Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, 6772-6828 [08-455]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families
• Children and Families Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6772-6828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-455]



[[Page 6771]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Administration for Children and Families



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



45 CFR Parts 261, 262, 263, and 265



Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 6772]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 261, 262, 263, and 265

RIN 0970-AC27


Reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) Program

AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule implements changes to the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) program required by the Deficit Reduction Act 
of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171). The DRA reauthorized the TANF program 
through fiscal year (FY) 2010 with a renewed focus on work, program 
integrity, and strengthening families through healthy marriage 
promotion and responsible fatherhood. On June 29, 2006, ACF published 
an interim final rule implementing the required statutory changes with 
a 60-day comment period that ended on August 28, 2006. We have 
considered all comments received during this period and made necessary 
changes as reflected in this final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Shelbourne, Director, Division 
of State TANF Policy, Office of Family Assistance, ACF, at (202) 401-
5150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2006, the Administration for 
Children and Families published an interim final rule implementing key 
provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The DRA required 
States to implement certain work requirements effective October 1, 
2006, among which were including families with an adult receiving 
assistance in a separate State program funded with qualified State 
maintenance-of-effort expenditures (SSP-MOE) in the work participation 
rates and revising the base year of the caseload reduction credit from 
FY 1995 to FY 2005. The law also directed us to issue regulations to 
ensure consistent measurement of work participation rates, including 
defining work activities, determining the circumstances under which a 
parent who resides with a child who is a recipient of assistance should 
be required to participate in work activities, and requiring States to 
establish and maintain work participation verification procedures. 
Congress also explicitly permitted HHS to issue an interim final rule, 
implicitly recognizing that States may have to revise practices once 
final regulations were published. Under the interim final rule, States 
were able to begin planning and implementing necessary changes to their 
TANF programs and procedures under the new requirements. Under this 
final rule States are accountable for moving more families to self-
sufficiency and independence.

Comment Overview

    We provided a 60-day comment period, during which interested 
parties could submit comments in writing by mail or electronically. 
During this period, we also held five listening sessions across the 
country in which State and local officials, legislators and key 
associations representing them could provide oral comments that were 
officially recorded and considered in developing this final rule.
    We received 470 letters of comment on the interim final rule, 
representing State human service agencies, State legislators, national 
associations, advocacy and disability groups, community and faith-based 
organizations, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, educators, and 
the general public. Most commenters addressed several provisions of the 
interim final rule. Some comments favored the rule, for example: 
``Overall the regulations are very positive and set the correct tone 
that countable activities need to meet the new federal definitions and 
be verified.'' But, in general, most commenters had mixed views, 
supporting some provisions and opposing others. A significant number of 
commenters expressed concerns about statutory provisions of the DRA or 
of existing law, over which we have no regulatory discretion. Others 
expressed concerns about the policies reflected in the rule. In 
response to these comments, ACF is committed to working with states, 
particularly with regard to TANF adult recipients living with 
disabilities, to explore additional approaches and innovative efforts 
to promote and support their employment.
    As discussed in more detail throughout this preamble, the final 
rule includes a number of important changes to address these policy 
concerns. These include: Allowing time spent in a bachelor's degree 
program to count as vocational educational training; allowing up to an 
hour of unsupervised homework time for each hour of class time in all 
educational activities; expanding State flexibility by converting the 
six-week limit on job search and job readiness assistance to an hourly 
equivalent; adding the flexibility for a State to exclude a parent who 
is a recipient of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits 
from the definition of a work-eligible individual, as is the case with 
a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI); clarifying that 
excused holidays are limited to 10 days in a year; and enhancing State 
flexibility by allowing a State to account for ``excused hours'' rather 
than an ``excused day.'' We have summarized the public comments and our 
response to them throughout sections III through VIII of this final 
rule.

Table of Contents

I. The Statutory Framework: TANF and the Deficit Reduction Act of 
2005
II. Regulatory Principles and Provisions
III. Cross-Cutting Issues
    A. Individuals With Disabilities
    B. Domestic Violence
    C. General Topics
    D. Tribal TANF
IV. Part 261--Ensuring That Recipients Work
V. Part 262--Accountability Provisions--General
VI. Part 263--Expenditures of State and Federal TANF Funds
VII. Part 265--Data Collection and Reporting Requirements
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
X. Regulatory Impact Analysis
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
XII. Congressional Review
XIII. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
XIV. Executive Order 13132

I. The Statutory Framework: TANF and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

    Enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), the TANF program 
is a Federal block grant to States designed to provide temporary 
assistance while moving recipients into work and self-sufficiency. 
States must help recipients find work and meet work participation rates 
and other critical program requirements to avoid financial penalties. 
States have broad flexibility to design and operate their TANF programs 
and to determine eligibility criteria and the benefits and services 
that families receive to achieve the four program purposes:
    (1) To provide assistance to needy families so that children may be 
cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
    (2) To end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits 
by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
    (3) To prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for

[[Page 6773]]

preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
    (4) To encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent 
families.
    PRWORA initially authorized TANF through September 30, 2002. 
Congress then funded TANF through a series of short-term extensions 
until the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 reauthorized the program 
through FY 2010 with a renewed focus on work, program integrity, and 
strengthening families through marriage promotion and responsible 
fatherhood. Signed into law by President Bush on February 8, 2006, the 
DRA maintained State flexibility and many provisions of PRWORA, but 
included important changes to improve the effectiveness of the TANF 
program.
    Some comments on the interim final rule reflected a 
misunderstanding of the Deficit Reduction Act confusion over which 
original provisions of TANF Congress retained, which ones it changed, 
what Congress directed the Department to do by regulation, and how HHS 
exercised this regulatory authority in the interim final rule. This 
section explains these distinctions.
    The Deficit Reduction Act retained nearly all of the TANF 
provisions enacted in the original welfare reform law. For example, the 
law retained the requirement that 50 percent of all families with an 
adult participate in the 12 allowable work activities for specified 
hours each week and that 90 percent of two-parent families similarly 
participate for certain, specified hours. The hourly work participation 
requirements that adults must achieve to count in the State's work 
participation rates also did not change. This requires a single 
custodial parent with a child younger than six to participate for at 
least an average of 20 hours a week and for all others to participate 
for at least an average of 30 hours a week to count in the overall 
participation rate. Similarly, two-parent families must participate for 
at least an average of 35 hours a week (or an average of 55 hours a 
week if federally-funded child care is provided) to count in the two-
parent participation rate.
    The DRA maintained the penalty associated with failing to meet 
these work requirements. As a result, we made no changes to the 
regulatory process associated with a State's failure to meet the work 
participation rate requirement in the interim final or final rule.
    Further, the Deficit Reduction Act maintained provisions related to 
the TANF purposes, State plan requirements, use of grants, 
administrative provisions, prohibitions, appeals of adverse decisions, 
Tribal TANF, waivers, charitable choice, application of relevant 
Federal civil rights laws, and the limitation on Federal authority. Our 
charge from Congress was to regulate in accordance with the changes 
made by the Deficit Reduction Act, via an interim final rule if 
appropriate. Since none of these provisions changed in the statute, the 
associated regulatory provisions did not change in either the interim 
final or this final rule.
    Congress also made few changes in reauthorizing TANF funding. The 
law retained the $16.5 billion per year capped entitlement for State 
Family Assistance Grants and funding for the Contingency Fund. It 
extended the Supplemental grants for the 17 States with historic low 
grants per poor person and/or high population growth in the amount of 
$319 million through FY 2008. Mandatory child care funding was 
increased by $1 billion over five years. The law eliminated provisions 
for Federal loans, the High Performance Bonus and the Illegitimacy 
Reduction Bonus and replaced them with a $150 million-a-year research, 
demonstration, and technical assistance fund for competitive grants to 
strengthen family formation, promote healthy marriages, and support 
responsible fatherhood. The Deficit Reduction Act also expanded a 
State's ability to meet its maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. A 
State may now count expenditures that provide certain non-assistance, 
pro-family activities to anyone, without regard to financial need or 
family composition, if the expenditure is reasonably calculated to 
prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births (TANF purpose 
three) or encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent 
families (TANF purpose four).
    The new law did make several key statutory changes and also 
required HHS to promulgate rules in several areas. The statute added 
separate State program cases receiving assistance funded with qualified 
State maintenance-of-effort expenditures (SSP-MOE) to the calculation 
of the work participation rates. This is a new requirement of law, not 
within the discretion of our regulatory authority. Thus, regardless of 
how commenters viewed this statutory provision, we could not change it 
by regulation. The DRA continues to exclude any solely-State-funded 
(SSF) program, that is, one for which it does not claim the State 
expenditures as MOE under the TANF program. If a State established a 
SSF, such cases would not be included in the calculation of a State's 
work participation rates or subject to other program requirements.
    The Deficit Reduction Act also changed the base year of the 
calculation of the caseload reduction credit from FY 1995 to FY 2005. 
While the statutory work participation rates did not change, 
recalibrating the caseload reduction credit has the effect of 
increasing the work participation requirements. For most States, we 
estimate that in FY 2007 the overall work participation requirement 
will be between 40 and 50 percent, depending upon the amount of 
caseload reduction they had over the course of FY 2006 compared to the 
new baseline of FY 2005.
    Congress required HHS to do a number of things through regulation:
     To define the meaning of each of the 12 countable work 
activities specified in PRWORA, primarily because a U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) study (GAO-05-821) reported that there was 
great variation in State definitions of work activities. As a result, 
State participation rates were not comparable. Of the activities, the 
underlying statute also specified which nine activities count toward 
meeting the first 20 hours of a 30-hour average weekly requirement; we 
refer to them as ``core activities.'' Any additional hours needed to 
meet the requirement can come from any of three ``non-core activities'' 
or from core activities. Under the statute, non-core activities may not 
count as core activities.
     To clarify who is a work-eligible individual. In addition 
to families with an adult receiving TANF assistance, who were already a 
part of the work participation rates, the DRA required us to include 
such families receiving assistance under a separate State program and 
to specify the circumstances under which a parent who resides with a 
child who is a recipient of assistance should be included in the work 
participation rates.
     To ensure that State internal control procedures result in 
accurate and consistent work participation information. Each State must 
establish and maintain work participation verification procedures that 
are based on regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
     To establish a process for a new penalty in the event that 
a State fails to establish and maintain adequate procedures to verify 
reported work participation data.

II. Regulatory Principles and Provisions

    To address these new statutory provisions and requirements of the 
Deficit Reduction Act, the final rule:

[[Page 6774]]

