Once they have "timed out" of the transitional period, they continue to be eligible and can continue to receive a child care subsidy for as long as they meet the income eligibility criteria. For these families, the system has been designed to be "seamless," and thus they are not required to reapply. However, the research team heard concerns on the part of several state administrators and local providers about the uncertainty regarding the long-term adequacy of funds allocated to CalWORKs child care.
The eligibility cutoff for State Preschool Programs is 60 percent of the state median income, on average, and varies according to family size this cutoff differs from that for the other child care programs. Once families enter, they stay in the system until they income out more than 75 percent of SMI or their children age out. Children served through Child Protective Services are the highest priority for subsidized child care slots, with an estimated 15 percent of funds used for these children.
Because of the lack of centralized waiting lists to date, and the fact that families can be wait-listed with more than one provider, there is no reliable statewide figure indicating the actual unduplicated number of families on waiting lists. Localities across the state are now working to establish centralized eligibility lists, and pilot programs in several counties are exploring how to overcome barriers so that centralized lists can become available statewide.
California has no universal preschool program, but the State Preschool Program exists for a limited number of income-eligible 3- and 4-year-olds there are programs, typically offering a half-day program for children, with a parent education and involvement component. The state superintendent of instruction has recommended that universal preschool, offering at least a half-day program to all 3- and 4-year-olds in the state, be phased in over a ten-year period.
However, as of the time of our site visits, no current funding source existed for the universal preschool program. A new and relatively large state-funded program is the Proposition 10 State and County Children and Families Commissions. Commissions are established in every county to administer funds generated through the voter-approved cent tax per pack of cigarettes. Funds are to be used "to create and implement a comprehensive, collaborative, and integrated system of information and services to promote, support, and optimize early childhood development from the prenatal stage to five years of age.
The California Children and Families Commission sponsored the School Readiness Initiative Task Force, which began meeting in to explore ways to improve the ability of families, schools, and communities to prepare children entering school for success. While the overall program design is based on research, each county program also has the flexibility to accommodate local needs.
The initiative will be supported by a campaign to educate the public about the availability of "school readiness" resources and about the standards and expectations for early education and kindergarten, and by the development of research-based School Readiness assessments for children and for schools. In addition, California funds the following programs funds shown are for FY , where available:. Many of these programs include staff recruitment, training, and curriculum development activities, and others provide funds to support the building or renovation of buildings, classrooms, or family child care homes.
The Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund provided funds to purchase and relocate child care facilities. Head Start programs are almost all part-day and do not operate year-round. The California Head Start Collaboration Project, funded by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families as of , aims to coordinate Head Start and state child care and development programs, such as linking state and Head Start programs to create full-day services.
California is the only study state in which two state agencies have major responsibilities for administering and regulating child care and development programs: The three major low-income child care subsidy programs follow. CalWORKs child care is a three-stage child care delivery system. This program is administered by CDE and is also within Stage 3.
Contracted child care provides subsidies for low-income families through contracted child care providers. Approximately agencies hold child development contracts, many of which are public school districts. The contracted program is administered by CDE. The three-stage child care delivery system for current and former CalWORKs participants with the division of administration between CDE and CDSS was the result of a political compromise between the Republican governor and the Democratic legislature in Further complicating coordination, CDSS is under the governor's purview with staff appointed by the governor , while CDE is under the direction of the independently elected state superintendent of instruction, controlled by the state legislature.
The division of administrative responsibility for welfare-related child care services has required the two agencies to coordinate their efforts to a much greater extent than they did before welfare reform. Traditionally, CDSS has viewed child care as a support service to assist welfare families to become self-sufficient, while CDE has viewed child care from the perspective of child development through education. Through this working relationship CDSS and CDE staff overseeing child care and development programs met weekly for a year from the onset of welfare reform to coordinate services , both agencies have tried to eliminate barriers to coordination at the local level.
