CALIFORNIA WELFARE (TANF/CALWORKS ) CLIENT OUTCOMES
Working
Document
Working Document
INTRODUCTION
In 1997 the California State Legislature passed the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program to meet federal program regulations established
the previous year under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.1 TANF
and CalWORKs transformed what had been a cash-assistance entitlement, with relatively few
requirements for participating families, into a time-limited, welfare-to-work program.
TANF/CalWORKs examine both the impact of these program changes on employment as well as
child and family well-being. Since Child Welfare Services is the program that aims to protect
children from neglect and abuse, many researchers began to study the potential impact of welfare
reform on the well-being of children. However, assessment of child well-being is not currently
mandated as an indicator of program success.
As service providers explore ways to coordinate services between the CalWORKs and Child
Welfare systems, it raises questions about the impact of coordination on client outcomes. This
document provides the context for CalWORKs client outcomes evaluation in California’s
coordinated services environment. For this purpose, this document provides a brief overview of
the following:
Purposes of TANF/CalWORKs
Current data collection and reporting methods
Analysis of the potential for client outcomes measurement in CalWORKs
Purposes of TANF/CalWORKs
TANF has four purposes:
“providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own
homes or in the homes of relatives;
ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job
preparation, work and marriage;
preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.”2
Under CalWORKs, cash grants are provided to eligible families for no more than a total of 60
*We would like to thank Richard Speiglman for conducting the necessary research and preparing the initial drafts of this
document.
months, although at any time up to 20 percent of the caseload may be exempted from the time
limit.3 Certain employment services may be available for longer periods of time.4 Accordingly,
throughout the State, adult recipients of CalWORKs benefits are expected to engage in the
following core elements of this work-first program:
Complete an initial skills assessment.
Develop a personal welfare-to-work plan, including education, training, and job
placement objectives.
Complete the plan within 18 or 24 months, the longer time period having been provided
for individuals who were CalWORKs recipients when the program was first
implemented.
Participate in work or other authorized activities for at least 32 hours weekly (35 hours
weekly for two-parent families). Activities may include paid employment, training, work
experience, community service, job search, vocational training, high school, and the
provision of child care services to other CalWORKs recipients.
Individuals who fail to comply with CalWORKs program requirements are sanctioned through a
reduction in the non-compliant adult’s part of the cash grant.
In addition to cash grants, CalWORKs recipients are also eligible for employment services and
Medi-Cal health insurance and, depending on their needs and their family’s demographic status,
the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program, mental health and substance abuse
treatment services, child support services, child care services, and Food Stamps.
CalWORKs Data Systems
California has four different CalWORKs databases that are used to track a variety of welfare
data. Two of these data systems are undergoing major transitions from older systems to new
systems and requiring a significant amount of county resources in training and data management
to perform the transition. Further research is required to determine the capabilities of these newer
systems to be modified for collecting client outcomes data.
Interim Statewide Automated Welfare System (ISAWS) is currently being used
by 35 counties. In July 2006, ISAWS counties will begin migrating to the C-IV
system.
Consortium IV (C-IV) is currently being used by Merced, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Stanislaus counties.
CalWORKs Information Network (CalWIN) is currently being used by 17
counties who are in the process of converting from the welfare Case Data System
(CDS).5
Los Angeles Eligibility Automation Determination, Evaluation, and Reporting
system (LEADER) functions solely in Los Angeles County.
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 2
These systems are currently not able to exchange information with any other CalWORKs data
system, making statewide data collection a challenge. There were plans to establish a central
database called CalSERV to allow for data sharing among these systems. However, these plans
were put on hold due to state budget limitations. Any efforts to collect or report client outcomes
data must develop specific approaches for each of these data systems.