    1. Defines each of the 12 countable work activities. Defining work 
activities is necessary for consistent measurement and will ensure an 
equitable and level playing field for the States. Because the statute 
provides 12 distinct activities, we have tried to define them as 
mutually exclusive, while still leaving flexibility for States to 
address the critical needs of families.
    2. Defines the term ``work-eligible individual.'' Generally a 
``work-eligible individual'' is: (1) An adult (or minor child head-of-
household) receiving assistance under TANF or a separate State program; 
or (2) a non-recipient parent living with a child receiving assistance. 
The definition excludes the following non-recipient parents: a minor 
parent who is not the head-of-household, a non-citizen who is 
ineligible to receive assistance due to his or her immigration status, 
or, at State option on a case-by-case basis, a recipient of 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. In addition, the term 
excludes some parents, whether they are recipients or not: a parent 
providing care for a disabled family member living in the home, if 
there is medical documentation to support the need for the parent to 
remain in the home to provide that care; and, at State option on a 
case-by-case basis, a parent who is a recipient of Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. We exclude these parents because 
they either cannot work legally or we believe it would be inappropriate 
to require them to work.
    3. Clarifies that a State may count only actual hours of 
participation. Under the original TANF rule, some States reported 
scheduled hours of participation, which created an inconsistency among 
States and reduced incentives to ensure that individuals actually 
participated for assigned hours. Under the final rule, we clarify that 
each State must report only actual hours of participation; 
nevertheless, for individuals in unpaid work activities, we permit 
States to count up to 10 days of holidays and an additional 80 hours 
excused absences. To reduce the documentation burden on both employers 
and workers, we also permit States to report projected hours of 
employment on the basis of prior, documented actual hours of work. 
Similarly, to reduce the documentation burden on both educational 
providers and participants in an educational activity, we also allow 
States to count up to one hour of unsupervised homework time for each 
hour of class time.
    4. Recalibrates the caseload reduction credit by updating the base 
year from FY 1995 to FY 2005. As under PRWORA, the credit excludes 
caseload changes due to changes in Federal law or State eligibility 
criteria since the base year.
    5. Requires each State to establish and maintain work participation 
verification procedures through a Work Verification Plan. Each State 
must: (1) Determine which work activities may count for participation 
rate purposes; (2) determine how to count and verify reported hours of 
work; and (3) identify who is a work-eligible individual. The State 
must also develop and use internal controls to ensure compliance with 
its procedures and submit them in a complete Work Verification Plan to 
the Secretary for approval.
    6. Establishes a new penalty for failure to comply with work 
verification procedures. The final rule specifies that if a State fails 
to establish or comply with its work participation verification 
procedures and fails to correct the compliance deficiency, we will 
impose a penalty of between one and five percent of the State Family 
Assistance Grant (SFAG). The rule outlines the criteria under which we 
will impose this penalty and explains how a State may claim reasonable 
cause or submit a corrective compliance plan to correct the violation 
and avoid the penalty.
    7. Allows additional pro-family expenditures to count toward a 
State's maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. The final rule allows 
a State to count expenditures on certain pro-family activities without 
regard to financial need or family composition, if the expenditure is 
reasonably calculated to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-
wedlock births (TANF purpose three), or encourage the formation and 
maintenance of two-parent families (TANF purpose four), as long as they 
meet all applicable MOE requirements and limitations. States receiving 
Healthy Marriage or Responsible Fatherhood grants may count State 
expenditures for any required match toward the State's TANF MOE 
requirement, provided the expenditure also meets all applicable MOE 
requirements and limitations.
    Based on the consideration of all timely comments, this final rule 
reflects adopted changes to 45 CFR Parts 261, 262, 263, and 265 of the 
interim final rule of June 29, 2006. The comments and changes are 
discussed in the preamble. Changes to these parts appear in sections IV 
to VII of this document.
    As in the interim final rule, the term ``we'' is used throughout 
the regulatory text and preamble to mean the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the following 
individuals or agencies acting on his behalf: the Assistant Secretary 
for Children and Families, the Regional Administrators for Children and 
Families, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Administration for Children and Families. The term ``Act'' refers to 
the Social Security Act. We use the terms ``Deficit Reduction Act of 
2005,'' ``Deficit Reduction Act,'' ``DRA,'' or ``Pub. L. 109-171'' when 
we refer to the new law. States, the Territories, and the District of 
Columbia are all subject to the TANF requirements, but a reference to 
States means this entire group. Except as otherwise noted, we use the 
term ``TANF'' to refer to TANF and any SSP-MOE programs in a State.

III. Cross-Cutting Issues

    Many commenters raised general or cross-cutting issues about the 
overall impact of the interim final rule or the impact on specific 
populations. We address these issues in this section, followed by 
comments on each section of the interim final rule.

A. Individuals With Disabilities

    Comment: Many commenters maintained that the interim final rule 
would hamper State efforts to design programs appropriate for people 
with disabilities and discourage them from addressing their needs. 
Commenters expressed concern that States would be much less likely to 
invest the resources needed to provide the services that families with 
disabilities need if they are not able to count those families toward 
the work participation rates.
    Some commenters recommended that we broaden work activity 
definitions to accommodate the participation of people with 
disabilities. Others urged us to permit lower hourly standards as an 
accommodation. Otherwise, they recommended that we exclude clients with 
disabilities from the definition of a work-eligible individual.
    Response: We recognize that many individuals with disabilities are 
capable of participating in productive work activities and encourage 
States to explore these capabilities, rather than focusing on their 
limitations. In fact, in the preamble to the interim final rule, we 
encouraged States to provide self-sufficiency opportunities to 
individuals with disabilities and to engage them in appropriate work 
activities. We offered concrete examples, such as specialized work 
experience sites, that would provide and demonstrate the skills and 
experience needed to obtain employment. However, given the concern 
expressed by commenters on this critical issue, we intend to expand our 
technical assistance efforts in

[[Page 6775]]

