Final TANF Rule as published in the Federal Register 4/12/1999

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
conduct follow-up studies where
possible. Also, we have designed the
initial high performance bonus system
to give us follow-up information on the
employment of recipients without
imposing a substantial new burden on
State TANF agencies.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the denominator of the participation
rate changes daily and that we need a
standardized formula to allow programs
to meet their goals. Another asked
whether the rate is calculated based on
a sample or the universe of cases,
suggesting that the universe was
preferable where feasible.
Response: While the denominator of
the participation rate can change from
month to month, States will have
ongoing access to information about
their caseloads, which should enable
them to adjust for shifts in the number
and types of cases. The participation
rates are based on monthly data of
families receiving assistance that
include an adult. Therefore, a family
that receives assistance for even one day
in a month contributes to the total
number of families receiving assistance
in that month. We think the
participation rate calculations are quite
clear. However, we have incorporated
some opportunities in the penalty relief
provisions to consider a State’s special
circumstances. For example, in reducing
the work participation penalty, the final
rule adds a new adjustment factor that
could help States that substantially
increase the number of participants, but
fail the participation rate because they
are experiencing significant caseload
increases.
Regarding whether a State should
report the universe of caseload data,
§ 265.5 permits a State to report
participation and other data for the
universe or a sample of cases and
outlines acceptable sampling methods.
States should weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of sampling and make
their own decisions about whether to
report on a universe or sample basis.
Comment: One commenter urged
modifying the regulations to ensure that,
if one parent in a two-parent family is
subject to a penalty but the other parent
continues to work the minimum hours
required for the overall participation
rate, the family should count toward the
overall rate. If the second parent
subsequently is subject to a penalty, the
commenter thought we should measure
the months of sanction in the last 12
months separately for each parent, thus
maximizing the time a family would be
excluded from one or both participation
rates.
Response: First, we think it is clear in
both the statute and these regulations
that families, and not individuals, are
subject to penalties. The State has the
flexibility to determine the amount of
the penalty, up to and including
terminating the case, but must impose a
penalty that is at least a pro rata
reduction of the family’s assistance (see
§ 261.14 for further discussion of pro
rata reductions). Thus, we would look at
whether the family, not the individual,
is a sanction case.
If the family continues to receive
assistance and meets the standard for
being ‘‘engaged in work’’ under the
overall rate while being sanctioned, as
it would in the commenter’s example,
then the State may choose to count that
family in the numerator and
denominator of the calculation.
However, since it is a family and not an
individual that is subject to a penalty,
should the other parent subsequently
refuse to work and the State take action,
it would simply be a second sanction for
the family and does not call for separate
tracking for purposes of calculating the
denominator.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the fact that two-parent families are
counted twice, once in the two-parent
participation rate, and once as part of
the overall rate. The commenter thought
that two-parent families should be
counted only in their own rate.
Response: The composition of the
overall participation rate is statutory.
The two-parent rate measures State
success with that sub-population, while
the overall rate measures success with
the entire caseload of families that
include an adult.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support of the provision
excluding a single custodial parent
caring for a child under 12 months of
age from the participation rate
calculation. However, some commenters
thought that we should not tie the
exclusion from the rate to whether the
State has adopted the option not to
require the parent to engage in work. In
essence, they argue that there are two
separate decisions: whether to require
the parent to work and whether to
exclude the parent from the rate. Others
questioned whether this provision
allows for a one-time exclusion of up to
12 months or whether the parent could
be excluded again should he or she be
caring for another child under one year
old.
Response: Based on the comments
and after reexamining the statutory
provision, we agree that we need not
link the State’s option not to require a
single custodial parent of a child under
1 to work to the exclusion of such
parents from the rate calculations. The
State can make separate decisions about
17773
exempting and excluding a family from
its rate. The statute describes a certain
individual, that is, ‘‘a single custodial
parent caring for a child who has not
attained 12 months of age’’ and then
separately indicates that ‘‘such an
individual’’ may be disregarded in
calculating the participation rates. We
have re-written the regulation to allow
disregard of a family with such an
individual, since the rates actually
measure families and not individuals.
Regarding whether this is a one-time
provision or is renewable, the law
plainly states that a parent may be
disregarded from the rate for not more
than 12 months. We interpret this
language to mean a cumulative, lifetime
limit of 12 months for any single
custodial parent, but not necessarily a
one-time disregard. Thus, if a parent
were disregarded from the rate for four
months while caring for one child under
a year old, he or she could be
disregarded for as much as 8 months
with a subsequent baby.
Comment: We received many
comments in support of the provision to
give a State credit for a month of
participation if the individual is
engaged in work for the minimum
average number of hours in each full
week the family receives assistance in a
partial month; however, some
commenters found the provision too
narrow to accommodate States that
assign an individual to an activity
weeks after the beginning of a benefit
period. Some urged us to count an
individual’s time in assessment toward
the participation rate. Another
suggestion was that we should only
consider a month of assistance (partial
or full) to begin from the time the
individual is assigned to a countable
activity. One commenter thought we
should only count families in the
denominator from the first full month of
assistance. One commenter asserted that
we should include only recipients, and
no applicants, in the participation rate;
thus, this provision would affect only
partial months following approval of
assistance.
Response: The law and these
regulations permit participation in only
12 specific work activities to count
toward the participation rates. (Please
refer to subpart C.) While we appreciate
the time it takes a State to assess an
individual and assign him or her to an
activity, we do not have the flexibility
to add assessment to the list of
allowable activities. By the same token,
we cannot simply decide that some
period of time for which an individual
receives assistance—such as time prior
to assignment in a work activity or a
partial month of assistance—should not