regularly attends a special school or other
specialized care environment, the sole caretaker shall not be
deferred.” Unless it is limited to children who are away at
residential school placements, we maintain that this regulation is
too stringent and does not take into account the realities of being
the sole caretaker for a severely disabled child or family member.
N.J.A.C. 10:90-4.12(b). Sanction notification process. Reads, “When
a decision is made to sanction a known developmentally or physically
disabled recipient for failing to actively participate in work
activities without acknowledged good cause, a CSA shall be
administered prior to notifying the individual via a sanction
notification letter…” Persons with a known mental disability should
first have a CSA, before sanction notification begins, just as with
other people with disabilities.
There is acknowledged an over-representation of mental health
problems particularly depression, anxiety disorder and post
traumatic stress disorder among those on welfare. In addition, many
people with mental illness are either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.
Prior to imposing sanctions, the state should provide professional
screening for mental illness and substance abuse in adults and for
emotional disorders in children and assess those whose screen
indicates there may be a need for services. In this case sanctions
should not be imposed and services should be furnished.
Because many post 60-month recipients have significant barriers to
employment, and because they may not understand that they can
reapply, the regulations should specify that additional outreach
will be done to these individuals. In addition, the regulations must
clarify that these individuals can reapply for WFNJ assistance at
any time.
N.J.A.C. 10:90-4.14. Termination/ Denial of benefits. The proposed
regulations seek to terminate or suspend WFNJ benefits when an
individual is “discharged from employment due to deliberate action
or inaction on his or her part which would cause ineligibility for
unemployment benefits.” A mental health consumer may be unaware of
what constitutes misconduct until after the fact. In a mental health
consumer, tardiness, absences, disagreements with an employer or
coworkers, etc. may be symptoms of their illness rather than
“deliberate action or inaction” which should be identified and
addressed through the assessment process, but if not, sanctions
should not be imposed in this context. Finally what is to prevent an
employer from mischaracterizing a dismissal as employee misconduct
when it is in fact discrimination against a person with mental
illness?
At the very least, more specific standards must be developed which
limit denials of benefits to situations unmistakably determined to
be willful misconduct.
N.J.A.C. 10:90-5.13. Housing Subsidy Program. The proposed
regulations to require a recipient of the Housing Subsidy Program to
obtain employment within 90 day after a job is lost, or lose their
housing subsidy, should be more flexible to allow for extenuating
circumstances. A mental health consumer or parent of a child who is
a mental health consumer may have extenuating circumstances such as
illness or some crises that warrants an extension of the 90 days. We
also feel that the 90 days does not take into account the status of
our economy and the availability of jobs. If a recipient is actively
looking and through no fault of their own cannot find employment,
they should not lose a housing subsidy since this subsidy may be the
only stabilizing factor for the family during a period of crisis.
Loss of the subsidy will result in homelessness, further difficulty
in obtaining employment and maintaining health, and a probable
return to TANF. Similarly, recipients who do not make timely rent
payments should not lose the subsidy payment if the nonpayment was
due to good cause.
N.J.A.C. 10:90-18. Substance Abuse. It is our understanding that the
60 month limit on WFNJ benefits is computed solely on the number of
months that the individual has received cash benefits. Since there
is often a wait to receive and participate in substance abuse
treatment, this circumstance should be relevant to an application
for exemption or extension, after the 60 month cap is reached.
N.J.A.C. 10:90-18.4. General Assistance participants are eligible
for continued substance abuse treatment for a period of 6 months
from the date the case is closed while TANF participants have a two
year period of eligibility. Though there is nothing in the state
statute to prohibit DFD from putting this distinction into the
regulation, we believe it is bad policy to do so.
The regulations also exclude from participation individuals who are
unable to work due to a disability and fail to provide SAI services
for disabled recipients.
In addition, for GA recipients on Family Care (many of whom have
co-occurring substance abuse and mental illness) the proposed
regulations fail to address that the Family Care program
specifically requires that SAI treatment services shall be provided.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Beauchamp
Executive Director
Cc: Nancy Becker, Nancy Becker Associates
Mental Health Association in New Jersey, Affiliates and Chapters
Top |