identifying and sharing effective models that have been developed by 
vocational rehabilitation agencies and the entire disability community.
    Under the TANF statute, the work participation rate calculations 
generally include all families with an adult receiving assistance. When 
Congress replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 
program with TANF, it eliminated a number of statutory exemptions 
related to incapacity, temporary illness, and age. There was no 
suggestion in PRWORA that the activities or hours that count toward the 
work participation rate should vary for clients with disabilities. By 
limiting the maximum participation rate to 50 percent, Congress 
recognized that some individuals would not be able to satisfy the full 
requirements. However, we believe States should work with and provide 
services to individuals, whether they can participate for enough hours 
to count toward the work participation rates or not. Because families 
with adults receiving Federal assistance are subject to time limits, it 
is important for States to serve the entire caseload so that all 
recipients progress toward self-sufficiency. States should also provide 
needed accommodations that can help all individuals reach their full 
potential.
    We believe the regulation provides States with increased 
flexibility and incentives to work with people with disabilities. In 
the definition of ``work-eligible individual'' in Sec.  261.2, we give 
States the option of either including or excluding parents who receive 
SSI or SSDI benefits and whose children are TANF recipients. If the 
parent works enough to count in the rate, the State can include the 
family, but it is not disadvantaged if the parent receiving SSI or SSDI 
cannot work. In the final rule, we allow States to adjust prior 
reported data and to back out of the participation denominator any 
appropriate family with a work-eligible individual whose application 
for SSI or SSDI was approved retroactively, as long as the adjustment 
is within the allowable reporting time frame for the fiscal year. Also, 
we have reaffirmed in the final rule that a parent needed in the home 
to care for a disabled family member is also excluded from the 
participation rate.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that the interim final rule 
makes it difficult for States to meet the work requirements and to 
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    Response: We recognize and underscore that States must continue to 
comply with relevant civil rights laws, including the ADA and Section 
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). We believe that 
this final rule gives States several ways to count activities that they 
would be legally required to provide under the ADA and Section 504. It 
is also important to note that a State may be legally obligated to 
provide a reasonable accommodation/modification under the ADA and 
Section 504 even if it will not receive credit toward its Federal work 
activity requirements for the accommodation/modification. As identified 
in the preamble of the interim final rule, HHS developed and will 
develop additional technical assistance related to the application of 
civil rights laws in the TANF context. Existing tools may be found at 
the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Web site at https://www.hhs.gov/
ocr/tanf. Among other help, the webpage includes guidance entitled 
``Prohibition Against Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in the 
Administration of TANF,'' which addresses the application of the ADA 
and Section 504 in the TANF context, the legal requirements of ensuring 
equal access, reasonable accommodations/modifications, 
nondiscriminatory operational methods, and includes a discussion of 
promising practices. Complaints alleging violations of these 
requirements are not infrequent. OCR currently has open TANF 
complaints, many of which allege that States are denying TANF 
applicants and beneficiaries with disabilities equal access and/or not 
providing reasonable accommodations/modifications. Such complaints are 
often resolved by a State agreeing to implement effective and 
comprehensive screening and assessment of TANF applicants and 
beneficiaries.
    We were also trying to make one other key point. It is 
discriminatory to deny a person with a disability the right to 
participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service provided by 
a public entity. The benefits and services provided must be equal to 
those provided to others, and as effective in affording equal 
opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to 
reach the same level of achievement as those provided to others. 
Services, programs, and activities must be administered in the most 
integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals 
with disabilities. Separate or different aids, benefits, or services 
are permitted, but only when necessary to ensure that they are as 
effective as those provided to others. Persons with disabilities must 
also have the option of declining to accept a particular accommodation. 
Thus, State agencies must offer people with disabilities an equal right 
to participate in programs instead of automatically exempting them from 
participation requirements.
    The Supreme Court, in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline 
noted, ``* * * society's accumulated myths and fears about disability 
and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that 
flow from actual impairment.'' 480 U.S. 273, 284 (1987).
    Provisions of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit exclusion 
and segregation of individuals with disabilities and the denial of 
equal opportunities enjoyed by others, based on, among other things, 
assumptions, patronizing attitudes, fears, and stereotypes about 
individuals with disabilities. Public agencies are required to ensure 
that their actions are based on facts applicable to individuals and not 
on assumptions as to what a class of individuals with disabilities can 
or cannot do.
    The ADA covers individuals who vary widely in the severity of their 
disability, degree of disadvantage, capabilities, and skills, and their 
appropriate path to self-sufficiency and independence must be assessed 
on an individual basis, just like everyone else. It is exactly for 
these reasons that Congress chose not to exclude individuals with 
disabilities from the participation requirements and the benefits and 
results that accrue to working individuals and families. We believe 
that potential danger lies in altered expectations and opportunities, 
in automatic exemptions, and in exclusions from integrated requirements 
and services designed to lead to self-sufficiency and independence. 
TANF agencies must provide programs in the most integrated setting 
appropriate to the needs of people with disabilities. Agencies should 
take steps to ensure that individuals with disabilities can participate 
in all programs and services for TANF clients, not just those programs 
and services that are designed solely for people with disabilities. In 
addition, TANF agencies must ensure equal access to programs and 
services for TANF clients. In ensuring equal access, it is critical 
that TANF agencies have comprehensive and effective screening and 
assessment tools in place.
    Clearly, a State must provide appropriate accommodations and 
services when necessary to afford an individual with a disability an 
equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the 
service, program, or activity, and the opportunity to request such 
accommodations and services.

[[Page 6776]]

