Advocate Summary

Issue:  TANF reauthorization
Advocate:  National Mental Health Association - Kirsten Beronio
Date of Interview: 7/1/02

Basic Background
One issue that you should be aware of, working on TANF is really a new area for my organizational, we are primarily active on health policy and health legislation. TANF is an area that we really haven’t focused on a lot in the past and I think that’s true for a lot of the groups I work with in coalition, the disability rights organizations. And that’s been a real challenge for us because the way the system is set up here in Washington there is particular member offices and there is a particular staffer for health issues and it’s not always the same staffer that works on welfare. And the committees, I guess the committees are basically the same but different staff on the committees work on welfare than the staff that work on health legislation. So it’s been kind of a learning experience for us and for the other members of my group, to try to figure out who these people are and we are at a real disadvantage, because whereas we have relationships with people that work on health policy, we’ve really had to build those relationships from the ground up with the welfare folks. So that’s been hard for the disability rights community. 

(Patsy) Mink’s (D-HI) bill didn’t pass, it was great but very far to the left. The sponsor of the bill that passed was like (William) Thomas (R-CA) the chairman or somebody, it was a Republican leadership bill.  

Prior Activity on the Issue 
None mentioned. 

Advocacy Activities Undertaken	
I’ve been working closely with the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, it is a very broad coalition of I think over a hundred disability rights groups, primarily national groups here in Washington. It is primarily run out of the Arc of the United States they really do a lot of work to make this coalition work, the CCD. Earlier this year, some members of the CCD, I’ve been talking to some members of the health community, the Arc is a disability rights group that focuses on mental retardation and developmental disabilities, so they had been thinking that the disability community really needs to get involved in welfare reauthorization because of these studies that show that there is such a high proportion of those that are left on the rolls and a troubling portion of those being sanctioned off who have disabilities. So that’s what sort of brought our groups together, it wasn’t as is often the case for other issues, it wasn’t our membership saying you know you really need to get involved, we want to influence say – what’s going on with Medicare prescription drugs, for our organization our priority this year and the past few years has been mental health parity legislation, so legislation to create a federal requirement that private health insurance, if an insurer does cover mental health they have to provide full parity vis-a-via other physical illness. So that’s been another challenge is that we don’t have the grassroots support that we usually have on health related issues, our membership is not made up of welfare moms, you know it is mental health advocates around the country, a lot of consumers of mental health services that primarily have their act together and are trying to make things better for others that have mental health needs, but they don’t focus too much on the welfare population, which as with all of these issues, poor people have limited means to try to influence what’s going on in Washington. So it’s just sort of been out of our own concern for this population that we’ve taken on this effort. And I was trying to get the support of my organization to devote resources, you know a lot of resources and time, we had time at our recent annual conference to talk with our membership about what’s going on and how they need to be involved, where they could have just said well no we need to focus on what our membership wants us to focus on. They did give me the opportunity to really work on this, in telling our membership “we want you to be involved on this issue” there is a big learning curve because it is a complicated law and all new to most of them. So there really isn’t the grassroots power there behind this issue, so that’s been a struggle. And the same problem comes up, our members know the health LA in the member’s office of their district, they don’t know the welfare person. So when they go in to meet with the health LA about parity, which is the thing they want to talk about and then they also try to talk about welfare with this person the person says well I don’t cover that issue, I’ll pass along your hand out or whatever you’re giving me with you position on it. So there have been a lot of stumbling blocks it’s been a real struggle to try to have some impact. I think we have though, in the Senate we were successful in getting some of our issues across.  

I should clarify, it is a subset of the whole consortium that works on this issue, there are different committees and taskforces that specialize, like there is a healthcare task force with is rather large and tries to focus on issue of general importance to all of the members, like prescription drugs, and some other Medicaid issues are big on that taskforce. We created this TANF taskforce, it was new just this last year, not even a year ago, to try to bring all the disability rights groups around this issue and what we have focused on is basically the fact that there are large numbers of folks on the rolls that have disabilities are impeded by those disabilities from being able to comply with the work requirements in the welfare program.

We tried to get a couple of Senators to do an editorial around this issue but were unsuccessful, couldn’t get them to do it. 