One result of state-level collaboration was the adoption of a single eligibility standard for voucher payments. The eligibility criteria still differ between state preschool and general child care funded programs and vouchers. A single child care subsidy reimbursement rate mechanism based on an annual regional market rate survey is used for families on and transitioning off of cash aid. Before CalWORKs, there were 18 different state and federally funded programs, different provider rates, different criteria for eligibility, and different rules and regulations.
However, the 10 remaining programs still administered by CDE continue to have some differences. Increasingly, CWDs are contracting with other local agencies including alternative payment and resource and referral agencies to administer Stage 1 child care. As of , the majority of CWDs had contracted with the alternative payment programs in their county to administer Stage 1, thereby making the system as seamless as possible for more than 80 percent of the Stage 1 caseload. Under CalWORKs, local Child Care Resource and Referral programs based in each county and funded through CDE are required to "colocate" in or near county welfare departments, or "arrange by other means of swift communication" assistance for parents to identify and use child care services.
In some cases, CWDs have provided office space for resource and referral staff to be physically located on site; in other areas of the state, "colocation" is achieved by having a dedicated telephone line to the resource and referral program from the welfare office. These arrangements are determined locally, and therefore vary by county. Parents may choose licensed or license-exempt providers. Licensed providers are required to meet basic health and safety standards developed by the Community Care Licensing Division and found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and are subject to criminal background checks.
License-exempt providers except for grandparents, aunts, and uncles must be registered with TrustLine, the statewide system for background checks for all in-home and license-exempt family child care providers, and must complete a health and safety self-certification form.
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (Program) [WorldCat Identities]
Although there has been substantial new funding for welfare-related child care Stages , there has been very little increase in funds for the general child care program for low-income families. There has been much negotiation about whether there is enough money overall and if it is allocated to the three stages appropriately. Data collection and reporting systems for the two state-level agencies administering child care services are not coordinated and their computer systems are still separate, making it difficult to determine or predict service needs, system capacity, and utilization for the system as a whole.
In April , the department implemented a caseload data collection system for all CalWORKs Stage 2 and 3 contractors that complemented the existing fiscal expenditure reporting requirement. Agencies were required to report monthly since July agencies have been reporting via Internet and the data collected allowed for the determination of agency-specific fiscal needs for both the existing caseload and the caseload that would transfer into each of the stages.
This system has proven reliable for requesting additional funds from the CalWORKs reserve for Stage 2 unmet need and for the administration's statewide budget-building. Agency-specific information is now being used to augment or reduce contracts based on their caseload-driven nature. Eligibility levels, priority listings for which families are served, family copayment levels, and reimbursement rates are all legislatively mandated at the state level. All families must make a copayment once their income reaches 50 percent of the state median income.
Families pay fees on a sliding scale, which is the same for CalWORKs child care and greater arena families. The formula for copayment rates is set at the state level. California only charges fees for one child in the family; fees are waived for any additional children in subsidized care. At the time of our visits, there was considerable discussion at the state level about raising the family fees.
All counties are held to the same regional market structure, so the reimbursement rates for CalWORKs and "greater arena" child care are the same. The market rate survey is conducted annually by the California Resource and Referral Network. The state is currently paying rates up to 1. For contracted providers, or "center-based care," as they are referred to, a standard reimbursement rate is set by the state, and is based on a daily rate per child.
Higher rates are paid for children with special needs, although this appears to be a local decision one of our sites did not reimburse at higher rates for children with special needs. Higher rates are also available for infant care 1. Who Is Paid, and How. Providers are reimbursed directly by county welfare departments or AP programs with whom CWDs contract for Stage 1 services for care provided to families in Stage 1.
Providers are reimbursed from AP programs for children of families in Stages 2 and 3 and for children of families in "greater arena" child care. Contracted providers are paid directly by the state, using daily rates for full-day care up to the providers' licensed capacity, and the reimbursement amount is expected to cover all provider expenses. Before welfare reform, the law stated that parents could be paid directly and would, in turn, pay their provider , but this has been changed. State law now requires that for CalWORKs, the provider be paid by the contractor, except in instances of in-home exempt care.
When a parent selects an in-home license-exempt provider, the contractor may pay the parent directly. With CalWORKs in operation, California's child care subsidy system has undergone considerable administrative and programmatic changes. Before welfare reform, the state provided subsidized child care through 18 state and federal programs, and administered these programs through two separate delivery systems, one for welfare families and another for families not on welfare.
The two state agencies, characterized by fundamental ideological and political leadership differences, often found it challenging to coordinate child care policies and procedures. Differences in eligibility requirements, maximum payment amounts, eligible providers, priority groups for subsidies, and time limits typified the earlier system. CalWORKs resulted from a political compromise to maintain subsidy administration within these two state agencies.
However, the new system requires greater coordination and collaboration on the part of both agencies in order to streamline service delivery and to consolidate key policies to form a single three-stage system serving families on and transitioning off welfare. CalWORKs has added major new resources to the subsidized child care system. Before welfare reform, California had been recognized since as a national leader in its commitment to providing child development program subsidies.
Most of the federal expansion of full-day, year-round child care has gone to AP contracts over the past ten years. In addition to an inadequate supply of child care in many regions of the state, there are high rates of staff turnover and severe problems with recruitment and retention of providers.
The Child Development Division is working on multiple fronts to 1 bolster child care capacity, 2 enhance recruitment of providers, 3 conduct pilot staff training and retention initiatives, and 4 improve program quality through professional development and installation of a newly developed results-based accountability system for all child development programs, Desired Results for Children and Families.
In addition, the state is developing a master plan for increasing parent involvement in subsidized child care and development programs, through the Early Care and Education Family Partnership Initiative. Although California's subsidized child care system is the largest and one of the most generous among the states, it continues to be challenged by 1 its own complexity, 2 inadequate funding to serve all eligible families, 3 inequitable access to subsidies for nonwelfare families, 4 lack of statewide data systems, and 5 shortages of care for infants and toddlers, children with special needs, children with short- or long-term illnesses, and care during nontraditional hours.
The three-stage system may not be working as originally intended, as it has been difficult to predict caseloads, transfer rates, and the rates at which families stabilize and can be transferred to Stage 2. While the CalWORKs three-stage program was designed to provide immediate access for cash-aided families to obtain the child care that they needed for work or work-related activities, it is also the case that these families are of the lowest income, and would have had highest priority on any waiting list.
CalWORKs child care did not necessarily create an equity issue, but certainly highlighted the problem of inadequate funding for the subsidized child care system, particularly for low-income non-CalWORKs families. The transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2 is supposed to be simply a "paper transfer. In addition, because of funding anomalies, families may remain in either stage depending on where funds are available, regardless of their welfare status.
Because of the statutory guarantee to provide subsidized child care to families that are receiving or transitioning off cash aid for a two-year period , funding priorities have favored welfare families, leaving many eligible nonwelfare families waiting for child care. It is estimated that , to , children in non-CalWORKs working poor families that qualify for subsidies are waiting for openings.
At the time of this report, several California communities were engaged in a state-supported pilot process to explore the feasibility of centralizing eligibility lists, with the intent of replicating successful strategies statewide. A recent Child Care Fiscal Policy Analysis conducted for the State and Consumer Services Agency, in response to concerns about the cost and availability of subsidized child care services in California, warned that continuing to provide CalWORKs families guaranteed access to subsidized child care will become increasingly costly in the coming years.
Although current law does not guarantee access to subsidized care after the two-year transitional period ends, it has been the practice of state policymakers to continue to guarantee access to child care by providing additional funding under Stage 3 specifically for these families. The report estimates that the cost to provide continued unlimited access to child care under Stage 3 will grow by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
The report provides alternatives for cost containment through adjustments to the state's policies regarding eligibility, family fees, and subsidy levels. Child welfare agencies seek to protect children from abuse and neglect. They may intervene in families in which such behavior is suspected; may offer services to such families or require that families complete service programs; and may remove children from their home and place them in state-supervised care if children face imminent or ongoing risk of abuse or neglect in the home.
Nationally, many policymakers, researchers, and advocates expressed concern that families that did not fare well under the new welfare requirements might be referred to child welfare agencies for child abuse or neglect. Thus far, however, child welfare caseloads in California have not increased following welfare reform. Welfare reform does appear to have affected the financing of child welfare services in the three counties we visited.
In addition, welfare reform has spurred a variety of collaborative efforts between welfare and child welfare offices. In California, child welfare services are state supervised by the DSS and administered by 56 local agencies. This means that the state provides guidance and oversight, but counties have considerable decisionmaking authority over how to design and operate programs to best meet local needs.
Even compared to other county-administered states, California appears to give its counties considerable decisionmaking authority and fiscal responsibility. As a consequence, child welfare policies and practices vary greatly from county to county. In all three of the counties we visited, local officials met to discuss the impact of welfare reform on the child welfare system. Administrators in these counties noted that welfare and child welfare officials were concerned about the fate of welfare recipients who did not fare well following the reforms and wanted to develop strategies to identify such persons.
In San Diego, these discussions led to the formation of an umbrella health and human services agency based on the belief that consolidating welfare and social services into a single agency would lead to the greater collaboration seen as necessary following the reforms.
Despite widespread concerns in the state, thus far child welfare caseloads have not increased following welfare reform. In , California investigated allegations of abuse and neglect involving , children, a 2 percent decrease since California's victimization rate of After doubling between and the number of California children in child welfare supervised foster care declined 8 percent between July and July to 97, children. These increases are not attributed to an increased incidence of foster care placement which has been relatively stable over this entire period , but rather to a growth in the child population and foster children remaining in care for long periods of time.
In essence, the foster care caseload had been increasing because the number of children who entered foster care outnumbered those who exited. While respondents agreed that welfare reform had yet to significantly affect child welfare caseloads, social workers did note some changes that they thought might be early warning signs of future impacts. Social workers most often mentioned their perception that the number of children being reported for inadequate supervision had increased. The workers attributed this shift to higher numbers of employed single mothers who had not secured adequate child care.
For example, single mothers were employed during the day to meet welfare requirements, but such employment made it difficult for them to attend court hearings, visit foster children, or access services required as part of their child welfare case plan. Although welfare reform is known for the block granting of federal income assistance, PRWORA also altered federal funding streams that many states have used to pay for child welfare services.
While total child welfare spending in California increased 16 percent between state fiscal years and as well as in each of our three case study sites , budget specialists in the three counties we visited documented a variety of impacts of welfare reform on child welfare financing. Los Angeles officials noted that the number of foster children receiving SSI had dropped from 2, to while Alameda officials estimated that about a quarter of the foster children who had been receiving SSI lost benefits.
Budget officials in all three of our case study sites also noted concerns with the transition from Emergency Assistance to TANF. As in many states, a number of California counties hired revenue maximization experts to increase the amount of federal Emergency Assistance funds they could claim for child welfare services. Thus, many counties had seen their Emergency Assistance revenue increase significantly before welfare reform. Under TANF, the state has had difficulty meeting its maintenance of effort requirement and is now continuing the Emergency Assistance program by paying for it out of state general revenue funds so it can count as part of the maintenance of effort.
This has capped the program and limited its growth. County budget officials also noted that the uncertainty of TANF funds and how they are allocated to the counties makes it difficult to plan. The state distributes TANF funds to the counties through several different allocations with different requirements. Since much of the funding that a county receives depends upon how well welfare recipients secure employment, increase earnings, and exit welfare, county officials noted that they were uncertain as to the level of funds they would receive.
Moreover, there was confusion over which services could be funded through the different state TANF allocations. Many families receiving services from child welfare agencies also receive welfare assistance. These dual-system families may face competing demands. They must meet the new requirements imposed on welfare recipients in order to receive assistance, while simultaneously meeting case plan goals developed by child welfare agencies in order to keep their children or have their children returned to them.
Despite the overlap in populations, historically there has been little formal collaboration between child welfare and welfare agencies. While joint case planning is still the exception rather than the rule and child welfare workers report difficulties in collaborating with TANF agency workers, in each of our California case study sites welfare reform appears to have spurred collaborative efforts between welfare and child welfare agencies. Alameda County has outstationed a child welfare worker at two of its three employment and training self-sufficiency centers in order to have an expert on-site to provide guidance regarding child welfare issues.
These individuals are available to assist TANF workers when clients are in the office or to answer questions as they arise. In San Diego, a new position has been funded in the Health and Human Services Agency to identify all families involved with both the welfare and child welfare agencies. Once such a dual-system family has been identified, the workers from the two agencies will be contacted to encourage them to coordinate case planning activities. In addition, San Diego officials noted that this effort would help identify services being provided through child welfare that could be supported with TANF money.
While we asked child welfare respondents about the impact of welfare reform, most identified other issues as more critical for their agency. The issue that workers and administrators most often cited as affecting child welfare was the use of a new computer system, the Child Welfare Services Case Management System.
According to workers, the new system required considerably more time to manage than workers had previously spent completing paper forms. Cuts in clerical staff made their workloads even greater. Many workers commented that they were now spending more time in front of a computer than visiting with clients. Administrators acknowledged that the new system was a significant source of worker frustration. The additional workload demands of the computer system are exacerbated by the additional demands imposed on workers by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of The act reduced the length of time the agency has to work out reunification, adoption, or another permanent living arrangement for children placed in foster care.
Workers noted that the act's new requirements significantly increased the amount of paperwork they must complete as well as the amount of time they spend in court. Officials in each of the three case study counties also identified a severe lack of foster homes as a growing problem. Workers noted that the lack of family foster homes has led to more and more children remaining in shelter or emergency placements, being placed with relatives whose ability to care for children was considered "marginal," or entering residential or group care facilities.
Finally, child welfare workers noted that drug abuse continues to be a major problem for at least 75 percent of their clients. In California, workers noted that the crack epidemic of the s and early s has given way to methamphetamine, a drug that can be easily and very cheaply produced. Most social welfare programs in California are state supervised and county administered. State agencies set overall policies, make rules, determine eligibility criteria, and set benefit levels. State agencies also monitor local practices and provide technical assistance to counties to ensure state policies are followed.
Within these parameters, counties have varying amounts of administrative flexibility. The state welfare reform legislation provided counties with significantly more discretion in administering their welfare programs than they previously had. California is one of five states in this study that devolved decisionmaking regarding the formulation of welfare programs to the counties. California counties have flexibility with regard to setting policies in the areas of 1 diversion payments, 2 youngest child exemptions within the range of 12 weeks to one year , 3 domestic violence exemptions if the counties determine that any program requirements, including time limits and work requirements, put an individual at risk of further abuse , and 4 designing their welfare-to-work programs including determination of good cause for nonparticipation, allowable work-related activities, and the nature of community service jobs.
These policies are set forth in each county's CalWORKs plan, in which counties are also required to state how they will collaborate with public and private agencies to provide training and supportive services. California has traditionally provided relatively generous income support for its low-income population.
In addition, the eligibility limit for child care subsidies, 75 percent of the state median income, is relatively high when compared to that of many other states. The fees charged to families are lower, and California pays a subsidy rate that allows eligible families to access nearly all 93 percent of the providers in their community, without making a copayment until the family's income is greater than or equal to 50 percent of SMI.
California also provides a child care tax credit to low- and middle-income families. New federal revenues under CalWORKs have infused the child care subsidy system with substantial new resources, and although many thousands of eligible non-CalWORKs families are waiting for slots, the system has essentially guaranteed CalWORKs families access to child care for as long as they remain eligible. Given this situation, non-CalWORKs families are realizing that the only sure way to access child care subsidies is to apply for cash assistance, an incentive that is operating at cross-purposes with the overall goals of CalWORKs.
CalWORKs continues and strengthens California's emphasis from earlier years on "work first" and community-based service coordination and collaboration. In all three cities visited, attempts were made to colocate welfare workers with employment development and child care caseworkers, in an effort to streamline and coordinate service delivery. To varying degrees, eligibility determination and employment case management functions were separated, and sites differed in the scale of their workforce development systems, the degree of coordination between city and county systems, and the integration of workforce development and TANF systems.
The city of Los Angeles consolidated its 70 job-training and placement agencies to create 24 one-stops, and it is estimated that this new system will eventually serve more than , job seekers. San Diego and Alameda Counties have similarly emphasized one-stop service delivery. The three counties offer a range of work, education, and training activities that can count toward the work requirement. Job-related, health, and social service counseling and referrals are also available to recipients with barriers to employment, and efforts are under way in each county to learn more about why recipients are being sanctioned and what services they may need.
Because of the substantial increase in the volume of clients in addition to their wide diversity of needs and the number of newly contracted job training and employment service providers in the system, caseload and staffing issues have been a challenge in each region we visited. In addition, county budget officials noted that uncertainty regarding the level of TANF funds they could anticipate made it difficult for them to plan.
California's child welfare agencies do not appear to have been affected significantly by welfare reform, although many individuals had predicted that the new welfare requirements would result in increased referrals for child abuse or neglect. In fact, California's trends are similar to national trends, in that the number of children referred for investigation has been relatively stable over the past several years.
However, social workers from California counties frequently mentioned an observed increase in the number of children being reported for inadequate supervision, attributed to an increase in the number of employed single mothers who had not secured adequate child care, even though they receive the highest priority under state policy for obtaining a child care subsidy. In addition, social workers noted the difficulties faced by families involved with both the welfare and child welfare systems, who struggled to meet the requirements of both systems, that is, employment versus court, visitation, or other activities required as part of the child welfare case plan.
Despite concerns over the uncertainty regarding the level of funds that would be available for child welfare agencies, the case study sites were using a significant amount of TANF funds for child welfare services. Perhaps the biggest impact of welfare reform for child welfare agencies has been the way in which the reforms have spurred collaborative efforts between welfare and child welfare agencies. These include 1 increased county discretion in determining local CalWORKs-related policies, 2 significant reductions in TANF caseloads, 3 substantial new resources dedicated to supporting all CalWORKs families with child care subsidies, 4 greater collaboration across state- and local-level agencies in an effort to streamline service delivery, and 5 a continued focus on work first, with community resources becoming more aligned to support sustained employment.
Public Policy Institute of California. Research Brief, Issue Immigration and Naturalization Service. Major Features of the California Budget. California Legislative Analyst's Office. Despite the guarantee of funding for education under Proposition 98, California still has very low expenditures on education compared with other states, and per pupil spending lagged inflation from through California Budget Project.
Tax Cuts and Welfare Reform: A Review of the Governor's Proposed Budget. Overview of the May Revision. The payment levels vary as California has two payment regions. This is separate from the federal U. Families working half-time at minimum wage had larger grants under prior law. Buck, Barbara Fink, Yolanda C.
Big Cities and Welfare Reform. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. All four district offices provide CalWORKs eligibility intake and employment case management services plus face-to-face contact for ongoing eligibility cases. All ongoing eligibility cases are handled at one nonclient contact office, the Benefit Center. Effective February , contract payment points changed to a combination of core payments and three pay points for performance only, not process. New pay points are: California Department of Education.
As of , this program no longer exists. Early Head Start serves a smaller percentage of children from birth to 3 years. California Department of Education Web site. California Head Start Association Web site. Since January , entrance into Stage 3 has been limited to families that have reached their 24th month of CalWORKs child care after the adult leaves cash assistance. Both diversion families and former recipient families must fully use their 24 months of "transitional" child care prior to entering Stage 3.
As previously noted, while these amounts are not comparable to the funding for CalWORKs child care, they are still substantial increases to existing programs. Senate Office of Research. In July , the California Department of Education issued emergency regulations that provided a process that substantially streamlined the transfer between Stages 1 and 2, and clarified many program requirements. Families referred to Child Protective Services receive the highest priority for child care subsidies, per statewide policy.
Thus, child welfare families' awareness of the availability of these services may be lacking. For additional information about these changes see Geen, Rob, Shelley W.
Boots, and Karen Tumlin. The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children: Total child welfare spending in California increased an additional 18 percent between FY and Percentage increases adjusted for inflation. Zellman, Gail, Jacob A. Klerman, Elaine Reardon, Donna O. Welfare Reform in California: CalWORKs income computation is as follows: This balance is then subtracted from the grant amount.
Bureau of the Census. Annual Time Series, July 1, , to July 1, National population percentages are as of July 1, , from U. Urban Institute estimates based on a three-year average of data in the , , and March Supplements to the Current Population Survey. Statistical Abstract of the United States: Population Estimates Program, Population Division. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics Report.
Tables B, 10, and Urban Institute estimates based on two sources: Facts At A Glance. Government Printing Office, February. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted February The National Governors' Association. National Conference of State Legislatures. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means.
Two Urban Institute calculations: Department of Health and Human Services.
Administration for Children and Families. Second Annual Report to Congress August Findings from the National Survey of American Families. Based on three sources: December to June ": Rules for and are policies in place the majority of the year. Rules for represent plans approved as of January 1, In , the thresholds represent the state Medicaid thresholds for poverty-related eligibility or AFDC-related eligibility.
Higher thresholds for separate state-financed programs such as in New York are not represented here. In , some states' thresholds represent Medicaid eligibility, and others are either Medicaid expansions or stand-alone programs enacted under the SCHIP legislation. In , all states covered at least some children through SCHIP; certain groups in some states are eligible only through Medicaid.
Data for are from January 1, , compared with federal poverty level FPL. Data for are from June , compared with FPL. The data are calculated using state agency information and information from Helen Blank and Nicole Oxedine Poersch. The Urban Institute calculated and U. Deborah Montgomery is a principal research scientist at the American Institutes for Research AIR in Palo Alto, California, with over 20 years of combined research, evaluation, and teaching experience.
Since joining AIR in , Ms. Montgomery has managed and directed a range of research and evaluation projects for national, state, and local governments.
Welfare Reform in California: State and County Implementation of Calworks in the Second Year
Areas of expertise include early care and education program development and evaluation, parent education, and public sector finance and policy analysis. Laura Kaye , an independent public policy consultant in Washington, D. Her research interests include social service delivery structures, contracting and privatization, and employment and training systems. Robert Geen is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute's Population Studies Center, specializing in child welfare and related child, youth, and family issues.
He directed the and child welfare case studies. He is currently directing studies examining child welfare agencies' use of relatives as foster parents; the implementation of a neighborhood-based child welfare service delivery system in Washington, D. Karin Martinson is a consultant to the Urban Institute. She has a wide range of experience as both a researcher and a policy analyst on a number of issues related to low-income families, including welfare reform, employment and training programs, and service delivery systems.
The project has received funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W. This state update was prepared for the Assessing the New Federalism project. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series. The authors would like to thank all of the government and program officials whose willingness to share their time and expertise have contributed to this state update.
Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact publicaffairs urban. If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.
Latest Research Browse by Author. PDF Print this page. Welfare Reform in California: Product details Format Paperback 42 pages Dimensions Bestsellers in Child Welfare. Signs of Safety Steve Edwards. Working with Children in Groups Kathryn Geldard. The Optimistic Child Martin Seligman. Child Protection - The essential guide Freda Briggs. Counselling Adolescents Kathryn Geldard. I'll tell you why I can't wear those clothes! In the Name of the Child Vivienne Roseby.
An Illustrated Handbook Jacqueline Harding. Children's Testimony David J.