States can and must make necessary accommodations in the number of 
hours and types of activities they require, if needed. But, 
accommodations that enable clients to work are clearly just as 
critical. States must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not 
excluded from services, programs and activities because buildings are 
inaccessible, and these include the buildings of contractors and 
providers. Agencies must also provide accommodations to individuals 
with disabilities, at no additional cost, where necessary to ensure 
effective communication with individuals with hearing, vision, or 
speech impairments. (Accommodations include but are not limited to such 
services or devices as qualified interpreters, assistive listening 
headsets, television captioning and decoders, telecommunications 
devices for the deaf [TDDs], videotext displays, readers, taped texts, 
materials in Braille, and large print materials.)
    Comment: One commenter suggested, ``Employment of individuals with 
mental illness should be a top priority for policy makers at all levels 
of government. Unfortunately, due to stigma, organizational, financial 
and other barriers, employment is often a low priority, if it is a 
priority at all. It's doubtful that the Interim Final Rules, as 
currently drafted, will result in greater work opportunities for people 
with psychiatric disabilities.''
    Response: We agree that employment of individuals with disabilities 
should be a priority, and this Administration has made it a priority 
for all executive agencies. President Bush, in announcing his ``New 
Freedom Initiative'' in 2001, stated, ``Every American should have the 
opportunity to participate fully in society and engage in productive 
work. Unfortunately, millions of Americans with disabilities are locked 
out of the workplace because they are denied the tools and access 
necessary for success.'' The number of recipients with disabilities who 
are currently working significantly understates both the capability and 
desire of people with disabilities to work. Under significant work 
participation requirements, States will need to expand preparatory and 
employment options for individuals with disabilities. We will continue 
to work closely with our colleagues in the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration, the Social Security Administration, and 
the disability community to enhance services to all people with 
disabilities.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the preamble to the interim final 
rule often encouraged States to engage individuals with disabilities 
but that the rule did not offer practical ways to assist States in 
doing so. The commenter urged us to ensure that the final rule includes 
better mechanisms to allow all TANF recipients with disabilities to 
meet work participation requirements.
    Response: We agree that TANF agencies need to find more effective 
ways to engage people with disabilities in their caseloads than many 
have used in the past. Increased efforts should be pursued in a number 
of areas. For some States, TANF agencies need to re-engage with State 
rehabilitation agencies to use their proven knowledge and expertise to 
address the barriers individuals with disabilities face and to help 
them enter the workplace. Much needs to be done to overcome negative 
stereotypes and misperceptions among the public. Job developers need to 
educate employers, since research shows that working individuals with 
disabilities are very effective employees. Agencies need to improve 
their marketing of the advantages and benefits of work to individuals 
with disabilities, while ensuring that benefits, such as medical 
coverage, are sustained.
    In the first 10 years of the TANF program, there has been 
inadequate attention to engaging individuals with disabilities in work; 
however, few States raised concerns to us about their ability to serve 
people with disabilities during this period. Oftentimes, individuals 
with disabilities face challenges in entering the workforce and pose 
challenges to State agencies trying to help them enter the workforce. 
Sometimes, a disability is debilitating enough that a person cannot 
work. Federal programs such as SSI and SSDI serve such people. But for 
many others, a disabling condition does not preclude the possibility 
and the rewards of work, even if it creates challenges.
    It is precisely for this reason that we have not categorically 
removed individuals with disabilities from the definition of work-
eligible individual. Individuals who happen to have disabilities should 
be afforded the same opportunities to engage in work--to find work-
related training, work experience, and employment--as those who do not 
have a disability. By keeping such individuals in the work 
participation rate, as they have been since the inception of TANF, 
States have an added incentive to address the needs of people with 
disabilities.
    We look forward to working with States in this area through our 
technical assistance efforts and anticipate disseminating information 
about promising approaches to helping individuals with disabilities and 
establishing linkages between organizations serving the needs of 
individuals with disabilities. ACF will use its Welfare Peer Technical 
Assistance Network to disseminate information on promising practices 
for serving individuals with disabilities. In addition, ACF will work 
with States to explore additional approaches and innovative efforts to 
promote and support the employment of TANF adult recipients living with 
mental, intellectual and physical disabilities.
    Comment: Many commenters urged us to permit ``deeming'' for 
individuals with disabilities. They recommended that we allow States to 
count recipients who participate in accordance with an employment plan 
that includes accommodations for disabilities as having met required 
hours to count in the participation rate. They stressed that this would 
give States an incentive to engage such individuals to their greatest 
ability. Similarly, they urged us to let States count recipients who 
miss scheduled hours of work participation because they were caring for 
a family member with a disability. They suggested that, in the same way 
that we permit ``deeming'' to respond to the requirements of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, we should allow lesser hours of participation to 
count for the full required number of hours when needed to make 
accommodations required under the ADA.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' concerns that individuals 
with disabilities should have appropriate accommodations in their work 
assignments and believe this regulation provides States with more 
flexibility and incentives to work with people with disabilities than 
they have ever had previously. As we noted in response to earlier 
comments, the TANF work participation rates have always included people 
with disabilities. States can and must make necessary accommodations in 
the number of hours and types of activities they require of individuals 
with disabilities.
    As noted earlier, ACF is committed to working with States to 
explore additional approaches and innovative efforts to promote and 
support the employment of TANF recipients living with disabilities. As 
we work with States, we will begin to get a better understanding of the 
potential promises and logistical challenges of all such approaches.
    With respect to individuals caring for people with disabilities, 
the regulation makes two accommodations. First, the definition of a 
work-eligible individual excludes a parent caring for a disabled family 
member living in the home, as long as there is medical documentation

[[Page 6777]]

to support the need for that parent to remain in the home to care for 
the disabled family member. Second, the regulation gives States credit 
for excused absences for all work-eligible individuals in unpaid work 
activities. Thus, if a State excuses an individual who misses time 
because she must care for a disabled family member, the State could 
count those missed hours as actual participation, within the limits the 
regulation sets out. Please refer to Sec.  261.60 for further 
discussion of excused absences.

B. Domestic Violence

    Comment: Some commenters asserted that the interim final rule 
conflicted with the Family Violence Option (FVO). One commenter noted, 
``The regulations are also silent on how domestic violence services are 
allowed and how domestic violence cases are treated.'' Another 
commenter asserted, ``Women need time to effectively remove the 
barriers that have prevented them from obtaining quality employment.'' 
Another suggested that ``the limited time allowed in job search and job 
readiness for barrier removal activities is inflexible and should not 
apply to family violence victims.''
    Response: Existing provisions in the law address work participation 
rate issues for States dealing with victims of domestic violence. A 
State that elects the Family Violence Option under Section 402(a)(7) of 
the Social Security Act must screen and identify victims of domestic 
violence, refer such individuals to services and, if needed, waive 
participation and other program requirements for as long as necessary 
to escape domestic violence. The rules at Part 260, Subpart B allow 
States to grant good cause domestic violence waivers to victims of 
domestic violence that waive various program requirements, including 
work requirements. States have broad flexibility in determining which 
program requirements to waive and for how long. Although these 
recipients remain in the work participation rate calculation, there may 
be some activities that meet one of the work activity definitions that 
would make them countable toward the participation rate. If a State 
fails to meet a work participation rate, we will determine that it had 
reasonable cause if the State can demonstrate that it failed to meet 
the rate due to granting federally recognized good cause domestic 
violence waivers. In this circumstance, we would recalculate the work 
participation rate taking out any families in which individuals 
received a federally recognized good cause domestic violence waiver of 
work participation requirements.
    We believe the 1999 TANF final rule regarding the treatment of 
victims of domestic violence ensures services and waivers for victims 
and provides adequate ``reasonable cause'' reduction or elimination of 
penalties for States. Consequently, we did not propose revision to Part 
260, Subpart B in the interim final rule; therefore, general concerns 
related to rules on victims of domestic violence are outside the scope 
of this rulemaking.