CalWORKs Reporting Requirements
While CalWORKs program implementation takes place at the county level, almost all program
funding is from state and federal governments. In practice, therefore, CalWORKs programs are
directed under and constrained by state and federal law and regulation. The federal government
requires that, to ensure the maximum federal financial contribution toward the state TANF
program, states must contribute a financial “maintenance of effort” (MOE) to support on-going
TANF programs. Both to substantiate the MOE expenditure, and to receive any TANF funds,
therefore, states must file quarterly financial reports with the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.6
Q5I Data set
The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) submits data sets quarterly to ACF that
provide disaggregated data on families receiving TANF assistance. The data are drawn from a
CDSS data set known as the “Q5I”, which is also used for CDSS quality control for the Food
Stamp and CalWORKs programs and to support other CDSS data analyses.7 The disaggregated
data contain many variables of interest concerning demographic and other characteristics of
family members, receipt of a variety of benefits and length of time benefits have been received,
employment and other activities, income, sanctions, and other important indicators (see
Attachment B). Disaggregated data on reasons for case closure, in addition to data similar to the
data on active cases, are also required for families no longer receiving TANF assistance. Finally,
aggregated data are required on families “receiving, applying for, and no longer receiving TANF
assistance.”8
Work Participation Rates
The State passes on to California counties no “outcome” mandate but rather the requirement of
the welfare-to-work participation “process” measure. States are required to have a minimum
proportion of assistance-receiving families participating in work activities. Since the work
participation requirement is mediated by credits for caseload reduction, California’s work
participation requirement has stayed at an attainable level and currently is below 7 percent.9
Presently, there is concern that if proposed TANF reauthorization legislation is enacted, the
challenge to the State burden will increase substantially, with demands for outcomes.10 Counties
that fail to meet the federal TANF requirement for participation in work and/or other authorized
activities are to share half of any financial penalty assessed by the federal government on the
State.11
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 3
The data that permit computation of the participation rate as well as other indicators required by
ACF are folded into the CDSS Q5I data set. Under CDSS direction and supervision, and
utilizing CDSS software, the data are compiled of a sample from county and State databases by
the 18 largest counties other than Los Angeles. CDSS itself compiles the data from Los Angeles
and the 39 smallest counties.12 Should California suffer a financial penalty for failing to meeting
participation rate requirements, a form containing aggregated data at the county level is available
to allocate county share of the penalty.
While counties are required to report these measures, of which several, including the income
measures, can be seen as “outcome” measures (see appendices); other than the participation rate,
counties are not, however, held accountable for the results conveyed by these measures.
Monthly Reports
Data important for budgetary and other planning decisions, but not the basis for State standards
performance evaluation, are provided to CDSS by the counties on several monthly reports.
Counties may also rely on these data to assess, alter, and design program elements.
W2W 30, County TANF Work Participation Rate Monthly Report (Attachment C). The
W2W report summarizes whether sample members work for pay, are in school, engage in
public work, or participate in other acceptable work activity. In Alameda County, for
example, the data are constructed for a sample of 30 families. The data combine information
extracted from County Social Services Agency electronic files with survey data provided on
an Agency questionnaire mailed to sample members each month. The Agency telephones
non-responding members of the sample in an attempt to get a complete response. An
electronic database providing similar information is sent directly to federal officials but on a
sample of 200 families.
WTW 25, the CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Monthly Activity Report (Attachment D).
Perhaps the central document, the WTW 25 provides an overview of client participation in
employment services. CDSS uses these and other data to assess county activity and to help
determine county funding allocations. However, there is no CDSS CalWORKs monitoring
unit and no official “quality control” entity. The WTW 25 permits calculation of the federal
work participation rate and includes data on:
•
numbers of enrollees,
•
numbers of exemptions,
•
numbers of sanctions,
•
employment and other activities,
•
noncompliance,
•
terminations due to employment,
•
utilization of transportation and supportive services,
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 4
•
self-initiated program involvement, and
•
use of post-employment and job-retention services.
