"the issues in welfare policies were and are far more draconian then the issues of college ." 

I beg to differ on this.  First of all, Congress has been notified of the "draconian" policies that have permitted lenders to garnish disability and social security income.  The victims are people with DOCUMENTED disabilities, but the Department of Education says the documentation doesn't  "count" unless the person is "completely disabled" in their estimation.  The Department of Education's definition of disabled doesn't match the rest of the government's; the DOE criteria for "failure to benefit" discharge are arbitrary.  

Yes, this is a fact, and if THAT isn't a civil rights issue, I don't know what is.  

Second, I could cite my own experiences and others' who were diagnosed too late, who were "removed" from a program for being "trouble."  In too many cases, these school are well aware there is a learning problem but prefer to take another route:  instead of offering assistance and guidance, administration turns attention away from the disability, focusing instead on the students' shortcomings, spinning it all as the fault of the student instead of the school.

I could go on and on how these schools have broken regulations and have been allowed to do so, reaping financial benefits from those of us who are the least able to afford it.  I've worked for schools like these in the past, and I've tried to succeed in one.  

I've been dealing with being ripped off by a "University" since 2002, ironically when I entered an unstructured Ph.D. program that was running unlicensed sites throughout the country.  The school had incredible curriculum and systemic problems.  The faculty and administration acted completely irresponsibly and unethically, providing not even minimal services to students (never MIND accommodations).  I would argue that this school fraudulently conducted business with me and others.  This "University" managed to leave me with more than $50,000 in debt, no degree, and no hope of transfer.  Conveniently, they "administratively withdrew" me when I announced via email that their sites were unlicensed.

I hold an M.Ed.  I graduated summa cum laude from both my undergraduate and graduate programs because even though I had an undocumented disability, I received personalized attention that helped me succeed.  Yet for more than five years, I have had to deal with academic, credit, and career ramifications from this Ph.D. fiasco.  This school and the dozens of groups and agencies didn't act in spite of my pleading and evidence--evidence that actually matches findings from the accreditors and the Department of Education.  Five years is a LONG time to wait around in still accumulating debt and stress.

Student borrowers continue to have no consumer protection.  Most of us cannot afford lawyers, and because of this, schools, accreditation agencies, the Department of Education and lenders know they can do pretty much whatever they want.  

Does this force us into poverty and probably into TANF?  You bet.  I'd be curious to know how many TANF recipients with previously undiagnosed LD have failed in an educational setting-- places supposedly staffed by EDUCATORS and PROFESSIONALS who systematically ignored obvious issues in their own institutions and in their students' progress.

I'd be curious to see how many of us have been forced to live on student loans because we have never received accommodations or even basic services promised. I bet the numbers would be staggering.

Quality educators will always ask WHY a student is failing and do whatever they can to help prevent it.  Irresponsible educators and schools do nothing and blame it on the student.  While there is only so much a teacher and/or an institution can do, when a student is borrowing against his/her future, the responsibility must be shared.  In too many cases, it is not.

If I sound angry, it's that I AM.  Government, agencies, lenders and schools love to tout lack of student responsibility--yet they rarely demonstrate accountability themselves when it comes to protecting us financially and otherwise.

I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.  Maybe, some day, I will be.  If that ever happens, you can bet the people who made the right decisions and changes in our systems will get a big "thank you" from yours truly and countless others.  Until that day, however, I will not stop fighting the kind of injustices that continue to corrode our chance at success.

I know many of you are already doing this in your own way, and for that, thank you!

Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt
www.luxuriouschoices.net 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Katherine 
  To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:04 PM
  Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1643] Re: civil rights case


  This is a little off topic, so if anyone would like to email me offline about it, I would appreciate it.

  If it's a civil rights violation not to screen TANF recipients for LD, might it also be a civil rights violation to omit screening of anyone receiving college Federal Financial Aid, particularly, those students who have failed in a higher education system?

  kgotthardt at comcast.net 

  Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt
  www.luxuriouschoices.net 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Katherine 
    To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List 
    Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:56 PM
    Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1642] Re: civil rights case


    I received this article from a volunteer colleague of mine.  It supports the notion that TANF recipients aren't getting what they need to succeed.  

    Thank you for the interesting discussion!

    Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt
    www.luxuriouschoices.net 


    From: Combi, Simona [mailto:SCombi at ui.urban.org] On Behalf Of
     PAffairs at ui.urban.org
     Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:27 PM
     To: PAffairs at ui.urban.org
     Subject: Urban Institute Study: Work & Low-Income Parents

     THE URBAN INSTITUTE             News Release


     2100 M STREET NW  WASHINGTON D.C. 20037    T:202/261-5709    F:202/728-0232
     paffairs at ui.urban.org <mailto:paffairs at ui.urban.org>    www.urban.org
     <file://www.urban.org>


     CONTACT:  Simona Combi, (202) 261-5709, scombi at ui.urban.org


     LOW-INCOME PARENTS WITH WORK BARRIERS

     ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY A COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

     WASHINGTON, D.C., July 26, 2007 -- Wide variation in states' welfare
     policies and needy recipients' access to local services pose special
     challenges to low-income parents who already have employment barriers, says
     a new Urban Institute report.

     "Hard-to-Employ Parents: A Review of Their Characteristics and the Programs
     Designed to Serve Their Needs <http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411504> ,"
    by
     Sheila Zedlewski, Pamela Holcomb, and Pamela Loprest, looks at the
     difficulties many low-income parents face in finding or keeping jobs and
     related safety-net services. Since 1996's overhaul of the federal welfare
     program, cash assistance programs nationwide have ramped up their work
     requirements while limiting the time that beneficiaries can receive help.

     More than 1.3 million adult recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy
     Families (TANF) contend with poor mental or physical health, substance
     abuse, learning disabilities, language barriers, limited working skills,
     criminal records, domestic violence, raising a child with a significant
     disability, lack of transportation or child care, or unstable housing.

     Disparities in the range of tools used by states to screen applicants means
     that not all barriers necessarily get identified before a parent has to
     comply with welfare-eligibility requirements.

     "Common reliance on individuals to identify their own employment barriers
     rather than professional assessments means that hard-to-employ parents can
     struggle for years to find employment before getting the services they
     need," the researchers point out. "Some individuals lose benefits as a
     result of sanctions or time limits. Exemption policies that exclude
     individuals with significant mental or physical health issues from program
     requirements can mean that parents languish on the TANF program without
     getting appropriate barrier removal or work services."

     Other assistance, such as workforce development, vocational rehabilitation,
     and community-based services addressing mental health, substance abuse, and
     domestic violence, can alleviate employment barriers and support job
    search.
     However, coordination among these programs and TANF is often difficult
     because of operational differences and their patchwork availability.

     Unemployed low-income adults disconnected from the welfare system and
     employment are particularly vulnerable since most of them struggle with
    more
     than one employment barrier -- often without supportive services. While
    half
     of welfare families have at least two work barriers, 69 percent of those
    who
     recently left welfare and 56 percent who have no welfare history and
    receive
     no government assistance but are out of work face more than one hurdle.

     "Hard-to-Employ Parents," available at
     http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411504
     <http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411504> , is the latest publication from
     the Urban Institute's new Low-Income Working Families project, which
     examines what low-income working parents need to make their families
     economically stable. Adults in more than 9 million families (with 19
    million
     children) work regularly but do not earn enough to meet the household's
     needs.

     Another new paper, "TANF Policies for the Hard-to-Employ: Understanding
     State Approaches and Future Directions," summarizes how 15 states interact
     with hard-to-employ welfare recipients and new federal welfare
    requirements'
     likely impacts on these state efforts. The paper is available at
     http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411501
     <http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411501> .

     The Low-Income Working Families project (LIWF), headed by newly appointed
     senior fellow Margaret Simms <http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=901084> ,
     analyzes the risks these families face, incorporating crosscutting research
     expertise, from housing and health care to labor markets and tax policy,
     honed at the Urban Institute over the past 40 years.

     More from LIWF
     Earlier this year, the project published "Framework for a New Safety Net
    for
     Low-Income Working Families," which describes these families' circumstances
     and the gaps in current safety-net programs. The paper can be found at
     http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411475
     <http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411475>

     Authors Greg Acs, Ajay Chaudry, Olivia Golden, and Pam Winston recommend
     five key goals for public policy:

     1. enable parents to meet their family's needs while working in
     lower-wage jobs,
     2. help families weather gaps in parental employment,
     3. support parents' job advancement,
     4. help parents combine work and child-rearing, and
     5. improve children's well-being and development.


     Ajay Chaudry, the director of the Urban Institute's Labor, Human Services,
     and Population Center and an expert in social service delivery, discusses
     these goals in an interview posted at
     http://www.urban.org/toolkit/fivequestions/AChaudry.cfm
     <http://www.urban.org/toolkit/fivequestions/AChaudry.cfm> .

     The Low-Income Working Families project is supported by The Annie E. Casey
     Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the
     Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. More about the project is available at
     http://www.urban.org/center/lwf/index.cfm
     <http://www.urban.org/center/lwf/index.cfm> .

     # # #

     The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and
     educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance
     challenges facing the nation.




      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: napayne at att.net 
      To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List ; The Learning Disabilities Discussion List 
      Cc: Ruth Bourquin 
      Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:33 PM
      Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1641] Re: civil rights case


      Thanks Ruth for providing such good summaries of how we (the system) is progressively moving forward.  That only occurs through the outstanding work done by you and your colleagues in the public legal advocacy network.  As circumstance would have it I was the prime contractor to assist California in implementing their system -- which when we have done follow-up 4-5 years later is still moving forward.  



      I do not have access to the final rulings and conditions, but I know that Connecticut (Hartford public legal service) has just completed a process involving the human services sytsems  -- perhaps you have access to that and can share -- or maybe Greg Bass can be asked to contribute to the discussion.



      Nancie Payne


        -------------- Original message from "Ruth Bourquin" <RBourquin at mlri.org>: -------------- 


        > 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 Advocat es Obt ain 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 disab ilitie s 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 screenin g 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 testin g 
        > 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 cl ient*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 b e 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 canno t be s anctioned, 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 t o impr ove 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 learni ng 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 < BR>> 
        > >>> "Patti White" 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 r equire d 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 suppo rt 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 
        > ---------------------------------------------------- 
        > National Institute for Literacy 
        > Learning Disabilities mailing list 
        > LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov 
        > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 
        > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities 
        > Email delivered to napayne at att.net 


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


      ----------------------------------------------------
      National Institute for Literacy
      Learning Disabilities mailing list
      LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
      To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
      Email delivered to kgotthardt at comcast.net


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


    ----------------------------------------------------
    National Institute for Literacy
    Learning Disabilities mailing list
    LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
    To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
    Email delivered to kgotthardt at comcast.net


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


  ----------------------------------------------------
  National Institute for Literacy
  Learning Disabilities mailing list
  LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
  To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
  Email delivered to kgotthardt at comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20080120/8e34169b/attachment.html