DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing Welfare-To-Work Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing Welfare-To-Work Programs University of Wisconsin–Madison Institute for Research on Poverty Volume 22 Number 3 Focus Summer 2003 Comparing welfare-to-work programs 1 Income and program participation among early TANF recipients: The evidence from New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin 2 Successful welfare-to-work programs: Were Riverside and Portland really that good? 11 Single-parent families and the food safety net 19 Service and systems integration: Renewing the quest for the “Holy Grail” of public policy 24 TANF families and the child protective system: Evidence from Illinois and Wisconsin 26 Left behind: SSI in the era of welfare reform 35 New systems of social programs? Local implementation of health care, Food Stamp, and TANF programs 44 The service integration agenda: Political, conceptual, and methodological challenges 50 Building comprehensive human service systems 58 ISSN: 0195–5705 Comparing welfare-to-work programs The failure of mandatory basic education to help high school dropouts, the lack of clear guidance on what makes training effective, and the low earnings and persistent poverty of most welfare leavers point to the continued need to identify pre- and post-employment strategies that are more successful in getting people higher-wage jobs. From: “The Role of Education and Training in Welfare Reform,” Brookings Institution Welfare Reform and Beyond Brief 20, April 2002, by Judith M. Gueron and Gayle Hamilton. As welfare-to-work programs proliferate in 50 states, the need to determine which are effective, which not, becomes more urgent, and the task more daunting. The first two articles in this issue of Focus explore two different approaches to the use of existing survey and administrative data to compare the effects of programs in different states, revealing both the possibilities and the limits of these data. Income and program participation among early TANF recipients: The evidence from New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin Maria Cancian, Marieka M. Klawitter, Daniel R. Meyer, and former recipients of welfare. These studies offer a Anu Rangarajan, Geoffrey Wallace, and Robert G. Wood unique opportunity to use interstate differences in how such families were faring as a key to understanding the effectiveness of different policies. But cross-state com- parisons have been problematic, for the studies were gen- Maria Cancian is Professor of Public Affairs and Social erally constructed to be of use for a specific state, and so Work, Daniel Meyer is Professor of Social Work, and often use different sampling strategies and different defi- Geoffrey Wallace is Assistant Professor of Public Affairs nitions of key outcomes.2 Thus an important issue that we at the University of Wisconsin–Madison; all are IRP af- hoped to address is the extent to which cross-state com- filiates. Marieka Klawitter is Associate Professor of Pub- parisons are limited by substantive differences in pro- lic Affairs at the University of Washington. Anu grams as opposed to differences in data or the measures Rangarajan is Associate Director for Human Services used by researchers. Research and Robert G. Wood is a Senior Economist at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ. The research reported in this article constitutes an early effort to see whether preexisting data from several state studies can be made enough alike to permit valid com- From its peak in 1994 through 2001, the U.S. welfare parisons among state programs. It also reveals some of caseload declined by nearly 60 percent.1 The decline be- the difficulties confronting those who undertake the ef- came even more precipitous as state welfare reforms fort. Our aim was to develop a common set of analyses of picked up speed after Congress passed the Personal Re- the patterns of public benefits and earnings in three sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in states, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin, using 1996. In light of these dramatic reductions, many states administrative and survey data on those who have left sponsored studies to track what was happening to current welfare and those who have stayed. These three states Table 1 New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin, 1999, and the U.S. Average Characteristics New Jersey Washington Wisconsin United States Population Number (in millions) 8.1 5.8 5.3 273 Under age 18 (%) 24.6 25.8 25.7 25.7 Hispanic (%) 12.6 6.5 2.7 11.5 Black (%) 14.7 3.5 5.6 12.8 Noncitizen immigrant (1998, %) 8.9 4.4 1.7 6.3 Nonmetropolitan (%) N/A 17.2 32.3 20.1 Change in population 1990-99 (%) 5.1 18.3 7.3 9.6 Births to unmarried women 15–44 (1998, %) 28.3 27.9 28.5 32.8 Births to unmarried teens 15–19 (1997, %) 6.9 8.2 8.9 9.7 Birth rate per 1,000 women 15–19 (1998) 34.6 41.7 34.8 51.1 State Economic Characteristics Per capita income $35,551 $30,392 $27,390 $28,542 Unemployment rate (%) 4.6 4.7 3.0 4.2 Jobs in manufacturing (1998, %) 12.6 14.6 22.7 14.8 Jobs in service sector (1998, %) 32.1 27.4 25.9 29.9 Jobs in public sector (1998, %) 14.8 17.9 14.5 15.8 Family Profile Children in 2-parent families (%) 69.9 65.9 67.4 63.6 Children in 1-parent families (%) 21.7 23.7 22.4 24.8 Children in poverty (1998, %) 12.8 12.7 9.7 17.5 Adults in poverty (1998, %) 7.5 8.9 6.9 11.2 Source: Assessing the New Federalism, State Updates 6, 7, 8, 2001. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 2 Focus Vol. 22, No. 3, Summer 2003 were chosen in part because in each state a survey of families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Fami- Table 2 lies (TANF) has been or is being conducted by indepen- Characteristics of Welfare Clients in New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin dent researchers, and because each has taken somewhat 3 different approaches to TANF. New Jersey Washington Wisconsin The Work First New Jersey program is being comprehen- Age (in years) sively evaluated by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Younger than 20 9 3 6 20–29 44 43 58 which is tracking a representative statewide sample of 2,000 30–39 32 36 27 adult TANF case heads, beginning in 1997 and continuing to 40 or older 15 18 9 follow those who left as well as those who stayed. In Wash- Avg. age 30 33 28 ington, a team under the general leadership of the state Ethnicity Employment Security Department has been surveying 3,000 Black 51 9 63 current and former participants in Washington’s Work First Hispanic 27 9 10 TANF program since 1999. Wisconsin data come from the White 17 74 24 Survey of Wisconsin Families that is an integral part of the Other 5 11 4 Child Support Demonstration Evaluation; the survey ac- Education quired comprehensive information about the work and wel- < High school 39 21 46 fare experiences of about 3,000 Wisconsin families partici- High school (and/or GED) 44 42 36 More than high school 17 37 19 pating in Wisconsin Works (W-2), beginning in September 1997.4 Thus the surveys cover roughly the same period of Never married 69 38 83 time and are comparable in size and in broad methodologi- No. of children cal approach (for instance, all use a randomly selected study 1474134 sample). 2292929 3161321 4 or more 8 7 16 Some characteristics of the states and the Avg. age of youngest child 4.6 8 3.6 survey participants Worked in 2-yr period before TANF entry (from UI data) 54 75 81 In 1999 the three states that we examine were, in many respects, better off than the U.S. average, with fewer Wisconsin participants had the most extensive work ex- individuals in poverty, lower teen and nonmarital birth perience in the two years preceding TANF entry—80 rates, and fewer children in single-parent families (Table percent had worked, compared to about three-quarters of 1). They differed from each other in the ethnic and immi- the Washington participants and just over half of New grant composition of the population. New Jersey, for Jersey participants. example, had a far higher proportion of black and His- panic residents, and of noncitizen immigrants, than either Washingt on or Wisconsin. The states also differed in the distribution of employment—Wisconsin’s economy is The TANF programs more heavily dominated by manufacturing than are the economies of the other two states. Whereas the unem- The design of the welfare programs in these states shares ployment rate was below the national average only in certain broad commonalities, but the details vary substan- Wisconsin, per capita income was above the national tially. These differences are in part a matter of emphasis. average in New Jersey and Washington, and below it in In all three states, for example, the state version of TANF Wisconsin. Poverty rates were below the national average emphasizes engagement in work or worklike activities; in all three states. only women with children under 3 months (12 weeks) are categorically exempt, though some hard-to-serve indi- The participants in these three surveys also show substan- viduals and those with disabilities may be exempted by tial differences (Table 2). The New Jersey survey, as administrative decision. Wisconsin is by far the most would be expected, has by far the largest percentage of rigorous in its emphasis on work, assigning all applicants Hispanics. Three-quarters of the Washington survey par- immediately to a stage in a four-rung “job ladder” in- ticipants are white, and Wisconsin has the largest per- tended to progress toward unsubsidized employment and centage of African Americans.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Variance in California's General Assistance Welfare Rates: a Dilemma and a Solution James P
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 13 | Number 2 Article 5 1-1-1973 Variance in California's General Assistance Welfare Rates: A Dilemma and a Solution James P. Wagoner Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James P. Wagoner, Comment, Variance in California's General Assistance Welfare Rates: A Dilemma and a Solution, 13 Santa Clara Lawyer 304 (1973). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VARIANCE IN CALIFORNIA'S GENERAL ASSISTANCE WELFARE RATES: A DILEMMA AND A SOLUTION INTRODUCTION In Siskiyou County, a family of two or more persons in the General Assistance welfare category receives an average welfare allotment of five dollars per Month.1 In Tulare County, how- ever, a similar family of two or more persons receives an aver- age of one hundred eighty-eight dollars and thirty-three cents per month.2 In California's fifty-six other counties, the General As- gistance rates range between these two extremes with an overall average of about eighty-three dollars per month for a family of two or more.3 Since the board of supervisors of each county is vested with the discretionary authority to set the level of support for their respective counties,4 some variation should be expected.
    [Show full text]
  • Medi-Cal Expansion and Children's Well-Being
    NOVEMBER 2019 Paulette Cha and Medi-Cal Expansion and Shannon McConville with research support from Children’s Well-Being Daniel Tan © 2019 Public Policy Institute of California PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or of the staff, officers, advisory councils, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. SUMMARY CONTENTS Under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), California expanded eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, to most non-elderly, non-disabled Introduction 5 low-income adults. Although this change focused directly on improving the Uninsured Rates for health and well-being of adults, it is likely that Medi-Cal expansion has had a California Families Declined Dramatically 6 dramatic effect on households with children. Coverage Gains In recent years, as the federal government has attempted to dismantle the ACA, Have Been Unevenly Distributed 8 California policymakers have continued to push forward with efforts to protect and expand coverage gains. A better understanding of the impact of adult Medicaid’s Effects on Adults May Also Medi-Cal on child well-being can help inform state efforts to expand health Benefit Children 10 care coverage and improve outcomes for low-income children and families.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Reform in California: Early Results from the Impact Analysis, Executive Summary (MR-1358/1-CDSS)
    Welfare Reform in California Early Results from the Impact Analysis Jacob Alex Klerman V. Joseph Hotz Elaine Reardon Amy G. Cox Donna O. Farley Steven J. Haider Guido Imbens Robert Schoeni MR-1358-CDSS Prepared for the California Department of Social Services LABOR AND POPULATION The research described in this report was prepared for the California Department of Social Services under Contract No. H38030. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Welfare reform in California : early results from the impact analysis / Jacob A. Klerman ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MR-1358.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3039-6 1. Welfare recipients—Employment—California. 2. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (Program) 3. Public welfare—California. I. Klerman, Jacob Alex. HV98.C3 W43 2001 362.5'8'09794—dc21 2001041901 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s pub- lications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] iii Preface In response to national welfare reform legislation, California passed legislation on August 11, 1997, that replaced the existing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) programs with the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Administration and the Rights of Welfare Recipients Lise A
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-1977 Welfare Administration and the Rights of Welfare Recipients Lise A. Pearlman Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lise A. Pearlman, Welfare Administration and the Rights of Welfare Recipients, 29 Hastings L.J. 19 (1977). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol29/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Welfare Administration and the Rights of Welfare Recipients By LIsE A. PEARLMAN* A society that sacrifices the health and well-being of its [indigent] young upon the false altar of economy endangers its own future, and, indeed, its own survival., - Mathew 0. Tobriner During his tenure on the California Supreme Court,2 Mathew Tobriner has had the opportunity to fashion significant new law ex- panding the rights of the poor. In addition to writing seminal opinions in Randone v. Appellate Department,3 in which the court struck down California's prejudgment attachment laws as violative of the procedural due process guarantees of the state and federal constitutions, and Green v. Superior Court,4 in which the court recognized an implied warranty of habitability as a defense to an unlawful detainer action, Justice Tobriner has made a substantial contribution to the evolution of the law in the highly controversial area of welfare administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Division 26. Chapter 26-234-26 Thru 26-514.90
    STATISTICAL REPORTS Handbook REPORTS - PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 26-234.05 (Cont.) 26- 234 SUMMARY REPORT ON CLAIMS OF GOOD CAUSE FOR 26-234 REFUSING TO COOPERATE IN ESTABLISHING PATERNITY AND SECURING CHILD SUPPORT (FORM CA 1004) 26-234.01 CONTENT 26-234.01 This report is a summary of Good Cause claims received and actions taken during the six-months period (October-March or April-September) covered by the report. 26-234.02 PURPOSE 26-234.02 To provide federal administrators with information needed to access the program impact of the Good Cause regulations (45 CFR Part 232, Sections 40-49); and for congressional reporting. 26-234.03 DISTRIBUTION 26-234.03 Information gathered in this report is compiled for use in reporting to DHHS Office of Research and Statistics, SSA. 26-234.04 DUE DATE 26-234.04 Reports are due in Sacramento not later than the 15th working day of the calendar month following the report period. Send report to: State Department of Social Services Statistical Services 744 P Street, Mail Station 19-81 Sacramento, CA 95814 26-234.05 DEFINITIONS 26-234.05 Each applicant/recipient is required to cooperate with the county welfare department and District Attorney in establishing paternity and securing child support when he/she has requested or is receiving AFDC aid payments. Cooperation involves identifying and locating the absent parent(s) of a child; establishing paternity of a child; and obtaining support payments for himself/herself and for a child. However, the applicant/recipient has the right to claim good cause (good reason) for refusing to cooperate if he/she feels that cooperation would not be in the best interests of the child (EAS 43-107).
    [Show full text]
  • Child Welfare Primer
    CCRWF CalWORKs/Child Welfare Partnership Project CALIFORNIA CENTER FORRESEARCH Kate Karpilow, Ph.D. ON WOMEN & FAMILIES Project Director Linda Orrante, M.S.W. Project Coordinator November 2002 Dear Social Service Providers and Policymakers: On any given day in California, 131,000 children and youth are involved in the public child welfare system. Each year, over 500,000 children-six percent of the state’s population under age 18-come to the attention of child welfare officials because of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. How many of us have a basic understanding of the laws and programs set up to care for these children? This Primer aims to orient service providers to the building blocks and key issues of the public child welfare system. The Primer is also intended to educate local and state policymakers responsible for crafting public policy. There is considerable need for professionals in many fields to understand the many facets of the child welfare system, particularly as many of California’s counties move to coordinate services to high-risk families. In addition to highlighting the major laws, programs, and financing mechanisms, the Primer describes the four services required in each county child welfare agency (Emergency Response, Family Maintenance, Family Reunification, and Permanent Placement) and outlines the juvenile dependency court process. The Primer also reports the reasons that children are involved in the system and describes the children’s backgrounds. Looking to the future, the Primer summarizes key challenges facing child welfare professionals and policymakers, ranging from improving data management and evaluating outcomes to assessing the shortage of foster care families.
    [Show full text]
  • On-Site Program Brochure
    County Welfare Directors Association of California 2015 Conference Navigating a Journey of Change and Hope October 14–16, 2015 Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel Platinum Gold Thanks To Our Sponsors Thanks To Bronze CWDA 2015 CONFERENCE • Navigating a Journey of Change and Hope Welcome! n behalf of CWDA – the County Welfare Directors Association of California – we welcome you Oto our 2015 Conference: Navigating a Journey of Change and Hope. We are honored that more than 850 people are gathered here with the same mission in mind: to advocate, collaborate and educate one another on behalf of the children, families and individuals we collectively serve to help improve their well-being and the well-being of our communities. There is much work ahead to change the harsh realities our children and families face each day. According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau’s figures released last month, nearly one in six Californians and more than one in five California children lived in poverty in 2014. Still, we have hope. We know that public supports, such as tax credits for working families with low incomes, food assistance and housing supports coupled with job training and placement make a difference. When we provide foster children and youth safe, loving and permanent homes, they thrive. Over the next three days, we will learn how we can expand on successful programs such as the CalWORKs Housing Support Program that in the first year led to more than 3,000 homeless families being placed in permanent homes. You will hear about opportunities to promote the state’s new tax credit for low-income working families – the California Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) while providing opportunities for subsidized employment placements and working with Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA).
    [Show full text]
  • Calworks: a Comprehensive Guide to Welfare and Related Medi-Cal Issues for California Families
    CalWORKs: A Comprehensive Guide to Welfare and Related Medi-Cal Issues for California Families DORA LUNA NU USAHA Editors 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 487-7211 www.wclp.org WINTER 2009 (fourth edition) © 2009 Western Center on Law & Poverty Acknowledgments This version of the CalWORKs manual is the result of many peoples’ work: Western Center attorneys Nu Usaha, Dick Rothschild, Robert Newman each wrote chapters, as did Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County attorney Dora Luna. Jodie Berger of Legal Services of Northern California wrote Chapter VI; Curt Child of the Office of Governmental Affairs at the Administrative Office of the Courts wrote Chapter X on Child Support; Eve Hershcopf of the Child Care Law Center collaborated with Dora Luna to re- write Chapter VII on Child Care; Minouche Kandel of Bay Area Legal Aid revised the domestic abuse sections of various chapters; and Vanessa Lee of Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County revised sections on foster care issues. The original (1998) version of this manual was edited by former Western Center advocates Clare Pastore and Paula Gaber, and was modeled on “Mastering the Maze,” a comprehensive guide to the AFDC program created by former Western Center advocates Kate Meiss and Beth Steckler. We gratefully acknowledge the help of many others in editing and suggesting changes to the manual, especially Jodie Berger of Legal Services of Northern California, Minouche Kandel and Ariella Hyman of Bay Area Legal Aid, Leora Gershezon of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, Hope Nakamura of the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo, Stephen Goldberg of Legal Services of Northern California, Laurel Blankenship of Legal Services of Northern California, and Abby McClelland of Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County.
    [Show full text]
  • Jane Mauldon
    Jane Mauldon University of California Goldman School of Public Policy 2607 Hearst Avenue #7320, Berkeley, CA 94720-7320 Phone: (510) 642-3475 Fax: (510) 643-9657 Email: [email protected] Education Ph.D. in Public and International Affairs (1988) and M.P.A. in Public and International Affairs and Urban and Regional Planning (1984). Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Dissertation: “The Effect of Marital Disruption on Children’s Health.” B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, 1976. Oxford University, Oxford, England. Positions Held 1990 - Present: Associate Professor, formerly Assistant Professor, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley. 2002- 2008: Associate Director, Survey Research Center/UC DATA, University of California Berkeley. 2001- 2002: Acting Director, Survey Research Center/UC DATA, University of California Berkeley. Acting Director of Survey Operations, Survey Services Facility, Survey Research Center 1988 - 1990: Post-Doctoral Fellow, Labor and Population Program. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 1984 - 1987: Consultant, Center for Health Facilities Research. Trenton, New Jersey. 1980 - 1983: Coordinator, Advocates for Abused Women. Carson City, Nevada. 1979 - 1980: Economic Developer, McDermitt Indian Reservation. Fort McDermitt, Nevada. 1976 - 1978: Instructor of English as a Foreign Language, Voluntary Service Overseas. Vientiane, Laos. Peer-Reviewed Articles “Effect of Abortion vs. Carrying to Term on a Woman's Relationship with the Man Involved in the Pregnancy.” J. Mauldon, D.G. Foster, S. C. M Roberts. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2015. 47(1). “Attitudes of Welfare Recipients toward Marriage and Childbearing.” J. G. Mauldon, R.A. London, D.J. Fein, R. Patterson, H. Sommer. Population Research and Policy Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Services in Central California's San Joaquin Valley
    Social Services in Central California’s San Joaquin Valley Today’s Challenges - Tomorrow’s Outcomes June 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Central California Area Social Services Consortium Member Counties: Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Stanislaus Tulare California State University, College of Health and Human Services, Department of Social Work Education Central California Social Welfare Research, Training and Evaluation Center J. Fiorello, Valley Professional Services, Author Social Services in Central California’s San Joaquin Valley Today’s Challenges – Tomorrow’s Outcomes BACKGROUND In recent years there has been increasing public and governmental awareness of the demographic and social differences between California’s Central Valley counties – Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare – and the rest of the state. The San Joaquin Valley, with agriculture as its primary industry, is experiencing explosive population growth rates with consequent increasingly intense stressors on its human services and fiscal support systems. In comparison to the rest of California, the Valley is home to increasing numbers of immigrant and monolingual families, and relatively flat growth rates in non- agriculture industry. Allocation of available state and federal social service resources continues to fall behind the escalating levels of public demand, while local economies struggle to maintain fiscal viability. In recognition of the Valley’s unique challenges, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, through the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, has requested information and recommendations for improving social services-related outcomes for residents of the Central Valley. The Central California Area Social Services Consortium (CCASSC), comprised of eight Valley and two coastal counties, provided the staff and technical support needed to respond to the Governor’s request.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of C Alifornia
    The Rise and Fall of Ca l i f o r n i a ’ s Wel f a r e Caseload: Types and Re g i o n s , 19 8 0–1 9 9 9 ••• Thomas MaCurdy Da vid Mancuso Margaret O’Brien-Strai n 2000 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data MaCurdy, Thomas E. The rise and fall of California’s welfare caseload : types and regions, 1980–1999 / Thomas MaCurdy, David Mancuso, Margaret O’Brien-Strain. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-58213-053-1 1. Public welfare—California. 2. Public welfare—California— Statistics. I. Mancuso, David, 1967– II. O’Brien-Strain, Margaret. HV98.C3 M33 2000 362.5'09794'09048—dc21 00-040313 Copyright © 2000 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Foreword In the four years since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, new state-level welfare policies have been implemented throughout the country. During the same time, California and the nation have experienced unprecedented growth in jobs for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers. Not all Californians have benefited from this good fortune, however, and an important question remains unanswered: Do recent caseload reductions show that welfare reform was just the thing needed to nudge the hesitant worker into the labor force, or will the new rules and time limitations prove to be too much and too harsh for most indigent families? The jury is still out on this question, but The Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseload begins to approach it by offering a detailed analysis of the economic, demographic, and regional factors that drive California’s caseload trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Welfare Work in California; a Study of Agencies and Institutions
    "f-:''^' '^•..,. -* ..UjJ. „ -'w; "vie ' ~ :; * • ' *t'' ?'^''.v ^x A:-"-^5..,T^':-^ ^-J*::; *€:f' :^'^;r:; 9 71^A''- CHILD WELFARE WORK IN CALIFORNIA A STUDY OF AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS BY WILLIAM H. SLINGERLAND, PH.D. SPECIAL AGENT DEPARTMENT OF CHILD-HELPING RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION INTRODUCTION BY HASTINGS H. HART, LL.D. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CHILD-HELPING RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION MCMXV , 3 7^^ 1^4 17 Copyright, 1916, by The Russell Sage Foundation THE RUMFORD PRESS CONCORD, N. H. — PREFACE THIS volume is a contribution to the fund of facts now being gathered in regard to child-helping in the United States, it describes the agencies and institutions of the state of California devoted to the care of dependent, delinquent, and defec- tive children. The book is one of a series specially prepared to present and illustrate the types of institutions and methods of service used in behalf of such children in various commonwealths of the nation. Three volumes in this related group are by the same author the present volume. Child Welfare Work in California; one pre- viously published. Child Welfare Work in Pennsylvania, with its supplement, A Child Welfare Symposium; and one nearly ready for the press, Child Welfare Work in Washington. The fourth volume of the series, by Miss Florence Lattimore, will describe the child-caring agencies of Maryland. Child Welfare Work in California is both a descriptive survey and a manual of reference, adapted to the needs of social workers and all those who are interested in children's charities. It contains a very complete list of the child-caring agencies and institutions of the state, with brief textual narratives and extended statistical tables.
    [Show full text]