Several of these measures – most notably, employment – provide a basis for determining client
outcomes of interest. The WTW and other reports do not, however, incorporate or support a
longitudinal database that would document individual client outcomes.
CA 237 CW, Cash Grant Caseload Movement Report (Attachment E). The CA 237
provides information about caseload counts. This document, generated from the Agency’s
finance department, contains information on:
•
applications for aid,
•
requests for restoration of aid,
•
transferred cases,
•
safety net cases,
•
cases approved, denied, and diverted,
•
cases added and discontinued during the month,
•
number of cases receiving a cash grant,
•
number of zero grant cases,
•
number of two-parent and zero-parent cases,
•
number of all other, timed-out, and safety net cases, and
•
total numbers of adults and children receiving cash assistance.
Some of these measures could be used to secure outcome indicators of welfare status/selfsufficiency.
CA 253 CW, Report on Reasons for Discontinuances of Cash Grant (Attachment F). The
CA 253 provides data on reasons for discontinuance of a cash grant, including:
•
noncompliance,
•
no eligible child,
•
resources or income exceeding limits,
•
increased benefits or pensions, and
•
increased support from other persons, among other reasons.
Some of these measures could be used as coarse indicators of non-employment income.
CA 255 CW, Report on Reasons for Denials and Other Non-Approvals of Applications
for Cash Grant (Attachment G). The CA 255 provides reasons for denials and other nonapprovals of cash grant applications, including:
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 5
•
no eligible child,
•
children not deprived of support or care,
•
resources or income exceeding limits, and
•
failure to comply with procedural requirements, among other reasons.
Some of these measures provide further outcome indicators of financial resources.
CW 115 and CW 115A, Child Care Monthly Report – CalWORKs Families and TwoParent Separate State Program (Attachment H). These reports provide child care program
data on:
•
program cost,
•
number of families,
•
number of children,
•
license exempt vs. licensed facilities,
•
number of transfers to various stages, and
•
reasons for unavailability of child care.
It does not appear that the data would prove helpful as client-level outcomes.
STAT 45, Cal-Learn Program Teen Parent Monthly Status Report (Attachment I). This
report conveys information about participants in the Cal-Learn Program, including data on:
•
exemptions,
•
discontinuances,
•
deferrals,
•
bonuses,
•
sanctions, and
•
transportation and ancillary expense payments.
State CalWORKs Evaluation Efforts
Other than submitting reports for fiscal purposes, California is not mandated to conduct
legislatively-mandated evaluation of the impact of CalWORKs on client outcomes. Despite the
lack of a mandate, CDSS awarded a contract to the RAND Corporation to evaluate the
CalWORKs program. RAND’s evaluation of CalWORKs is made up of an impact analysis to
gauge the effect of the reform on welfare recipients and field work to assess the institutional
aspects of reform.13 A household survey was fielded as part of the impact analysis to gather the
kinds of information not readily available in other data sources, such as family well-being and
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 6
attitudes toward welfare reform. RAND studies are based on samples from six counties, and are
therefore not useable for county-level planning related to service delivery.
CDSS is also involved in several studies, largely population-based research, that consider
relationships among domestic violence and welfare dependency; relationships among welfare
status, foster care history, food security; and similar concerns.14 Toward this end, CDSS
provides funds or otherwise provides support to:
increase sample size for the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS; Wave1 n =
55,428 adults, 12,592 young children, 5,801 adolescents) as well as add questions on
foster care history, foster care status of the index child, and receipt of cash assistance.
augment the California Women’s Health Survey (n = 4,000), to include questions on
welfare history, foster care history, employment, food security, mental and physical
health, and trauma.
add a 2004 supplement to the CDC-coordinated, federal Behavioral Risk Factor
Survey. By including questions on welfare utilization, history of foster care, and
foster children in the household, data from the supplement will permit assessments of
health status in terms of those factors.
promote a follow-forward study of 17-year-old youth, including samples of welfare
recipients, youth in foster care, and others.
