1,800 on welfare may be avoiding work

About 1,800 people who were depressed or had muscle strains avoided work requirements in the state's welfare program last year because Massachusetts considered them disabled, even though their maladies may have been easily treated, according to state statistics and interviews with specialists.

The fate of disabled welfare recipients is a key element in an ongoing debate on Beacon Hill, as Governor Mitt Romney urges state lawmakers to adopt tougher federal disability standards that would force thousands of people considered disabled under current state standards to go to work.

Some disability advocates say Romney is on the right track in forcing recipients with disabilities into the workforce.

''We do a disservice to some of these folks. We've got to get them to a point where they feel they are making a contribution, and that is recognized by reasonable pay and benefits," said William Kiernan, who heads the Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

''Often it's mild depression. It's not significant enough to get them on Social Security" or be hospitalized, he said. ''These are people who have issues and conditions that can very often be treated very effectively."

Of the 3,297 people who applied for welfare last year and were classified as disabled under state rules, about 1,470 were depressed and roughly 370 had ''soft tissues injuries or loss," which usually means a muscle strain or sprain, according to state statistics.

''Certainly, in the depression category there are people who could be working -- but they need the proper supports," said Katherine J. Edwards, associate director of clinical affairs for the Massachusetts Disability Evaluation Services, which evaluates applicants for the state. Edwards said she was speaking for herself, not her office.

Under federal rules, a person with some symptoms of depression, such as a loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, and feelings of guilt or worthlessness, as well as a ''marked deficiency" in concentration, could be classified as disabled. But under the state rules, a person with symptoms of depression and any problem concentrating might qualify.

About 46,300 families are on the welfare rolls in Massachusetts. Under the current system, about 34,700 recipients do not have to work. In addition to the disability change, Romney wants to eliminate exemptions for pregnant women in their third trimester and mothers with children between 1 and 2 years old.

''Giving people the opportunity and requirement for work is actually a blessing. It isn't a penalty, it's a benefit," Romney said last week. ''I think there are loopholes . . . that need to be closed and that we should conform to the federal work requirements."

Democratic lawmakers and some advocates object to Romney's stance, saying it is too harsh.

Jim Kruidenier, executive director of the Stavros Center for Independent Living, an Amherst-based group that advocates for people with disabilities, praised the Massachusetts system as ''one that has always put the needs of people with disabilities first."

''It simply isn't true that just because you have a mild attention deficit you can get on welfare and you won't have to work. There has to be substantial impairment," Kruidenier said.

But John A. Wagner, commissioner of the state's Department of Transitional Assistance, said any welfare applicants with depression severe enough to prevent them from working would meet the federal standard and could avoid the work requirements.

He said the roughly 1,470 people who applied for benefits last year and met the looser, state standard have ''a minor, moderate form of depression, which could be treated with medication."

''When you use the term 'depression,' there is a continuum of depression, most of which is treatable. The same with strains and sprains," Wagner said. ''If someone falls down the stairs and they need to go into traction, we're not talking about having them work. But if someone slips on the sidewalk and sprains an ankle or a wrist, does that mean they shouldn't work?"

In 1995, when Massachusetts shifted to a welfare system requiring some recipients to work, it was a pioneer. A year later, Congress overhauled the federal welfare law, and today the Bay State's work requirements are less strict than the federal ones. Massachusetts has operated under a waiver from federal rules since 1995, but the waiver expires at the end of this month, forcing Beacon Hill to act.

More than two dozen states have avoided some federal work requirements and time limits by setting up separate state-funded programs to provide cash assistance to families that would not qualify under federal rules. Under the House and Senate welfare proposals, Massachusetts would take that approach.

Democratic lawmakers note that the House and Senate plans would increase the number of hours that nonexempt recipients must work each week, from the current 20 to 30 hours to between 24 and 40 hours, depending on the age of the children in the household. The Senate proposal calls for the creation of ''family well-being plans" to help people who are not required to work to overcome barriers to employment.

''It's not like we have huge numbers of people collecting welfare, abusing the system," said Senator Karen E. Spilka, an Ashland Democrat who shepherded the bill through the Senate. ''We have a plan to get some of these exempt people back to work."

But Michael R. Deland of the National Organization on Disability, a Washington-based group that tries to remove barriers to employment for people with disabilities, said the federal definition of ''disabled" is reasonable, and that Massachusetts would be wise to follow it.

''It's a fairly comprehensive standard," Deland said. ''I would be very reluctant, were I the governor, to have a blanket exemption [from work requirements] that extended beyond that of the federal government."