The Finance committee had a hearing on barriers to employment a few months ago and I brought down, they wanted to have a TANF mother speak and I was able to identify a woman through one of my affiliates in New Jersey, so I think that was really helpful, being able to see a face on the population instead of just numbers. I wish I had been more successful in getting provisions in the law but it think it helped.

And I have fact sheets that draw from all different studies that lay out this study says a third to a half of those on TANF have disabilities that prevent them, and studies show up to 50 percent have depression so different studies like that. I have a fact sheet that I use when I go up to the Hill, I put together a fact sheet for our members, I mentioned we had a annual conference it was in early June and we do a Congressional briefing for our members, they come in on a Wednesday, we have our briefing that afternoon and then the next day they’re up on the Hill visiting with their members of Congress all day so in this briefing that we do the day before, we highlight for them three major issues that we encourage them to talk with their members of congress about and parity is of course our top priority so that was highlighted heavily, and then we also talked to them about funding issues, appropriations for federal mental health programs, those are always two of our big issues and then this year I talked to them about welfare, which was all new, and a lot of them were very interested and concerned and so I think a lot of them did mention it in their meetings, which I think was helpful. But for those briefings we did give a factsheet to our members for their own education and then also to hand out when they go to their meeting. So I have a factsheet that lays out some of the background and a lot of the statistics showing that there are a lot of folks on the rolls now and that have been kicked off with substance abuse and then here are the reforms that need to be made to the law and so on. Hopefully they go over there, and also on the next day we go along with some of our members so we kind of tag along to see how things are going, pitch in when we are needed. So at the meetings that I went to most of the folks talked about welfare and sometimes the staff member will meet with you for five seconds so it’s hard.  

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
We’re going to continue to work on this issue of getting the time a person can be in treatment qualified as work, we’d like for a provision to be added that says basically 6 months are authorized automatically and a qualified professional determines if additional time is needed and states can allow for that as well. So that’s what we’re going to be pushing for on the floor. We have a meeting tomorrow to get together to talk about strategies around floor amendments. The Senate bill will include a lot more money for child care. Unfortunately for the Finance TANF reauthorization bill there is some overlap in jurisdiction, it’s kind of complicated but the Finance committee has jurisdiction over the mandatory committee for child care and the HELP Committee – the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has jurisdiction over basically the policy and over the discretionary funding and I think that’s thrown a wrench in where they are in the HELP committee on their child care bill. I expect they’ll markup pretty soon after they get back after the July 4th recess. Daschle hasn’t indicated he’s going to bring up welfare before August, last I heard he was going to address the Worldcom oversight stuff and then Medicare prescription drugs which will take a long time, and then the Homeland Security agency and so that’s all in less than a month – I don’t know how they’re even going to do that much less take on welfare. And they would want to wait till the HELP committee acted, so I don’t know I suppose the only work time period left is September. But they still have all the approps bills to handle, though there’s talk of not doing those till after the election, I’m hearing more and more talk about that, so that might free up some space. I’m pretty, well I wouldn’t say pessimistic, because I don’t really like either of the bills so I don’t think it’s that bad that they’re not gong to get enacted but I don’t think it’s very likely at all that they’ll be able to pass the Senate bill and then conference the two bills before they go out of session. If they don’t meet the deadline, they’ll do something, they pass a what they call a continuing resolution in the appropriations world that just would be a reauthorization for a set amount of time, they’d just reauthorize current law for 6 months or a year or however long. There wouldn’t be any grace period for people the five year clock would continue to tick, not everyone is going to meet that at the deadline, it depends when you come in and people cycle on and off, and when people meet their limit varies a lot. Everyone’s clocks are individual, it’s becoming more and more of a problem especially with the way the economy has been.    

