Due in large part to Patti's work, I think Arkansas was ahead of the
wave on this, and the fact that Arkansas was taking the initiative and
had recognized the needs of TANF recipients with learning disabilities
as a real issue that needed to be addressed was very helpful in terms of
spurring OCR to make the ruling it did in Massachusetts. So thanks to
Patti and Arkansas for blazing a trail. 

Pasted in below is some information about the process in California
(which was negotiated prior to the OCR Resolution Agreement but after
the Letter of Findings in Massachusetts) as described on the website of
the National Center for Law and Economic Justice:


California Advocates Obtain Comprehensive New Policy on Screening,
Evaluating and Providing Program Modifications to CalWORKS Clients with
Learning Disabilities

>From the December 2001 issue of the Welfare News

On October 17, 2001, the California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) issued a comprehensive statewide protocol on screening,
evaluating and providing reasonable modifications for all new and
existing CalWORKs clients with learning disabilities.  The policy was
issued in the form of an *All County Letter* by CDSS to all county
welfare directors and welfare-to-work coordinators in the State.  The
protocol is by far the most thoughtful and protective policy of its kind
in the country, and it should serve as a useful model for other
advocates seeking to make welfare programs more responsive to the needs
of clients with learning disabilities, who are a sizable portion of the
welfare population.  Given the high numbers of clients with learning
disabilities in TANF programs, advocates have a strong argument that the
policies and procedures in the All County Letter are required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act as reasonable modifications, because without these
policies, clients with learning disabilities will not have an equal
opportunity to participate in and benefit from TANF programs. The All
County Letter is entitled  *Learning Disabilities Screening and
Evaluation in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
(CalWORKs) Program,* All County Letter No. 01-70, and is available at
www.dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acl01/pdf/01-70.pdf.

The Protocol

The protocol requires CalWORKs to screen all incoming and existing
CalWORKs participants for learning disabilities using a screening tool
validated for use with TANF clients. Screening must be offered to all
new clients at the time of the first welfare-to-work contract and to
existing clients at annual eligibility redeterminations, or earlier when
clients ask to be screened, disclose a learning disability or inform the
welfare program that they were in a special education program at school.
 It must also be offered to all clients in the midst of good cause or
other compliance determinations or the sanction process; to clients who
fail to maintain satisfactory progress at welfare-to-work activities;
and whenever a worker suspects a client has a learning disability or
processing difficulty.  County welfare agencies are also allowed to
screen clients who fail to progress in employment after they stop
receiving cash assistance.

Clients have the right to refuse screening and cannot be sanctioned for
their refusal.  When a client declines or is reluctant to be screened,
the welfare program must explain what learning disabilities are; what
areas are tested in an in-depth assessment and who performs the
assessment; and the types of program modifications that are available to
clients in the program that have learning disabilities. Screening must
be conducted by trained designated staff, preferably those who have an
ongoing relationship with the client. CDSS recommends one particular
screening tool, developed in Washington State, but allows counties to
use another validated tool if they provide training for staff on how to
administer it.

Clients identified through screening as having  possible learning
disabilities must be referred for an in-depth learning disability
evaluation conducted by a trained professional using validated testing
instruments. Clients who have been diagnosed with learning disabilities
in the past, and those with suspected learning disabilities must also be
referred, even if the screening did not indicated a possible learning
disability. The welfare agency must ask clients who are referred for
evaluations to provide records of any previous learning disability
evaluations, relevant medical evaluations and special education records
to the evaluator, though a client is not required to do so. The policy
makes clear that it is the responsibility of the local welfare agency to
develop resources for these evaluations, by contracting with local or
regional evaluators if necessary.  In other words, welfare agencies
cannot shirk their responsibility by claiming that they couldn*t find
anyone to conduct the evaluation.

The evaluation must include a detailed description of the client*s
strengths and deficits, recommendations for additional services,
accommodations and assistive technology for the client. The welfare
agency is required to review the evaluation and take it into account
when drafting of the welfare-to-work plan and consult with the learning
disability evaluator or other specialist if they have questions about
the evaluation.  Existing plans must be modified to take account of the
evaluation findings.  The welfare program must give a copy of the
evaluation and the evaluator*s recommendations to the client and must
discuss appropriate work activities and reasonable accommodations to the
client. The policy specifies that accommodations can be paid for with
CalWORKs funds or other funding sources if they are available and the
client qualifies for them, including Welfare-to-Work or Workforce
Investment Act funds. The evaluation must be treated as a confidential
medical record, though with client consent the welfare agency can share
it with others on a need-to-know basis.  Welfare agencies are required
to forward it  to another county*s welfare agency when a client moves,
if the client agrees.  If the evaluation indicates that the client may
have physical, mental or other conditions, the welfare agency must
discuss the findings with the client, refer the client to evaluation or
treatment for these conditions as needed, and develop a welfare-to-work
plan consistent with these conditions.

When a client is diagnosed with a learning disability during the good
cause or sanction process, the welfare agency must consult with the
evaluator and determine if the client*s disability contributed to his
or her failure to participate. If so, the client must be considered to
have good cause and cannot be sanctioned, and the welfare-to-work plan
must be modified to take account to the evaluation findings. 

The protocol discusses a number of reasonable modifications clients
with learning disabilities may be entitled to, including a waiver of job
search for clients with verified learning disabilities if the program
determines that job search will not be beneficial for the client;
shortening job search if it turns out not to be beneficial; and allowing
clients to participate in the primary welfare-to-work activity, or all
welfare-to-work activities, for fewer hours.

The History of the Protocol

Advocates played a large role in getting CDSS to develop and issue the
protocol. More than a year before the All County Letter was issued, CDSS
established an Advisory Workgroup on Learning Disabilities to make
recommendations to the State about how to improve services to CalWORKs
participants with learning disabilities. The Workgroup included
representatives of CDSS and county welfare departments, the State agency
that oversees community colleges, the Employment Development Department
of the State Unemployment Insurance program, and the Department of
Rehabilitation, legislative staff, and other advocates, including Jodie
Berger from the Welfare-to-Work Advocacy Project of the Legal Aid
Society/Employment Law Center in San Francisco.

The group met monthly, and had guest speakers on topics such as how to
define learning disabilities, the validated screening instruments
available, and the types of program modifications often needed by
individuals with learning disabilities. The goal of the group was to
identify a series of recommendations for CDSS on how to identify and
evaluate CalWORKs participants with learning disabilities and how to
remove barriers to full participation by these individuals in the
CalWORKS welfare-to-work program. Most of the recommendations made by
the group were adopted by the State.  One interesting fact is that a
number of the state and local government officials who participated in
the work group had learning disabilities themselves or had children with
learning disabilities. Advocates engaging in policy advocacy on
disability rights issues should keep in mind that disabilities cut
across gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political parties and
socioeconomic groups.  Sensitivity to disability issues can come from
many quarters.



Ruth A. Bourquin
Mass. Law Reform Institute
99 Chauncy Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA  02111
(617)357-0700 ext. 333
fax: (617)357-0777
email: rbourquin at mlri.org


>>> "Patti White" <prwhite at MadisonCounty.NET> 1/16/2008 12:13:44 PM

>>>

Arkansas has not had a similar civil rights case, probably because our
Department of Human Services (DHS) was well aware of Ruth Bourquin's
lawsuit and its nationwide repercussions.  DHS partnered with our
interagency LD training initiative, Bridges to Practice, in 1998, and
proceeded to participate in the training for five years to educate their
staff about appropriate and effective service provision for their
clients with learning disabilities. 

DHS began mandatory LD screening of all Transitional Employment
Assistance (TEA) clients in July 1999 using the Washington State
13-Question Screener.  In addition, they contracted with Arkansas
Rehabilitation Services (ARS) to provide follow-up diagnosis. If the
client needed a GED, ARS included all tests required by GEDTS as part of
the evaluation in order to request and receive accommodations on the GED
tests.

I should add that the interagency training is no longer happening, and
I have no idea how the issue of learning diabilities is now being
handled in local DHS offices in this state.  The agency underwent some
drastic administrative changes a few years ago, and the last I heard,
they were using the disabilities kiosk approach for their clients with
disabilities, including learning disabilities.  That's basically a
section in the office with a computer where the person can search for
local resources.  

As with all training, though, there were a lot of people who completed
the training and continue to apply what they learned to their clients. 
I still hear from some of them, and I know it has made a difference in
some local offices despite any support or lack thereof from the state.

Patti White

Patti White, M.Ed.
Disabilities Project Manager
Arkansas Adult Learning Resource Center
804 Madison 3120
Huntsville, AR  72740
prwhite at madisoncounty.net 
http://aalrc.org/resources/ld/index.aspx 
800.569.3539    ph/fax/tty