When Policy Pretends Disability Doesn’t Exist
In Michigan, the Family Independence Program (FIP) is supposed to be the safety net for low-income families with children. It’s funded with federal TANF dollars, and it comes with strings: one of them being that every school-age child in the household must attend school full-time.
On paper, it sounds simple: make sure your kids are in school. In practice, for families raising disabled children, it can be an impossible ask.
Two Families, Same Policy, Very Different Reality
The Johnsons
Maria is a single mom. Her 13-year-old son, Elijah, is nonverbal autistic, has a seizure disorder, and is immune-compromised. He attends a specialized school program, but also has regular hospital stays, multiple therapies, and recovery periods where the safest place for him is at home. All his absences are documented by doctors.
MDHHS flags Elijah as “noncompliant” with school attendance. Under FIP rules, there is no disability exemption so the entire family loses $530/month in cash assistance. Transportation to therapy? Gone. Specialized food and sensory equipment? Gone. Maria is handed a list of food pantries and told there’s nothing else they can do.
The Parkers
James is a single dad. His 14-year-old daughter, Anna, is healthy but starts skipping school because of bullying. No medical documentation, no disability.
MDHHS flags “noncompliant,” but James has a clear path to restore benefits: get Ava back to school for 21 consecutive days. It’s hard, but possible. And once that compliance window is met, the benefits resume.
Why This Matters
In one case, compliance is possible, but in the other, it’s structurally impossible without changing the policy. Disability isn’t a “special case” here. It’s the reality for thousands of Michigan families. By refusing to include a disability exemption in the attendance rule, Michigan is effectively punishing children for having disabilities and parents for protecting their health.
What the Law Says
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, public benefits programs cannot deny or limit benefits solely because of disability-related limitations — especially when those limitations are well-documented and directly tied to the condition.
Yet Michigan’s FIP policy — BEM 245 — hasn’t been updated to reflect that. It still treats all absences the same, regardless of whether they are the result of a chronic medical condition or a choice to skip class.
The Call to Action
If a policy can’t be met without erasing disability from the equation, that policy needs to change. Families should not have to choose between protecting their child’s health and keeping the lights on.
Michigan must:
Add a disability exemption to FIP’s school attendance rule.
Accept medical and IEP documentation as proof of compliance.
Train MDHHS staff to apply ADA/504 obligations when determining eligibility.
Because a real safety net doesn’t have holes big enough for disabled children to fall through.
It Can’t Be Zero means it can’t exclude the very people it claims to protect.