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
We were focused on the House side for a while until they passed their bill, it’s hard to have a lot of influence on the House side unless you have a Republican as a really strong supporter. We did get Congresswoman (Marge) Roukema (R-NJ) to, under current law there is a requirement for screening to be done when a recipient initially comes in to the program, it’s not the greatest language it’s kind of vague, they are supposed to screen for employability, prior experience, skills that sort of thing. And employability has been interpreted by HHS to include barriers to work – so disabilities basically, and the Republican leadership bill had initially taken out that requirement altogether whereas we had been arguing for improvements to it, it was going to be lost completely and we did get Congresswoman Roukema from New Jersey, who’s a Republican to get a provision included that basically maintains current law. And also Congressman Foley from Florida is also a Republican, the bill was assigned to two committees in the House, the Ways and Means Committee and the Ed and Workforce Committee, so Roukema is on Ed and Workforce and Foley is on Ways and Means, so they got it into both versions of the bill, so it made it into the final. So just struggling to maintain current law was all we could do in the House. But we’ve been meeting with Senator Baucus’s staff, the CCD and TANF taskforce is the we I’m talking about, he’s chairman of the Finance committee that has jurisdiction over the bill. And we’ve been meeting with his staff and Senator Rockefeller’s staff for a number of weeks, every week, to talk about our concerns and to work out how they could get some of them addressed in their bill. They marked up their bill I guess it was last week and it included a few provisions but really was not, we were really rather disappointed overall. 

Targets of Direct Lobbying
None mentioned.

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
None mentioned. 

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
I should clarify, it is a subset of the whole consortium that works on this issue, there are different committees and taskforces that specialize, like there is a healthcare task force with is rather large and tries to focus on issue of general importance to all of the members, like prescription drugs, and some other Medicaid issues are big on that taskforce.  We created this TANF taskforce, it was new just this last year, not even a year ago, to try to bring all the disability rights groups around this issue.

-Coalition members listed in folder

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
We met with Andy Bush who’s head of The Office of Family Assistance, which administers the TANF program, and he’s sympathetic but they already have their proposal out and that’s kind of where they are, it’s kind of hard for them to go back on it now we hope that in that meeting we sort of softened him a little bit so if some sort of compromise is proposed that is not in their bill he’ll be more open to it. You know, he says a lot of the right things. 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
And our counter argument is yes but you know these are the facts, these people are on the rolls, if you kick them off, they will simply fall through the cracks and wind up in shelters and soup kitchens etc.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
These are not so much secondary but the specific arguments for the various provisions:

We created this TANF taskforce, it was new just this last year, not even a year ago, to try to bring all the disability rights groups around this issue and what we have focused on is basically the fact that there are large numbers of folks on the rolls that have disabilities are impeded by those disabilities from being able to comply with the work requirements in the welfare program. Up till now that’s been okay and states have been able to - some states, not all states - but some states have done things to get services to those folks to help move them into the workforce because of the flexibility in the current law – the way it’s structured. But the proposal the way it came out of the administration and the bill that passed the House really clamped down on that flexibility and it increased the work requirements so it would make it really, really difficult for states to provide services to help move these folks, with say severe depression into the rolls or substance abuse, those folks can’t just one day wake up and say okay I’m going to get my act together and go to work, they need a lot of help. So what the Republican leadership is doing will create an incentive for states to kick those people off, because they will be penalized if they have these people on there because they aren’t working. So we’re very concerned about that, because that’s already been a problem that we can see in the statistics that a high percentage of those people have been kicked off and their disabilities have gone unrecognized and unaddressed. So there is a provision in the law that prohibits that kind of activity, it references the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and states aren’t supposed to discriminate based on a disability, but in practice it happens all the time, and it’s happening in welfare. So what we’ve look at is different aspects of the current law that need to be improved, our basic goal is to say we don’t want people with disabilities to just be exempted from the program and just languish in poverty getting their paltry welfare every month or whatever – every couple of weeks. We want states to provide them with services so they can participate, get jobs, like most of them want, they want to be able to work and in the mental health community we think work is a major step toward recovery so just sitting at home being on welfare, is not going to help people. We want them to be able to participate in the program but accommodations have to be made, as required under the ADA we argue, to enable them to participate. And those accommodations include first of all recognizing someone has a disability, so when they first come into the program there needs to be better screening to identify those problems and assessments done by qualified professionals to really determine what the problem is and determine what services are needed to enable that person to get back on their feet. So that’s sort of been the first part of our argument is that provision. Then in terms of enabling people, giving people the opportunity to receive that treatment to become better, there needs to be a flexibility in the law that needs to be made to enable participation and services to qualify as work under the law, because otherwise what happens is, state statistics show, is that they have X number of people on their case rolls that are not working and there are provisions in the federal law that penalize them for not having a certain percentage of their case load working so in order to prevent, under current law it’s not a problem because there are various mechanisms, but under the Republican leadership and the way it’s inevitably going to go, this time around – that’s going to be a big problem, work participation rates. So people participating in services to enable them to work need to be counted as working for purposes of the state getting its full amount of money that it qualifies for. And there are also time limits that apply to welfare assistance, there is a five year life time cap on welfare assistance that goes back to ’96 and some states have even lower caps, they were authorized to become even more stringent. If services and receiving treatment qualifies as work then that addresses the time limit on assistance because you’re not on assistance, you’re actually seen as working. So that addresses two problems there. The other big issue is this issue of sanctioning people for failing to comply with the requirements, we’ve been to talking on folks on the Hill about the need to have a pre-sanction review, which would require states, before they sanction someone, to do a full scale review of that case and make sure that the person isn’t in non-compliance because of a disability. The way the federal law is written is it says sanctioning is for those who refuse to comply with work requirements, and we argue that these people aren’t refusing, they’re simply unable to comply. I think those are our three big issue areas. There’s also the issue of time limits in the current law, states can exempt 20 percent of there case load from the lifetime time limit on benefits, because of reasons of hardship and that’s been interpreted as people with severe disabilities should be exempted and we are concerned that as the work participation rates are increased, that cap will be reached and there are folks that will be caught and unable to be exempt from their time limits because of this arbitrary 20 percent that they pulled out of thin air. So we think that there needs to be recognition that that might not be sufficient and that states should be allowed to apply for a waiver from the federal government to exempt additional people if they need to. There’s also an issue of Medicaid under current law when a person leaves welfare they’re qualified to receive Medicaid for up to a year even for the first 6 months if their income is higher than eligibility and then for the second 6 months if they come under 185 percent of poverty line, this is a category of Medicaid eligibility that was created back in ’96, it is part of the welfare reform effort that went on. And the authorization for that eligibility also expires at the same time as the welfare law, this fall. So there have been efforts to reauthorize, actually the president proposed to reauthorize that for one year but we’re concerned and a lot of advocates feel that it’s ridiculous to authorize that for only one year when you’re reauthorizing the entire welfare program for five years so we’ve been arguing for a five year reauthorization. So those are the major issue areas and arguments that we’ve been taking up to Congress. 