C. General Topics

     Alternative Measures of Performance
    Comment: Several commenters suggested shifting the focus of 
participation from process to outcome measures. One commenter found 
that the existing participation rates were too limited for purposes of 
assessing State performance measuring comparability across States. The 
commenter suggested that we use alternative measures of program 
success, including measures related to poverty, the employment rates of 
current and former recipients, and the completion rates for applicants 
and recipients enrolled in education and training programs. One 
commenter recommended continuing the High Performance Bonus outcome 
measures, even though bonuses are no longer available under the DRA. 
Another commenter urged work participation credit for those families 
who get jobs and work their way off welfare.
    Response: We do not have the regulatory discretion to replace the 
existing work participation rate requirements with alternative, 
performance-based measures. Nevertheless, we do continue to track 
several of the outcome measures from the high performance bonus.
     Negative Consequences and Challenging Standards of 
Participation
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the interim final rule 
makes it more difficult for States to design effective programs to move 
families from welfare to work. Some commenters predicted that States 
may adopt punitive approaches to reduce the denominator for the work 
participation rate.
    Some commenters suggested that we do not appreciate the need for 
flexibility and the difficulty of meeting a 50-percent overall 
participation rate. As an example, one commenter thought that we failed 
to recognize ``the reality that reaching a 50 percent participation 
rate is difficult in large part because of the many legitimate reasons 
why a recipient may not meet the full hourly participation requirements 
in any particular month, including illness, temporary gaps between work 
components, and family emergencies such as trying to forestall an 
eviction, the need to find new housing, the need to care for an ill 
relative who may not live with the recipient, or the need to attend to 
a domestic violence issue.'' One commenter said that the rules ``would 
steadily diminish state flexibility through the imposition of rigid 
federal mandates.'' Another stated, ``The new regulations have 
eliminated the states' ability to be flexible in determining what they 
may assess for countable work activities when in reality the needs of 
the particular participants and states vary vastly.''
    Response: We do appreciate the difficulty in engaging a large and 
varied client population in countable work activities for enough hours 
to meet the work participation rate. Instilling the work habits and 
providing the supports that different families need to engage in work 
is a challenge that all States must strive to achieve. We have given 
serious consideration to the commenters' concerns and would like to 
point out certain aspects of statute as well as others of the TANF rule 
that help States achieve the work participation rate. There are several 
categories of individuals that continue to be excluded from the 
calculation of the work participation rate under the new law. One of 
the largest is the State option to disregard, on a case-by-case basis, 
single-custodial-parent families caring for a child under the age of 
one year. A State may also disregard a family subject to a work-related 
sanction for up to three months in the preceding 12 months. In 
addition, the interim final rule allowed States to exclude from the 
definition of ``work-eligible individual'' parents caring for a 
disabled family member living in the home. Our excused absence policy 
addresses concerns related to hours missed due to short-term illnesses 
or emergencies. Finally, States have a special reasonable cause 
provision if they miss the work participation rate because they serve a 
large number of families dealing with domestic violence issues.
    Also, we would like to emphasize that when States cannot count the 
participation of some individuals in certain activities because they do 
not meet one of the work activity definitions or because the hours of 
participation are not sufficient, the States should still serve these 
individuals. The requirements and expectations for each family should 
be set by the State taking into consideration the needs of the family, 
obligations under the ADA and

[[Page 6778]]