Among these studies, only the CHIS provides data at the county level for 33 counties. However,
data rely on a sample, not the population, of each county.
Evaluating Client Outcomes in CalWORKs
Other than through expensive survey research, it is difficult to evaluate TANF’s impact on client
outcomes using existing studies and reports. The data to measure reduction of poverty and child
poverty, employment status following case closure, residential and familial status, and promotion
and maintenance of marriage and two-parent families, are not available once a family departs
welfare – no reporting requirements provide for this essential information.
Some relevant outcome data, such as quarterly income information, are provided by employers
to the Department of Employment Development. Other information, such as the basis for MediCal eligibility, is found in a database maintained by the Medical Eligibility Data System
(MEDS).
Also, unfortunately, the Q5I data set is not sufficient to evaluate client outcomes in that data are
drawn on two 3,000-case samples rather than the universe of CalWORKs cases. It is unknown
how difficult, or costly, it would be to pull together a Q5I-like data system, including
longitudinal information on a relevant sample, on mutual clients of the CalWORKs and Child
Welfare systems.
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 7
CONCLUSION
The inconsistent availability and quality of client-level CalWORKs data suggests that conducting
client evaluations from existing data sources would be challenging, with cross-county
comparison especially difficult. While many indicators of interest exist in CalWORKs data
systems – such as employment and sanction status – the data is frequently (as with CDS) pointin-time data and therefore would require monthly downloads of data and client-level matching to
produce longitudinal analyses.
Further research is needed to determine whether the transition of counties to new data
management systems will provide opportunities for better county-level, client outcomes data
reports. The challenge of multiple data systems provides additional barriers to establishing a
consistent procedure across counties for examining coordinated services client outcomes. TANF
Reauthorization, which should be occurring in the near future, could also redirect programs to
emphasize analysis of client outcomes. These changes should be tracked closely for their
implications for evaluation of client outcomes and county-level planning processes in a
coordinated services environment.
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resource persons for this memorandum
B. Desired client outcome domains and indicators
C. W2W 30
D. WTW 25*
E. CA 237 CW*
F. CA 253 CW*
G. CA 255 CW*
H. CW 115, CW 115A*
I. STAT 45*
*Available upon request
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 9
ATTACHMENT A. RESOURCE PERSONS FOR THIS DOCUMENT
Phil Ansell, Los Angeles Department of Social Services
Nikki Baumrind, CDSS15
Fiona Branagh, Alameda County Social Services Agency
Joeana Carpenter, CDSS
Richard Edwards, Alameda County Social Services Agency
Marietta Jubert, Alameda County Social Services Agency
Julie Kimura, CDSS
Paul Leonard, Alameda County Social Services Agency
Aris St. James, CDSS
Kristin Spanos, Alameda County Social Services Agency
Jo Weber, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 10
ATTACHMENT B. DESIRED CLIENT OUTCOME DOMAINS AND INDICATORS
Education: high school diploma, GED, other
Vocational training and other work preparation, licensure, certification
Health status of self and family
•
Physical, mental, and dental health
•
Behavioral health, including tobacco use
Criminal justice/legal status
Family and marital status, including relationships with children
Living arrangements: household composition
Housing
•
Type of (or lack of) housing
•
Housing stability
•
Housing quality
Housing costs
•
Rent, utilities, and telephone service
•
Missed payments
Child care
•
Utilization
•
Cost
•
Adequacy and quality
Employment and quasi-employment
•
Hours/week currently, in last month, in last year
•
Number of jobs held currently
•
Job retention
•
Unpaid work and community service
•
Job search
Food security (self, family members)
Skipped health care needs for self, spouse, children
Transportation: car and license
Standard of living and self-sufficiency: 200% of federal poverty level or other
measure that incorporates child care costs and local housing and other
costs
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 11
•
Work or work-related income
o Earnings from work for parent and spouse and/or other persons with
whom s/he shares income
o Earned Income Tax Credit
o Retirement or pension benefits
o Disability pay
o Unemployment compensation
o Foster child funds
o Illegal income
•
Health, mental health, dental, and vision benefits
•
Paid vacation
•
Sick leave
•
Welfare and other benefits
o Cash welfare assistance: CalWORKs, GA, SSI
o Childcare subsidy
o Housing subsidy
o Food Stamps
o WIC vouchers
o Transportation vouchers
o Medi-Cal
o Financial or in-kind contributions (housing, food, childcare, and other
support) provided by family (other than partner) and friends, including
alimony and child support payments [cultural and social-psych
limitations with some of these outcomes]
o Financial or in-kind contributions from charitable organizations
Quality of life: self-esteem and other personal measures of satisfaction;
satisfaction with family, household, community, and workplace conditions
Receipt/utilization of services: mental health, substance abuse, domestic
violence
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 12
ATTACHMENT C. W2W 30
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Send one copy of this report to:
California Department of Social
Services
Data Operating Branch – M.S. 19-81
P.O. Box 944243
Sacramento, CA 94244-2430
FAX (916) 322 9254
Email: deborach@dss.ca.gov
COUNTY TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATE
MONTHLY REPORT
MONTH
YEAR
COUNTY
TYPE OF WORK
PARTICIPATION
(1)
ALL FAMILIES
MEETING WORK
PARTICIPATION
(2)
ALL FAMILIES NOT
EXCLUDED FROM
PARTICIPATION
(3)
MONTHLY
PARTICIPATION
RATE
TANF All Families
The above data is reported on (check one):
All cases
A sample of cases
XX
EXCLUDED CASES:
Not Aided
Child Under 12 Months
2 Aided Parents
CONTACT PERSON
TELEPHONE
W2W 30 (10/99)
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 13
1
TANF was created as a result of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104193).
2
Welfare Reform: Progress in Meeting Work-focused TANF Goals. Statement of Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Managing Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. United States Genera Accounting office, March 15, 2001.
3
Exempted under State law from the 60-month time limit are older recipients as well as those who are disabled or care for a
disabled relative in the home. Kelch, D.R. (2002, November). Understanding the CalWORKs system in California: A
primer for service providers and policymakers. Berkeley, CA: California Center for Research on Women and Families,
Public Health Institute. Available at http://www.ccrwf.org. According to one informant, however, there is only one
federally recognized exemption, being the parent of a child under age one. Personal communication, December 3, 2003,
Phil Ansell, Los Angeles Department of Social Services.
4
For details, see Kelch, D.R. (2002).
5
Point-in-time data from older systems, such as CDS, are not capable of producing longitudinal data analysis without a
labor-intensive manual extract of the data at regular intervals and matching clients by unique information (e.g., names,
social security numbers) using a third-party database such as Microsoft Access.
6
Federal Register, volume 64, no. 69, section 265.3 (c). If data referenced in section 265.3 are incomplete, inaccurate, or
untimely, states faces a sanction equivalent to 4 percent of the state’s TANF benefit for the quarter.
7
One data set samples two-parent cases; the other samples the remainder of the caseload.
8
Federal Register, volume 64, no. 69, section 265.3 (b)(3).
9
Personal communication, October 7, 2003, Joeana Carpenter, California Department of Social Services. See also Kelch,
D.R. (2002).
10
Personal communication, December 3, 2003, Julie Kimura, California Department of Social Services..
11
On the other hand, prior to FY 2000 – 2001, counties that met process standards through numbers working or exiting
CalWORKs were provided with “performance incentive funds” that totaled more than $1 billion. Ansell (2003).
12
Carpenter (2003).
13
RAND reports are available from the following website: http://www.rand.org/labor/CalWORKs/publications.html.
CDSS reports can viewed on their web site at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/default.htm.
14
California CalWORKs Client Outcomes
Page 14