I should mention in the House bill with regard to this issue of treatment counting as work, they had included what was in the president’s bill which allowed 3 months to count as work and that’s substance abuse and rehabilitative services were referred to, a sort of broad catchall and that was troubling because mental health services per se were not mentioned and the other groups that we work with the folks that concentrate on mental retardation and developmental disabilities – you know rehab isn’t an appropriate term, these people have disabilities that are chronic and can’t necessarily be rehabilitated, so that’s sort of an issue that’s out there. So there were only three months provided. And we say this is highly inadequate, a completely ridiculous amount of time. So we’ve been talking with Baucus’s staff a whole lot about that, and we focused on other members of the Finance Committee, primarily on the Democratic side frankly because the Republicans are a lost cause, they are very conservative members on that committee, Lott Nickles, Kyl. We focused a lot on the Democrats, and what came out of the Finance committee, I should say we thought that Senator Grassley was going to be helpful he didn’t turn out to be terribly helpful but he has been helpful to the disability community in the past, so that was sort of disappointing but I think he was getting a lot of pressure from the administration, the President raised the profile of welfare reauthorization a lot in the past couple of weeks and made a lot of speeches around it and sort of made clear that it was one of his priority domestic issues, and so Grassley was under a lot of pressure to toe the party line so anyway what came out of the finance committee was six months, plus an additional three months combined with job readiness training. So we’re still very unhappy with that, we want something that’s more open ended and members of Congress really are not too interested in going that route were going to continue to push for it but.  Treatment for mental illness takes more than six months and for someone with substance abuse and they’ve been abusing for 20 years 6 months of treatment is not going to do much for you. So it’ll help some but studies show that the longer you receive treatment the lower your rate of relapse. So they have all this information but it’s simply a political issue with them. No one wants to look weak on work for the welfare population because it’s seen as politically unpopular. So that’s sort of what we’ve been struggling with. But we have some members, we’ve gotten support for our efforts from members who are not focused on these issues at all and did get included a provision in the bill to look at the needs of people who have family members that have disabilities. 
	So we also tried to raise awareness of parents of children with disabilities and people with family members that they are having to care for like a mother or an uncle or an aunt that has a disability, that fact really impedes that person’s ability to work, so they need some type of accommodation as well. You can understand because with children, if you have a child with ADHD for instance, and they are having problems in school they need special education, but to be able to ensure that they are getting the proper special education, there are these individual special education meetings that have to happen and the parent needs to be able to attend those meetings, and if they don’t have any leave from work or if the child is getting sent home from school because they are acting out so they are just home alone, that all sort of impacts the person’s ability to work. As well as the fact that there is a big problem of child care for children with disabilities, and so parents of children with disabilities have a problem with that and trying to hold down a full time job at regular hours when the child care just isn’t available and there isn’t another family member that can take care of them. So there are a lot of issues that come up for parents that we try to raise awareness of and so we got Senator Conrad interested in that issue, he had a provision included in the Finance bill that would exempt parents or people with family members with disabilities from the work requirement, but there is a 10 percent cap so the state can only exempt 10 percent of their case load for that reason. But we felt that was a real victory to get that. 
	They did strengthen the language around screening as well. They included some language in there, we had talked with them a lot about establishing some advisory panels in the states to look at ways to improver the program and make it work better for people with disabilities so there is some language in there around, there is a larger pot of money set aside and some of that money can be used for that purpose, and you know we would have preferred a specific earmark or a set-aside for these panels, we didn’t get that but we did get some language and if the states choose to use the money that way they can do that. There’s some language in there around sanction reviews that is helpful we think. 

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned. 

Nature of the Opposition
Republican leadership primarily, they aren’t actively aggressively opposing it, they’re just not responding to our efforts to improve the law. 

It’s hard for people to argue against what we’re saying because we have strong statistics and a sympathetic population, and they can’t just say “well people need to work” because it’s just not possible for some of these folks given the current situation. So a lot of their answers is exemptions, but we don’t think that’s the best approach either. So that’s sort of where we are, it’s not so much trying to counteracting, with like Patients Bill of Rights, where there’s two sides of the argument you have strongly held views on both sides of insurers should have more flexibility versus patients should have more rights. In this it’s not like they are saying disabled people should just suck it up, you know. It’s more just that they’re not that interested in helping, we don’t have enough clout really because we don’t have the grassroots support, they don’t really even have to respond. So that’s been a challenge, just to engage folks on this issue.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
The big argument we get back is that well the TANF program is not intended to solve all the problems of the world, you know. And our counter argument is yes but you know these are the facts, these people are on the rolls, if you kick them off, they will simply fall through the cracks and wind up in shelters and soup kitchens etc. But that’s sort of the big argument we’ve gotten back, for the most part people just listen to you and then they don’t engage very much even if they don’t agree with you.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
Not applicable. 

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
Not applicable. 

Described as a Partisan Issue
Yes 

Venue(s) of Activity
House Ways and Means
House Education and Workforce 
Senate Finance
Senate HELP

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
Will likely go to conference in September 

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Working to ensure the interests of the disabled are recognized in the TANF reauthorization, especially with respect to work requirements and barriers to entering the work place for disabled recipients. 

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
About last March I started working for NMHA before that I had worked for the Senate Finance committee on Medicaid primarily and the State Children’s Health Insurance program under Senator Moynihan for about a year. And before that I had worked for Senator Sarbanes from Maryland and I worked there for about two years, before that I worked for Senator Lautenberg for about a year and before that I had worked in the Department of Transportation as a legislative attorney, I went to law school here at Georgetown. And I wanted to get into legislation so I went to work for DoT, I wasn’t very interested in the subject matter but it was a good experience I learned to draft legislation and see how the executive branch worked. Before that I had been to law school. 