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and program goals. Thus, 
in any individual case, a State may require fewer hours of an adult 
than needed to count toward the Federal participation rate and that 
family will not help the State meet its work participation rate. 
Similarly, a State may, and many do, require more hours of an adult 
than needed to count the family in the participation rate. Moreover, 
States continue to have the flexibility to allow families to engage in 
broader and different activities from those that count for the Federal 
participation rate.
    We are convinced that States can and will meet these challenges, 
thus dramatically improving the lives of families. We also believe that 
the standards must be challenging to ensure that the maximum number of 
recipients move toward self-sufficiency. This conviction is based on 
the well-documented results and achievements made by States in response 
to PRWORA. We believe the DRA provides the appropriate steps and 
direction for the next phase of welfare reform.
    We are confident that, under the new rule, States that operate 
effective and efficient welfare-to-work programs will be able to 
satisfy their work participation rate standards and enhance the 
services to clients at the same time.
     Partial Credit
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we should give States 
partial or pro rata credit for individuals who are engaged in work 
activities for some hours, but not enough to be included in the work 
participation rate calculation. One commenter pointed out that this 
would avoid the current ``all-or-nothing'' standard and would permit 
some individuals who have limitations to be credited with 
participating. Another maintained that partial credit is not 
prohibited, even if the rules do not specifically allow it.
    Response: Neither PRWORA nor the DRA provided for counting partial 
participation of a case in meeting the work participation rates; either 
the adult meets the requirements for being ``engaged in work'' and the 
family counts in the rate or the adult does not meet the hours 
requirement and the State does not get credit for that family in the 
participation rate. We remind readers that the regulations at 
Sec. Sec.  261.22(d)(1) and 261.24(d)(1) do provide the flexibility of 
counting a partial month of assistance as a month of participation if a 
work-eligible individual is engaged in work for the minimum average 
number of hours in each full week that the family receives assistance 
in that month. Please refer to the regulatory text of those sections 
and to the preamble discussion in the original TANF rule at 64 FR 
17771. In addition, the excused absence policy described in Sec.  
261.60(b) allows a State to receive credit for short-term excused 
absences and allows some families that would otherwise fall short of 
the minimum hourly requirements to count in the participation rate.
     Increased Costs
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the new regulations would 
require States to increase participation in work activities, which 
would raise program costs. This, in turn, they thought, would force 
States to curtail services because TANF is a fixed block grant.
    Response: The dramatic decline in welfare caseloads since the 1996 
welfare reform has produced savings that far exceed any additional 
costs from new work requirements. More specifically, TANF funding, 
measured on a per TANF family basis, was $9,100 in 1996 (inflation-
adjusted) compared to $15,977 in 2007 (projected), an increase of 
$6,877 per family, or 76 percent. While we recognize that States have 
dramatically extended work services and support benefits to low-income 
working families, and pre-kindergarten care and education to children 
that are not receiving ``assistance,'' we believe that States have 
sufficient resources to allocate among priority programs while 
implementing these new requirements.
     Child Care Needs
    Comment: Some commenters thought that there was not enough child 
care funding to pay for the added costs associated with implementing 
the work requirements under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 
particularly for child care for non-recipient parents.
    Response: Since 1996, Federal child care funding through the Child 
Care and Development Fund (CCDF) has more than doubled--from $2.2 
billion in FY 1996 to $4.8 billion in FY 2005. HHS data on Federal and 
State child care spending in just three programs--TANF, CCDF, and the 
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)--show that spending increased by 
nearly 225 percent between FY 1996 and FY 2005, from $3.6 billion to 
$11.5 billion. The Deficit Reduction Act increases Federal child care 
funding in the CCDF from $4.8 billion to $5 billion, effective FY 2006. 
In addition to increasing child care funding, the Deficit Reduction Act 
fully funds TANF at $16.5 billion per year for five years. With 
significantly lower caseloads than in 1996, we believe that States 
should have adequate funding to provide needed child care under the 
Deficit Reduction Act requirements.
     Monitoring
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the rule imposes rigid 
monitoring and reporting requirements. Some expressed concern that 
frequent demands for proof of participation could overburden providers 
or cause families to lose assistance.
    Response: We believe that the rule simply clarifies what has always 
been the expectation of law, of the original TANF rule, and of the 
requirements of 45 CFR part 92: That a State should report only actual 
participation that it has adequately documented and verified. As a 
result of numerous single audit findings questioning the validity of 
participation rates, we decided to clarify this expectation in the rule 
so that States may avoid potential penalties. In addition, for the four 
activities involving paid employment, which historically have 
represented the bulk of State work participation, we have substantially 
reduced the burden on clients, employers, and States by allowing the 
reporting of projected actual hours of participation for up to six 
months based on current, documented hours of work.
     Consultation
    Comment: One commenter stated that we did not consult Tribes about 
the interim final rule and that Tribes were expressly discouraged from 
providing input because the rule was directed at States and was not 
intended to impact Tribal TANF programs directly.
    Response: The rulemaking process included a period for public 
comment on the interim final rule. Tribes as well as other 
organizations and individuals were free to express their opinions and 
to offer advice on the rule. Several Tribes and Tribal Organizations 
took the opportunity to submit comments, which we have addressed in the 
preamble to this final rule. Further, ACF representatives actively 
participated in a National Summit on State and Tribal TANF in July 
2006, at which State and Tribal representatives discussed the 
provisions of the DRA and the interim final rule in detail and 
expressed comments. The National Alliance of Tribal TANF, one of the 
Summit sponsors, summarized these comments and formally submitted them 
to us. They are also addressed in this preamble.

D. Tribal TANF

    Comment: One commenter observed that Tribal TANF programs could be 
adversely affected by States that fail to meet the work participation 
rates because the funds that States transfer are critical to the 
operation of Tribal TANF programs. This commenter also

[[Page 6779]]

expressed concern that funding and regulatory changes to State TANF 
programs will negatively affect various Tribal programs.
    Response: State MOE funding plays an important role for Tribal TANF 
programs. We will continue to encourage States to support the Tribal 
TANF grantees with MOE funding; however, the decision to provide MOE 
funding rests solely with the States. States may also impose conditions 
on Tribal TANF programs on the use of State MOE funds. Primarily, the 
Federal role regarding State MOE is to ensure that States expend the 
required amount of funds in compliance with requirements. (For a more 
detailed discussion of Federal policy on MOE funds provided to Tribal 
TANF programs, please see our Policy Announcement, TANF-ACF-PA-00-4 
dated November 27, 2000.)
    We do not think it is likely that State TANF agencies will reduce 
MOE funding for Tribal TANF programs. If a State does fail a work 
participation rate, it must meet an 80 percent MOE requirement. States 
that meet the work participation rates need only spend at the 75 
percent MOE level. Any State that may potentially fail either the 
overall or two-parent participation rate needs to ensure that it has 
expended 80 percent of its historic level of spending, a five 
percentage point increase for many States. In addition to the need to 
expend additional MOE funds, we have heard no State indicate that it is 
contemplating any reductions in providing funding to Tribal TANF 
programs.
    Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that restrictions 
imposed by this regulation could create an influx of Tribal clients 
moving to areas in which Tribal TANF programs exist, thereby increasing 
the costs to these programs. Because Tribal funding is based on 1994 
caseload data, Tribes have substantially limited ability to renegotiate 
effectively for increased funding.
    Response: We understand the commenters' concerns; however, we have 
seen no evidence that this rule will prompt Tribal members to move into 
areas served by a Tribal TANF program or that such a potential influx 
would exceed the 1994 caseload level. In fact, if States effectively 
implement the DRA provisions, we expect further caseload declines.
    Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to any attempt to 
extend these regulations to the Tribal TANF program regulations.
    Response: As we noted in the preamble to the interim final rule, 
the regulatory changes promulgated in response to the enactment of the 
DRA only apply to States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories 
of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. We are 
not planning to amend the Tribal TANF program regulations at 45 CFR 
part 286 to comport with these DRA 2005 final rules.

IV. Part 261--Ensuring That Recipients Work

Section 261.2 What Definitions Apply to This Part?

    This section of the regulation defines work activities and work-
eligible individuals. Section 407(d) of the Social Security Act 
specifies 12 separate and distinct activities. Under the original TANF 
rule, we chose not to define these work activities to provide maximum 
program design flexibility to States. We simply listed the 12 work 
activities in 45 CFR 261.30 in the order they appear in the Act. As GAO 
found, this led to disparities in State definitions of work activities 
that resulted in inconsistent work participation measurement and 
undermined the principle of equitable treatment. In particular, States 
with narrow definitions were at a disadvantage in meeting the 
participation requirements compared to States with broader definitions. 
In addition, the GAO report (GAO-05-821) raised concerns that some 
States integrated activities to avoid various statutory limitations on 
some TANF work activities, such as the six-week time limit on counting 
hours spent in job search and job readiness assistance.
    The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 required HHS to promulgate 
regulations to ensure consistent measurement of work participation 
rates. The law specifically required us to determine whether an 
activity of a recipient of assistance may be treated as a work 
activity. Thus, in the interim final rule, we defined each of the 
countable work activities to promote consistency in the measurement of 
work participation rates and to maintain the integrity of the work 
participation rates. By defining work activities, we ensure that all 
States are judged on the same basis that is, that there is a level 
playing field.
    Our definitions follow the order of the list of work activities in 
section 407(d) of the Social Security Act. For ease of reference, we 
refer to the nine work activities that count for the first 20 hours of 
required work or the corresponding 30-hour requirement for two-parent 
families (or 50-hour requirement for two-parent families receiving 
federally subsidized child care) as ``core'' activities and the three 
activities that can only count as participation after the core 
requirement is met as ``non-core'' activities.
    We were guided by four basic principles in developing the work 
activity definitions in this final rule.
    First, we attempted to define each work activity in a common sense 
way. If a particular activity was not explicitly listed in the statute, 
we attempted to see if it could fit under one of the 12 activities 
listed in law. For example, treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation 
activities, in our judgment, fit best under job search and job 
readiness assistance, when such activity prepares an individual for 
work. However, we could not add wholesale categories of work activities 
to the 12 listed in the law. Our task was to specify whether and where 
certain activities fit within these already existing statutory 
categories.
    Second, we defined each activity to focus on work and help move 
families to self-sufficiency. Work activities should help individuals 
develop the skills necessary to become job ready and go to work. We do 
not want families to exhaust their time-limited benefits and discover 
that they are not prepared to support themselves.
    Third, we tried, as far as possible, to make the definitions 
mutually exclusive of one another. Since Congress created 12 distinct 
activities, we wanted to bring meaning to them as distinct activities.
    Fourth, we made supervision an explicit part of each definition. 
For programs to be successful, it is important that the case manager or 
provider knows what each person is supposed to be doing and that he or 
she is accountable on a timely basis for ensuring that the client 
actually performs such assigned tasks.
Comments and Responses on Cross-Cutting Issues for Work Definitions
    We received many comments on this section of the interim final 
rule. Some comments applied to multiple activities or applied generally 
to defining the activities at all. We respond to those cross-cutting 
comments in this section and have grouped the comments and our 
responses by topic for the ease of the reader. We respond to comments 
that focus more narrowly on a specific definition in the discussion of 
each activity below.
General Topics
    Comment: Some commenters wrote that the work activity definitions 
in the interim final rule narrowed the range of what States can count 
toward their work

[[Page 6780]]

participation rates and recommended giving States more flexibility in 
defining work activities. One commenter recommended allowing States to 
develop their own definitions.
    Response: The DRA directed HHS to define work activities to achieve 
greater consistency among States. For some States, the new definitions 
may narrow countable activities, but we believe they actually expand 
them in other States. For example, under the original rule, some States 
counted substance abuse and mental health treatment as community 
service or as job search and job readiness assistance. Some States did 
not count these activities at all, even if a substantial number of 
individuals participated in such treatment. Our new definitions make 
substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, or rehabilitation 
activities an explicit part of job search and job readiness assistance. 
This will allow all States to count individuals participating in these 
activities and thus could actually increase work participation rates in 
these States. In general, we believe the work activity definitions 
specified in the interim final rule were reasonable and consistent with 
the goals of the TANF program, and thus we have retained them, with 
appropriate modification, in the final rule. As a practical matter, we 
do not believe that these definitions have a restrictive effect on what 
most States currently count because the dominant activity in most 
States has traditionally been unsubsidized employment, an activity 
whose definition most commenters did not find restrictive.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed the view that the emphasis on 
mutually exclusive activities restricts State flexibility in developing 
cost-effective programs by making it more difficult for them to 
``blend'' program activities. The commenters recommended that we make 
the definitions more ``flexible'' and permit program approaches that 
integrate and combine activities under one work activity definition.
    Response: Programs that combine work with training or other 
services have shown promise in helping TANF recipients make the 
transition to the labor force and move toward self-sufficiency. We 
believe that the final rule gives States the flexibility to operate 
programs of blended activities. Section 407(d) of the Act specifies 12 
separate and distinct activities. Thus, we have tried to define each 
activity to have a specific and distinct meaning, but it was not always 
possible to make them mutually exclusive. In fact, some types of 
activities can be categorized under more than one work activity 
definition. For example, many of the training activities counted under 
vocational educational training can also count under job skills 
training directly related to employment and education directly related 
to employment. The former is a core work activity that is limited to 12 
months in a lifetime, whereas the latter are non-core activities that 
can only count once the core activity requirement has been met.
    Comment: Some commenters maintained that the most effective 
welfare-to-work programs included a variety of employment and education 
and training activities. In their opinion, mutually exclusive 
definitions would discourage States from combining work activities. 
Moreover, they maintained that doing so would require separate tracking 
of each activity and impose an added administrative burden. In 
addition, because some activities, such as job search and job readiness 
assistance and vocational educational training, have statutory 
limitations on their duration, the commenters thought that States might 
be reluctant to include these activities in a broader program that 
blends activities because it would limit the long-term use of those 
activities. Commenters urged us to allow States to combine activities 
and report all participation under one activity. Several commenters 
suggested that States should be allowed to count an individual 
part