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
I rely on the think tanks. My organization doesn’t normally focus on welfare so I’ve had to just educate myself and become our resident expert on welfare because there isn’t anyone else to do it in our organization. I have relied on our members, our members are state and local affiliates throughout the country, and they are basically little non-profits that advocate for improved state laws regarding mental health treatment and the do pub ed, they do some service providing, support services like peer to peer treatment and counseling, and then also supported employment services, so I’ve reached out to a couple of our members that I know work with the population but it’s been hard to find them, because there are not a lot of members that do focus on this population, they do focus on a lot of the low income population but not the welfare population, they’re just not as familiar with it. But there are some folks in New Jersey that do some employment support type work for the TANF population in their county, so I’ve been able to reach out to them and talk to them about ground level stuff. The Finance committee had a hearing on barriers to employment a few months ago and I brought down, they wanted to have a TANF mother speak and I was able to identify a woman through one of my affiliates in New Jersey, so I think that was really helpful, being able to see a face on the population instead of just numbers. I wish I had been more successful in getting provisions in the law but it think it helped.

And I have fact sheets that draw from all different studies that lay out this study says a third to a half of those on TANF have disabilities that prevent them, and studies show up to 50 percent have depression so different studies like that. I have a fact sheet that I use when I go up to the Hill, I put together a fact sheet for our members, I mentioned we had a annual conference it was in early June and we do a Congressional briefing for our members, they come in on a Wednesday, we have our briefing that afternoon and then the next day they’re up on the Hill visiting with their members of Congress all day so in this briefing that we do the day before, we highlight for them three major issues that we encourage them to talk with their members of congress about and parity is of course our top priority so that was highlighted heavily, and then we also talked to them about funding issues, appropriations for federal mental health programs, those are always two of our big issues and then this year I talked to them about welfare, which was all new, and a lot of them were very interested and concerned and so I think a lot of them did mention it in their meetings, which I think was helpful. But for those briefings we did give a factsheet to our members for their own education and then also to hand out when they go to their meeting. So I have a factsheet that lays out some of the background and a lot of the statistics showing that there are a lot of folks on the rolls now and that have been kicked off with substance abuse and then here are the reforms that need to be made to the law and so on. Hopefully they go over there, and also on the next day we go along with some of our members so we kind of tag along to see how things are going, pitch in when we are needed. So at the meetings that I went to most of the folks talked about welfare and sometimes the staff member will meet with you for five seconds so it’s hard.  

The numbers for the factsheets came primarily from several different studies that other advocacy organizations had done, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a woman there, Eileen Sweeny has done a lot of work around the disabled population and TANF and sort of a lot of work to pull it together, there are just tons of studies out there on TANF and a lot on this issue of folks with disabilities on TANF, so she had already done a lot to pull together those numbers so I relied a lot on her work. And then just Mathmatica and Urban Institute and groups like that. 

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
Five

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
We have five people in our office, the President, my boss Ralph Gibbson, who is the lead person on parity, I have a colleague who is about the same level as me who’s focus is funding appropriations stuff, and then I work on a lot of the entitlement programs, like Medicare and Medicaid and welfare and then I also work with appropriations. Just whatever comes up, we get kind of random requests for assistance from the Hill. Someone wants to draft a bill on women’s mental health and we help them define what they want to do and help them with finding the background support for what they want to do. And then we have another sort of junior lobbyist who does veteran issues and then we have a research assistant. And we work out of our Capitol Hill office, we opened that office last August, our headquarters are in Alexandria and we have about 110 120 folks total at the national office. And those folks have a big state lobbying program, that goes out and trains our affiliates on how to be more effective lobbyists at the state level and helps them work out particular things their trying to do at the state level and then we have folks that do research. Sort of services research, research into effective services and a lot on watchdog type activities about how the federal government is administering the health programs. We have a pub ed department and communications department, people that do press stuff and that’s about everything.  

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
None mentioned.

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
Institutions – State and local disability advocacy organizations

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous