CalWORKs Survey Report (2010)

2010 CalWORKs Survey Report
December 1, 2010

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
-Leo Tolstoy in Anna Karenina-

Karen Fies, Director
Employment and Training Services Division
707.565.8501

Marla Stuart, Director
Planning, Research and Evaluation Division
707.565.5849

With gratitude to the following HSD employees (listed alphabetically)
who made this project a success!

All SonomaWORKS staff!

Rocio Alvarez Tammy Larimore
Sherry Alderman Crystal Martin
Jared Ball Kelly Loyd
Hope Hamby George Malachowski

Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

Table of Contents
Page

Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Literature Review .........................................................................................................1

Methodology ................................................................................................................2

Response Rate .............................................................................................................3

Demographics ..............................................................................................................3

Results .......................................................................................................................5

Employment Barriers ................................................................................9

Education Barriers ....................................................................................11

Housing Stability Barriers ..........................................................................13

Stressful Experiences Barriers ....................................................................15

Resource Barriers .....................................................................................17

Child Wellbeing Barriers ............................................................................19

Personal and Family Health Barriers ...........................................................21

Findings and Practice Implications ..................................................................................23

References ..................................................................................................................25

Wellbeing Surveys Reviewed ...............................................................................27

Appendices

Appendix A: Towns Included in Each Region .........................................................29

Appendix B: All Responses by Percent Did Not Answer ...........................................30

Appendix C: All Responses by Gender ..................................................................31

Appendix D: All Responses by Client Age..............................................................32

Appendix E: All Responses by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................33

Appendix F: All Responses by Region ...................................................................34

Appendix G: All Responses by Required to Work ...................................................35

Appendix H: Survey...........................................................................................36

Introduction
1B

In June, 2010 the Sonoma County Human Services Department conducted a written survey
of CalWORKs clients to better understand client and family wellbeing and its relationship to
successfully achieving self sufficiency. Although researchers have identified both system and
personal barriers to employment among TANF recipients, this study focused only on
Sonoma County CalWORKs client descriptions of personal barriers that, in their own view,
prevent them being self sufficient.

Literature Review
2B

An examination of TANF client self-reported barriers to self-sufficiency is important because
research shows that TANF caseworkers are often not fully aware of the barriers faced by a
client. Ovwigho (2008) examined the extent to which employment barriers that are
perceived by clients themselves and revealed to a person outside the “welfare system” are
similar or different to those barriers reported to or perceived by a TANF caseworker.
Ovwigho (2008) found that both clients and workers perceived child care and health
problems as the primary barriers to employment. However, as illustrated in the table below,
the rates of these and other problems as perceived by clients themselves are higher than
they report to or are perceived by their TANF caseworker – with the exception of substance
abuse.21 Understanding self-perceived barriers to self-sufficiency can help the Sonoma
County CalWORKs program to deliver the most appropriate services.

Self-reported barriers to employment compared to caseworker notes (N=819)
Reported by TANF Noted by caseworker
Barrier recipient to researcher in TANF case notes
Child care 37% 10%
Transportation 26% 2%
Housing instability 14% 5%
Physical health 29% 16%
Mental health 16% 5%
Child physical health 15% 6%
Any substance abuse 3% 9%
Domestic violence 8% 3%
Adapted from TABLE 3 in Ovwigho, Saunders, Born (2008). Barriers to Independence
Among TANF Recipients: Comparing Caseworker Records and Client Surveys, p. 87.

The link between well-being and self-sufficiency is also important. The literature identifies
the following 7 elements of well-being that are important to TANF client’s ability to
successfully leave welfare and support their family: employment, education, housing
stability, stressful experiences, resources, child well-being, and personal and family health.
Each of these factors, including relevant research findings, is discussed in the results section
of this paper. Former Mexican President Vincente Fox highlights the value of listening to
people’s experiences related to well-being (Mendes & Ray, 2010).

“When we know the real aspirations of people; what they consider being well,
then governments can shape budgets to provide people with what they really
need.”
Former Mexican President Vincente Fox

2010 CalWORKs Survey Report Page 1
Sonoma County Human Services Department, Marla Stuart (707-565-5849 or mstuart1@schsd.org)

Methodology
3B

Based on the findings from the literature, Sonoma County developed a client survey that
asked about 42 unique barriers to self-sufficiency that are related to the seven common
barrier categories identified in the literature. The survey did not include any open-ended
comment questions. The survey was self-administered and offered in English and Spanish.
See Appendix H for a full copy of the survey. The following table illustrates how each
barrier to self sufficiency was measured on the Sonoma County survey.

Barriers to Self Sufficiency As Measured on Sonoma County Survey
1. Employment 1. Weeks worked in past year
2. Hours usually worked each week
3. Pay
4. Knowledge of location of jobs
5. Desire to work
6. Availability of jobs
7. Spouse/partner support of work
8. Prefer/need to stay home with child(ren)
9. Family responsibilities
2. Education 10. Highest level of education
11. Currently in education training
12. Need education or training
3. Housing stability 13. Living arrangement
14. Times moved in past year
15. Reason for last move
16. Shower facilities
17. Phone
18. Permanent address
19. People living with me I wish weren’t
20. Problem finding place to live
4. Stressful experiences 21. Robbed, mugged, attacked
22. Relative/close friend in jail
23. Sexual assault
24. Some close to died/was killed
25. Victim of domestic violence
26. Criminal record
27. Hassled by bill collectors
5. Resources 28. Tools for trade
29. Clothing for work
30. Reliable transportation for work
31. Photo ID/Work Permit
32. Child care problems
6. Child Wellbeing 33. Child’s receipt of school recognitions
34. Child involvement in after-school activities
35. Child receiving special education
36. Child receiving poor grades
37. Child in out-of-home placement
7. Personal and Family Health 38. Physical or mental health problems or disability
39. Alcohol/drug issues
40. Poor health compared to others
41. Child’s health poor compared to others
42. Live with/close to someone with AOD


The survey was conducted in June, 2010. All CalWORKs clients visiting the office at 2225
Challenger Way in Santa Rosa and scheduled for an interview with their Worker were invited
to complete the survey. Clients visiting the office to drop-off paperwork were also invited to
complete the survey. Three PRE employees administered the survey to increase objectivity
and reduce client anxiety that their answers to the survey would influence their case. Clients
completed the survey in a conference room to provide some privacy and deposited the
survey in a locked box. Books were given to children as an incentive for their parents to
complete the survey.

Response Rate
The CalWORKs Survey represents client perception at a point in time. As such, the survey
represents a sample of all CalWORKs clients at all times. Therefore, inferential statistical
analysis is used to determine if the responses in the survey are likely to represent the
responses of all clients at all times. Statistical analysis assumes that all individuals of the
sample complete the survey to reduce the likelihood of response bias (an over-
representation of the opinions from one subgroup). In Research Methods for Social Work,
U U

Allen Rubin and Earl Babbie (1993) suggest the following rule of thumb about response
rates: “A response rate of at least 50 percent is usually considered adequate for analysis
and reporting. A response rate of at least 60% is good. And a response rate of 70% is very
good” (page 340).

The survey was conducted on the 17 workdays from June 7 through June 30, 2010. During
this time, 108 clients had an interview with their Worker. Of these, 99 completed a survey
for a 92% response rate. In addition, 94 clients who came to the office but did not have
an interview with their Worker also completed the survey. The answers from all 193 surveys
are reported here. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. 151 (78.2%) clients
completed the survey in English. 42 (21.8%) completed the survey in Spanish.

Demographics
4B

This survey compared the experiences of Sonoma County CalWORKs clients by seven different
demographic categories (shown on the next page). Where there are statistically significant
differences in experience between groups of clients who answered the survey, they are
reported in the findings. Statistically significant differences are those where the differences
between groups in the sample are so large and/or so consistent that HSD can be 97% confident
that the differences in experience for the survey respondents reflect real differences in
experience for all CalWORKs clients.

Compared to the adults on the full CalWORKs caseload in June, 2010, the CalWORKs clients
who completed the survey were significantly different as illustrated below. These differences
may influence the conclusions drawn from the survey.

Characteristic All CalWORKs Survey
Clients Respondents
Female 80% 94% Survey over-represents females
Age 19-24 25% 20% Survey under-represents clients
Age 45+ 13% 11% ages 19-24 and 45+
Latino 24% 37% Survey over-represents Latino
Required to Work 34% 46% Survey over-represents WTW


Survey Client Demographics
5B

Gender Work Required

Male
Yes
6%
46%
No
Female
54%
94%

Age Number of Children
45+
4+
13% 1
19-24 12%
41%
20%
3
35-44 15%
22%
25-34
40% 2
32%

Race/Ethnicity Age of Youngest Child
13-17 0-2
Other 10% 37%
Latino 24%
37%
6-12
24%
White
3-5
39%
29%

Region

West
8% Central Approximately 21% of clients who live
79% in the Central region live in zip code
South
95407 (Roseland).
3%
East See Appendix A for a list of the towns
2% included in each Region.
North
8%


Results
6B

90% of CalWORKs clients report three or more barriers to self sufficiency.

In the literature, it is clear that TANF recipients have many, severe, and chronic barriers
that impede their ability to achieve self sufficiency. Many authors report that women in
poverty are less healthy, less educated, poorer, have fewer job skills, are more likely to be
depressed, more likely to be addicted to drugs or alcohol, more likely to be victims of
domestic violence, more likely to have disruptive family responsibilities such as inadequate
childcare, and less likely to have a strong support network (Anderson 2004, DeMarco 2008,
Hildebrandt 2006, Latimer 2008, Mauldon 2010, Mulia 2008, Ovwigho 2008). The Women’s
Employment Study (a 1997-2003 examination of barriers to employment among welfare
mothers in an urban Michigan County) concluded that women with multiple barriers to
obtaining and holding employment are the least likely to obtain economic self sufficiency.7
DeMarco (2008) reports that 40-66% of welfare recipients report at least two barriers to
employment while 25% report four or more barriers.8 Furthermore, multiple barriers are not
only associated with poor employment outcomes but are also associated with welfare
recidivism, sanctions, and continuous reliance on public assistance

Sonoma County CalWORKs clients self-reported experiences mirror research findings. In
the 2010 Sonoma County CalWORKs client survey, clients were asked to report whether or
not they are currently or have within the past year experienced any of 42 different barriers
to self sufficiency (in 7 different categories). 90% of Sonoma clients in this survey report
having recently experienced three or more barriers to self sufficiency. On average, Sonoma
County CalWORKs clients have experienced 8 different barriers to self sufficiency in the past
year. The following graph summarizes these findings. Details about each barrier category
and the differences between groups of clients are described on the next page and in the rest
of the report.

Barriers to Self Sufficiency
96% of CalWORKs clients have barriers in 2 or more CATEGORIES
On average, CalWORKs clients have barriers in 4 CATEGORIES
100%
96%

75%

62% 61% 59% 58%
50%
48%
45%

25%

0%
8 3 8 7 5 5 5
Employment Education Housing Stressful Resources Child Personal
Barriers Barriers Stability Experiences Barriers Wellbeing and Family
Barriers Barriers Health
Barriers


Race
7B Age
10B

Education Barriers Education Barriers
78% 77%

66%
64%
55%

47%
38%

19-24 25-34 35-44 45+
White Latino Other

Stressful Events Barriers Housing Stability Barriers
80%
75%
67% 63%
61%

43% 41%

19-24 25-34 35-44 45+
White Latino Other

Health Barriers Resource Barriers

51% 47%
43%

29% 28%
22%
21%

White Latino Other 19-24 25-34 35-44 45+

Child Wellbeing Barriers

Required to Work
72%

8B
63%
57%

Education Barriers

72% 6%

19-24 25-34 35-44 45+
49%

Health Barriers

59%
55%
Work Required Work Exempt

Gender,Region
26%
23%
9B

No significant differences.
19-24 25-34 35-44 45+


Combinations of Barriers
1B

There are no common combinations of barriers that are faced by Sonoma CalWORKs clients.
Clients reported 65 different combinations of barriers. The most common combination
represents 7% of all clients (see below). LEGEND:  blue = barrier,  white = no barrier

Child Wellbeing

Child Wellbeing
# of Barriers

# of Barriers
Employment

Employment
% of Clients

% of Clients
Resources

Resources
Education

Education
Housing

Housing
Health

Health
Stress

Stress
7 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
T=5% 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
6 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
T=18% 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
5 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
4 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 T=20%
2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
T=25% T=7%

4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
3 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 T=3%
2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 T=1%
2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 NOTE: Percents (%) are rounded to the
1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 nearest whole number. Therefore the T
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 (total) for each section does not appear to
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 be accurate.
T=22%


Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing.


Employment Barriers
12B

96% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to employment.

Danziger (2001)7 conducted a women’s employment study in Michigan to evaluate the impact
of several personal characteristics that might impede employment. Danziger found that
approximately 33% of the women sampled had one barrier and about 20% had multiple
barriers to employment. Danziger concluded that women who had a greater number of barriers
are more likely to have difficulty finding and keeping a job. The most common barriers to
employment were lack of a high school diploma, lack of transportation, few work skills, and
mental health related issues.7 Anderson (2004) studied the difficulties women experience after
leaving TANF and found that the inability to maintain work that paid a living wage and the loss
of health insurance were the most common reasons that women returned to TANF.1 Anderson
also reported that working is viewed by ex-TANF recipients as a source of pride and a place to
form friendships.1 Finally, De Marco (2008) reports that a strong relationship between the
participant and the worker ... appeared to help participants overcome barriers and receive the
supports needed to attain employment.”8

The Sonoma County CalWORKs survey examined eight (8) barriers to self sufficiency related
to employment. The following graph illustrates the percent of all CalWORKs clients who
reported each barrier related to employment. Not surprisingly, being unemployed and being
underemployed are the two greatest barriers to self sufficiency.

Employment Barriers
4% of clients report 0 barriers related to employment
59% report 1 or 2 barriers related to employment
100%
37% report 3 to 5 barriers related to employment
84% 83%

75%

50%

26%
25% 22%
14% 14%

0% 0%
0%
Unemployed When working, No jobs Need to stay Pay too low Don't know Don't want to Spouse
10+ months worked < f ull available home where to f ind work prohibits work
time job

• FULLY EMPLOYED: 7% of clients reported BOTH being employed more than 10 months in
the past year AND when working, working full time.
• UNDEREMPLOYED: 9% reported being employed 10+ months in the year but they
worked less than full time.
• UNEMPLOYED: 9% reported working full time when they were working but for less than
10 months in the past year.
• UNEMPLOYED AND UNDEREMPLOYED: 75% reported BOTH being employed less than U U U U

10 months in the past year AND when they were employed, it was less than full time.
U U


In some cases these barriers are experienced differently by different groups of clients.
13B

These statistically significant differences are reported here. Difference by race, gender,
region, and age, if any, are included. Differences by age of youngest child and number of
children are not included because these differences are related to client age. All data are
included in Appendices A-G.

Required to Work
14B Age
15B

Worked <10 months
No Jobs Available 97%

89%

80%
75%

20%

7%

Work Required Work Exempt 19-24 25-34 35-44 45+

No Jobs Available

50%

37%

16%
13%

19-24 25-34 35-44 45+

Race, Gender, Region
16B



Education Barriers
17B

62% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to education.

The effectiveness of higher education as a route to self sufficiency has been demonstrated
by decades of education and economic research (London, 2006). Crabtree (2010) reports
that Americans in lower education households earn less and are more than four times more
likely to report health problems than those higher up the socioeconomic ladder.6
Additionally, Lee (2009) states that low-skilled and less educated mothers are less
competitive in the workforce than those with more education, and therefore, are not as
likely to get high-paying jobs.16 Beyond high school education, London (2006) suggests that
higher education is critical for low income women. Graduating from college is key to reduced
poverty. In Maine, TANF recipients who attended college reported better job opportunities,
an increased ability to meet goals, and greater independence.17 London (2006) and Cheng
(2007) also report that a mother’s educational attainment is strongly linked to children’s
developmental outcomes and educational achievement.

The Sonoma County, the CalWORKs survey measured three (3) items related to
education: highest education level and client’s reported need for education or training.
Overall, 30% of clients have less than a high school diploma or a GED and 47% of clients
have a self-reported need for education or training. The graphs at the right illustrate where
these experiences are statistically different for different groups of clients.

Education or Training Barriers
100%
38% of clients report 0 barriers related to education or training
42% report 1 barrier related to education or training
20% report 2 or 3 barriers related to education or training

75%

50%
38%
30%

25%
17%

0%
Need Education <Diploma or GED In Education

• 54% of clients report they do not need and are not in education or training.
• 29% of clients report they need education but do not report that they are in
education or training
• 17% of clients report they are currently in education or training.


18B


Race
19B Age
20B

<Diploma or GED Currently in Education

57%

26% 24%
23%

10% 11%
3%


Required to Work
21B

Currently in Education

26%

5%


Gender, Region
2B



Housing Stability Barriers
23B

61% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to housing stability.

An individual’s use of welfare is clearly impacted by the stability of his/her housing situation,
and by the composition of the neighborhood in which he/she can afford to live. When
individuals live in poverty and around other people in poverty, they are more likely to
remain impoverished. Casciano (2007) argues that ”living in a neighborhood with a greater
concentration of poor people decreases the social stigma associated with welfare use and
also exposes them to others with experience navigating the welfare system so they are able
to learn the rules governing eligibility, how to navigate the bureaucracy, and how to present
oneself to a case worker to increase the odds of receiving benefits.” When people live
around and associate with people of different and higher economic classes, they are more
likely to improve economically (Casciano, 2007).3

The Sonoma County CalWORKs survey measured eight (8) items related to housing
stability. As with barriers to self-sufficiency related to employment, these barriers are
largely consistent for all clients. These experiences are fairly consistent among all
CalWORKs clients. The following graph illustrates the percent of all CalWORKs who reported
each housing stability barrier.

100%
39% of clients report 0 housing stability barriers
41% report 1 or 2 housing stability barriers
19% report 3 to 7 housing stability barriers

75%

50%
38% 37%

25% 21% 19%
14%

3% 2% 1%
0%
Moved in Last move Problems Housing not Undesired No No phone No shower
past year involuntary finding stable roommates permanent
place to live address

Involuntary moves include being evicted, losing a home due to non-financial reasons,
neighborhood is too dangerous, and divorce or separation.

Unstable housing includes living with a friend or family (for instance in a room or garage
or shed), living outside, in a car, in a hotel, or in a shelter.


24B


Age
25B

Housing Not Stable

38%

19%
16%

8%

19-24 25-34 35-44 45+

Race, Required to Work, Gender, Region
26B



Stressful Experiences Barriers
27B

59% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to recent stressful experiences.

According to the literature, welfare recipients experience more psychological distress than
non-recipients. Based on the findings from a study comparing the psychological well-being
of current and former TANF recipients, Cheng (2007) concluded that TANF users experience
more psychological distress than those who do not use TANF and it is possible to infer that
welfare receipt has a negative effect on psychological well-being.5

Another recent study conducted by Hildebrandt (2006) found that single mothers living in
poverty had a higher level of severe and moderate distress than the reference standards for
the general population. 61.8% of women on TANF report feelings of severe distress
compared to only 13.5% of the general population. One TANF recipient in the study
describes the kinds of stresses she copes with as a result of being in poverty. Other triggers
of stress for single mothers living in poverty identified by Hildebrandt (2006) include lack of
social support systems, unstable relationships, violence, and abuse. Hildebrandt’s (2006)
research found that abuse often turned women’s lives upside-down and impoverished
women with responsibility for children had limited options for escaping abusive situations.12

Research by Mulia (2008) underscores the “ubiquity of social stressors in poor women’s
lives”.21 69% of poor women in her study reported at least two stressful life events in the
past year alone including in the areas of economic hardship, neighborhood disorder, and
stressful life events.

In Sonoma County, a relatively small percent of clients self-reported experiencing each
stressful event recently (in the past year).

Recent Stressful Experiences
100%
41% of clients report 0 stressful experiences in the past year
49% report 1 or 2 stressful experiences in the past year
10% report 3 or 4 stressful experiences in the past year

75%

50%
38%

25% 21%
16%
8% 7%
4% 3%
0%
Hassled by Relative or Someone Criminal Robbed, Victim of Sexual
bill collectors close friend close record mugged, domestic assault
in jail died/killed attacked violence


28B


Race
29B Required to Work
30B

Someone close died/killed Criminal Record

22% 23%

12%

6% 1%

White Latino Other

Hassled by bill collectors

49% 50%

22%

White Latino Other

Age, Gender, Region
31B



Resource Barriers
32B

58% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to resources.

Mulia (2008) states, “Researchers have argued that a poor woman’s chances to better her
situation by finding a well-paying job and safer neighborhood may depend upon the socio-
economic heterogeneity within her network, particularly her ties to people with far greater
resources and access to opportunity. The nature flow of resources and support within poor
women’s social networks – the so called private safety net – cannot be counted upon to buffer
poor women from the effects of poverty-related stressors.”21 Other research suggests that one
of the more prominent resource barriers women face is child care related problems. Studies
show that mothers who are less advantaged in terms of income and education face greater
barriers to combining work and family, in part because they have poorer access to high quality,
reliable child care. Based on a study by Udansky (2008), low-income mothers, mothers whose
work shifts vary, mothers who rely on patchwork care, and mothers with little access to social
support are likely to experience child care related problems and disruptions in care. Child care
problems represent one avenue through which child-rearing responsibilities hinder women’s
ability to successfully combine work and family. Care disruptions are likely to entail additional
legwork and stress for mothers, who must arrange backup care and ensure its quality. Missing
work to disruptions can mean using up valuable vacation and personal days or, for less
fortunate mothers, losing pay or even a job.29

In Sonoma County, relatively few clients report resource barriers with the one large
exception of child care difficulties.

Resource Barriers
100%
42% of clients report 0 barriers related to resources
40% report 1 barriers related to resources
19% report 2 or 3 barriers related to resources

75%

50% 45%

25%
13% 12% 11%

1%
0%
Child Care Need transportation Need clothes Need ID/Work Need tools for trade
Problems Permit


3B


Race
19B

Child Care Problems Need ID or Work Permit

64%

42%
39%

27%

5%
0%

White Latino Other White Latino Other

Age, Required to Work, Gender, Region
34B


Child Care Problems

47%

35%

25%
18%
13% 13% 11%

Cost No relatives Quality Can't find Too far Not Trust
dependable

Of the 45% of clients who report child care problems, the most common problem is cost
35B

(47% of those with a child care problem). 49% report only 1 problem and 25% report two
problems. The other 26% report 3 or more child care problems. The only common grouping
of problems is Cost and No Relative which is reported by 10% of clients with child care
problems. No other combination of problems is reported by more than 2 clients.

There are no significant differences in the child care problems reported by clients who are or
36B U U

who are not required to work. Furthermore, there are no significant differences in reported
U U

child care problems by any demographic grouping.


37B

48% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to child wellbeing.

Maternal welfare receipt has been found to have significant impacts on outcomes for
children. According to Mauldon (2010), children in child-only TANF cases (who’s caregiver
receives SSI), have poorer health and more behavior problems at school than children in
other TANF families.19 Interestingly, this finding is mitigated when the family receives
housing assistance through Section 8 Housing Voucher. The Women’s Employment Study
(Danziger, 2000) has documented that women who move from welfare reliance to work
demonstrate a decrease in harsh parenting, an increase in positive parenting, and a
decrease in behavior problems among their children (although these children still have
higher than average levels of behavior problems).7 Kalil (2007) has also researched the
relationship between mothers formerly receiving welfare who are able overcome chronic
poverty and the wellbeing of their children. Her findings demonstrate that for mothers that
left welfare and escaped poverty, their children had higher achievement scores and fewer
behavioral problems.13 However, the relationship between welfare policies and child
wellbeing is not universally supported. Dunifon (2006) analyzed welfare policies, outcomes
and models over the years and report “the results from this study do not present a clear
picture of a consistent association between welfare policies and parenting behavior or child
wellbeing.”10

In Sonoma County, the CalWORKs survey measured five (5) items related to child
wellbeing. Surprisingly, there are not differences between different groups of clients related
to these items.

100%
52% of clients report 0 barriers related to child wellbeing
35% report 1 or 2 barriers related to child wellbing
13% report 3 or 4 pbarriers related to child wellbeing

75%

57%
50%
50%

25% 23% 23%

1%
0%
No school No extra-curricular Special education Poor grades Out-of-home
recognitions activities placement

NOTE: Except for out-of-home placement, the graph above only includes those
38B

clients with a child ages 6-17.


39B

children are not included because these differences are related to client age. All differences
are included in Appendices A-G.

Age, Race, Required to Work, Gender, Region
40B

There are NO significant differences related by child wellbeing
41B

by any demographic grouping.
42B


Personal and Family Health Barriers
43B

45% of CalWORKs clients report barriers to self sufficiency related to personal and family health.

Significant health problems have been identified in the population served by TANF.
Hildenbrandt (2006) has observed that TANF recipients are less healthy, less educated, and
poorer than impoverished women who have never been on welfare, and they experience
higher levels of depression and domestic violence than women in the general population. In
a Connecticut state survey of women on welfare, 20% reported physical health problems,
20% reported poor general health, and 27% reported considerable depressive symptoms.
These rates were double those found among similarly aged women not on welfare. In an
ethnographic study of 256 impoverished families, 87% of the mothers reported mental
health problems based on diagnoses by mental health professionals, and 52% of the
families reported concurrent mental and physical health problems in both the primary
caregiver and at least one of the children. The researchers also found that low-income
mothers who had their own health problems were 25% more likely to apply for TANF, and
low-income mothers with children who had activity limitations in addition to their chronic
illness were 60% more likely to apply for TANF.12 Children of women on welfare also bare a
disproportionate burden of poor health. Hildenbrandt (2006) reports that 3% of American
preschool children are in poor health compared to 8% of preschool children in TANF
household.12

The Sonoma County CalWORKs survey measured five (5) items related to personal and
family health.

Personal or Family Health Barriers
100% 56% of clients report 0 barriers related to health
38% report 1 or 2 barriers related to health
6% report 3 barriers related to health

75%

50%

27%
23%
25%
12%
5% 4%
0%
My health poor Physical, mental Living with/close to Child's health poor Alcohol or Drug
compared to health problems someone with AOD compared to problems
others others


4B

children are not included because these differences are related to client age. All differences
are included in Appendices A-G.

Race
45B Age
46B

Personal Health Problems Personal Health Problems

56%

40%
38%

25%

9% 9% 10%


Live with person with AOD
Gender and Region
47B

Alcohol/Drug Problems

19%
14%

5%

White Latino Other
18%

4%

Female Male

Required to Work, Region
48B

49B


Findings and Practice Implications
These findings and practice implications were developed with, and represent a consensus
among Sonoma County CalWORKs management.

FINDING 1: The most significant finding of this study is that Sonoma County CalWORKs
clients have many and varied barriers to self-sufficiency. This mirrors the findings in
published research that TANF recipients have many, severe, and chronic barriers that
impede their ability to achieve self sufficiency and that women with multiple barriers to
obtaining and holding employment are the least likely to obtain economic self sufficiency.
90% of Sonoma County CalWORKs clients have three or more barriers to self-sufficiency.
And there are no common clusters of barriers. As expected, 96% of CalWORKs clients report
that employment is their primary barrier to self-sufficiency. There is some commonality
regarding school engagement -- 57% of clients with school-aged children report that their
child has not received recognitions at school and 50% report that their child is not involved
in extra-curricular activities. Beyond this, there is no single barrier to self-sufficiency (out of
42 different barriers) that is reported by a majority of clients.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The Sonoma County CalWORKs program seeks to meet the
needs of individual clients. This finding reinforces the reality that there is no one-size-
fits-all approach to helping clients successfully achieve self sufficiency. The CalWORKs
program will continue, and even strengthen, this individual approach for each client.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Because CalWORKs clients have such a wide variety of
needs, this finding also validates the importance of the collaborate philosophy of the
CalWORKs program. Several staff from other organizations are currently co-located at
the CalWORKs program: Alcohol and Other Drug Counselors, Mental Health Counselors,
and a Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. The CalWORKs program also works with many
other partners who provide services throughout the County to CalWORKS clients,
including Goodwill, the Center for Social and Environmental Stewardship, West County
Community Services, Petaluma People Services Center, Sonoma County Legal Aid, and
Santa Rosa Junior College. The CalWORKs program will continue to work on enhancing a
wide array of services available to clients.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: To explore whether or not a different approach to
CalWORKs case management can make a difference in client self sufficiency, the
Sonoma County CalWORKs program will test the effect of limiting caseload sizes.

FINDING 2: The literature cited for housing stability barriers and resource barriers
highlights how poverty, neighborhood, and networks can hinder or promote an individual’s
ability to achieve self sufficiency. Casciano (2007) explains that “when people live around
and associate with people of different and higher economic classes, they are more likely to
improve economically.”3
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: One benefit provided by the Subsidized Employee Program
(SEP), funded with federal stimulus funding, was providing CalWORKs clients an
opportunity to network with and receive mentoring from individuals of different and
higher economic classes. With SEP, CalWORKs clients were able to experience the role of
“employee” and increase their confidence in their ability to be successfully employed. In
Sonoma County, 142 CalWORKs clients obtained permanent employment through SEP.
Stimulus funding is no longer available for SEP. The CalWORKs program management
will continue to explore ideas to provide subsidized employment opportunities for
CalWORKs clients.


FINDING 3: Housing stability is clearly a barrier for many CalWORKs clients. 61% of clients
report one or more housing stability barriers.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The CalWORKs program will seek opportunities to partner
with other organizations to improve housing supports for CalWORKs recipients. For
instance, management will explore whether or not it may be possible to provide priority
to CalWORKs clients for Section 8 Housing Vouchers.

FINDING 4: The findings related to child care are surprising. Although CalWORKs ancillary
services includes funding for childcare, 45% of clients still report child care problems within
the past year. And, 47% of these clients report that cost is a problem. Furthermore, clients
required to work are no more or less likely to report child care barriers than those clients
who are not required to work.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Effective child care support is a high priority for the
CalWORKs program. Program staff will identify ways to more fully understand the child
care barriers experienced by CalWORKs clients. For instance, the program may conduct
focus groups or a short follow-up survey administered by Workers. This information will
help the program to make changes that are most likely to reduce this barrier for clients.

FINDING 5: 43% of CalWORKs families with school-aged children report that their child or
children have received some sort of school-based recognition. This finding is good news. It
would be interesting to know how this compares to the whole community.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The CalWORKs program will continue to promote the
importance of child wellbeing and will identify ways to further promote school
engagement for families with school-aged children.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: CalWORKs program management discussed the relationship
between school recognitions after-school activities to child well-being and to parent self
sufficiency. Management will continue studying published literature and talk to staff to
more fully understand this concept.

FINDING 6: Fewer CalWORKs clients than expected reported recent stressful experiences.
However, 38% do report being hassled by bill collectors in the past year.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The CalWORKs program will explore the feasibility of
providing consumer credit counseling support for CalWORKs clients.

FINDING 7: Many of the barriers to self sufficiency experienced by CalWORKs clients are
different for clients of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and for clients in different age
categories. And, although this report does not compare the incidence of these barriers as
experienced by CalWORKs clients to the incidence experienced by the whole community, it
is clear from the published literature that poverty is a significant contributing factor to the
number of and complexity of difficulties that CalWORKs client face on a daily basis.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The Sonoma County Human Services Department is
committed to advocating for the elimination of inequalities. Examples of this
commitment are the Department’s sponsorship of the Upstream Investments Project,
and participation in First 5, Health Action, Prevent Child Abuse Sonoma, the Santa Rosa
Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force, and ongoing collaboration with the Department of
Health Services to mitigate the social determinants of health (disparities related to
poverty, race, and class). The Department will continue these activities with the belief
that providing equal opportunities to children, families and individuals is the most
effective way to promote maximum independence and well-being for all.


References
1. Anderson, S., Halter, A., & Gryzlak, B. (2004). Difficulties after leaving TANF: Inner-
city women talk about reasons for returning to welfare. SocialWork 49(2), 185-194.
Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/sections

2. Bartle, E., & Segura, G. (2003). Welfare policy, welfare participants, and CalWORKS
caseworkers: How participants are informed of supportive services. Journal of Poverty
7(1/2), 141-161; and: Rediscovering the Other America: The Continuing Crisis of
Poverty and Inequality in the United States (ed: Keith M. Kilty, and Elizabeth A. Segal)
The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp 141 - 161.

3. Casciano, R, & Massey, D. (2007). Neighborhoods, employment, and welfare use:
Assessing the influence of neighborhood socioeconomic composition. Social Sciences
Research 37(2), 544-558.

4. Cheng, T. (2002). Welfare recipients: How do they become independent? Social Work
Research 26(3), 159-170.

5. Cheng, T. (2007). Impact of work requirements on the psychological well-being of
TANF recipients. Health & Social Work 32(1), 41-48.

6. Crabtree, S. (April 28, 2010). Income, Education Levels Combine to Predict Health
Problems. Gallup. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127532/Income-Education-Levels-Combine-Predict-Health-
Problems.aspx

7. Danziger, S. (2000). Women's Employment Study. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
School of Social Work. Retrieved on May 18, 2010, from
http://www.researchforum.org/project_printable_100.html

8. De Marco, A., Austin, M., & Chow, J. (2008). Making the transition from welfare to
work: Employment experiences of CalWORKS participants in the San Francisco Bay
area. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 18(4), 414-440.
doi10.1080/10911350802486809

9. Dillman, D. (2006). Why choice of survey mode makes a difference. Public Health
Reports 121(1), 11-13. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20056909

10. Dunifon, R., Hynes, K., & Peters, E. (2006). Welfare reform and child well-being.
Children and Youth Services Review 28 (11), 1273-1292. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.01.005

11. Grossi, E., Groth, N., Mosconi, P., Cerutti, R., Pace, F., Compare, A., et al. (2006).
Development and validation of the short version of hte psychological general well-being
index (PGWB-S). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4:88. Retrieved from
http://www.hqlo.com/content/4/1/88. doi: 10.1.186/1477-7525-4-88

12. Hildebrandt, E. (2006). Women who did not succeed in the work-based welfare
program. Policy, Politics, & Nursing 7(1), 23-34. Retreived May 8, 2010, from
http://ppn.sagepub.com doi: 10.117/1527154405285396


13. Kalil, A., & Dunifon, R. (2007). Maternal work and welfare use and child well-being:
Evidence from 6 years of data from the women's employment study. Children and Youth
Services Review 29(6), 742-761. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

14. Latimer, M. (2008). A view from the bottom: Former welfare recipients evaluate the
system. Journal of Poverty 12(1), 77-101. doi: 10.1080/10875540801967940

15. Lee, K. (2009). Impact of the 1996 welfare reform on child and family well-being.
Journal of Community Psychology 37(5), 602-617. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20320

16. Lee, M., Singelmann, J., & Yom-Tov, A. (2008). Welfare myths: The transmission of
values and work among TANF families. Social Science Research 37(2), 516-529.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

17. London, R. (2006). The role of postsecondary education in welfare recipients' paths to
self-sufficiency. The Journal of Higher Education 77(3), 472-496.

18. Marlar, J. (2010, March 9). The Emotional Cost of Underemployment. Gallup.
Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/126518/Emotional-Cost-
Underemployment.aspx?version=print

19. Mauldon, J., Speiglman, R., & Sogar, C. (2010). SSI Parent CalWORKS Families...on the
Edge (August). San Francisco, CA: Child & Family Policy Institute of California

20. Mendes, E. & Ray, J. (2010, March 26). Mexico’s Fox talks about why leaders need
wellbeing data. Gallup. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127391/Mexico-Fox-Talks-Why-Leaders-Need-Wellbeing-
Data.aspx

21. Mulia, N., Schmidt, L., Bond, J., Jacobs, L., & Korcha, R. (2008). Stress, social support
and problem drinking among women in poverty. Addiction 103(8), 1283-1293. doi:
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02234.x

22. Ovwigho, P., Saunders, C., & Born, C. (2008). Barriers to independence among TANF
recipients: Comparing caseworker records and client surveys. Administration in Social
Work 32(3), 84-110. doi:10.108./03643100801922662

23. Ozawa, M., & Hong-Sik, Y. (2005). "Leavers" from TANF and AFDC: How do they fare
economically? Social Work 50(3), 249.

24. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the
International Health Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July
1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health
Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. The definition has
not been amended since 1948.

25. Rath, T., & Harter, J. (May 12, 2010). Wellbeing: What you Need to Thrive. Gallup.
Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/content/127643

26. Rath, T., & Harter, K. (May 4, 2010). The Five Essential Elements of Wellbeing: What
differentiates a thriving life from one spend suffering? Gallup. Retrieved May 13, 2010,
from http://www.gallup.com/content/126884


27. Saad, L. (April 16, 2010). Making Ends Meet is a Threshold for Personal Wellbeing.
Gallup. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/127391/Making-
Ends-Meet-Threshold-Personal-Wellbeing.aspx

28. Witters, D., & Mendes, E. (2010, May 10). Holland, Mich., Metro Area Best at Meeting
Basic Needs. Gallup. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127778

29. Udansky, ML. and Wolf, DA. (2008, May 8). When Child Care Breaks Down: Mother’s
Experiences with Child Care Problems and Resulting Missed Work. Journal of Family
Issues 2008;29;1185.

Wellbeing Surveys Reviewed
1. Psychological General Well-Being Index/Scale (2006)
National Center for Health Statistics
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hyattsville MD

2. WHO-Five Well-Being Index (1998)
World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe
Copenhagen, Denmark

3. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Survey (2008)
The Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Columbia Population Research Center
Columbia University
New York, NY

4. Work and Health Survey (2000)
Field Research Corporation
San Francisco CA

5. California Work and Health Survey (1998)
Field Research Corporation
San Francisco CA

6. Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey (2005)
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency
Belfast, Ireland

7. The Bay Area Family Well-Being Survey: Sonoma County
The SPHERE Institute
Burlingame, CA

8. Sonoma County Homeless Census and Survey (2009)
Applied Survey Research
Watsonville, CA


9. Well-Being Questionnaire (2010)
Reader’s Digest
rd.com

10. California Well-Being Studies: SSI Parent CalWORKs Study (2010)
Child and Family Policy Institute of California
Oakland CA

11. Women’s Employment Study (1997-2003)
University of Michigan Poverty Research and Training Center
Ann Arbor, MI

12. Survey of Income and Program Participation (2004)
U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC


Appendix A: Towns included in each Region
Central Santa Rosa
Rohnert Park
Cotati
North Calistoga
Cloverdale
Geyserville
Healdsburg
Windsor
Fulton
East Boyes Hot
Springs
Eldridge
El Verano
Glen Ellen
Kenwood
Sonoma
Vineburg
South Penngrove
Petaluma
West Bodega
Bodega Bay
Valley Ford
Annapolis
Camp Meeker
Cazedero
Duncan Mills
Forestville
Graton
Gualala
Guerneville
Jenner
Monte Rio
Occidental
Rio Nido
Sebastopol
Stewarts Point
Villa Grande
Sea Ranch


Appendix B: All Responses by Percent Did Not Answer
% of those
Questions on % did not that did
Barrier to Self Sufficiency Survey answer answer
Employment Barriers NA NA 96%
1. Unemployed 10+ months 1 4.7% 83.4%
2. When working, worked < full time 2 4.25 84.1%
3. No jobs available 3 0.0% 25.8%
4. Need to stay home 3 0.0% 22.1%
5. Pay too low 3 0.0% 13.7%
6. Don’t know where to find job 3 0.0% 13.7%
7. Don’t want to work 3 0.0% 0.0%
8. Spouse prohibits work 3 0.0% 0.0%
Education Barriers NA NA 62%
1. < Diploma or GED 4 3.2% 31.0%
2. Need education/training 3 0.0% 38.4%
3. In education/training 3 0.0% 16.8%
Housing Stability Barriers NA NA 61%
1. Moved in past year 9 7.4% 38.1%
2. Last move involuntary 10 0.0% 36.8%
3. Problems finding place to live 7h 0.0% 21.1%
4. Housing not stable 8 2.6% 19.5%
5. Undesired roommates 7c 0.0% 14.2%
6. No permanent address 3 0.0% 2.6%
7. No phone 3 0.0% 1.6%
8. No shower 3 0.0% 0.5%
Recent Stressful Experiences NA NA 59%
1. Hassled by bill collectors 7i 0.0% 38.4%
2. Relative or close friend in jail 7b 0.0% 21.1%
3. Someone close died/killed 7e 0.0% 16.3%
4. Criminal record 3 0.0% 7.9%
5. Robbed, mugged, attacked 7a 0.0% 6.8%
6. Victim of domestic violence 7f 0.0% 4.2%
7. Sexual assault 7d 0.0% 3.2%
Resource Barriers NA NA 58%
1. Child care problems 3 or 11 0.0% 44.2%
2. Need transportation 3 0.0% 13.2%
3. Need clothes 3 0.0% 11.6%
4. Need ID/Work permit 3 0.0% 11.1%
5. Need tools for trade 3 0.0% 1.1%
Child Wellbeing Barriers NA NA 48%
1. No school recognitions 12 0.0% 56.6%
2. No extra-curricular activities 12 0.0% 50.4%
3. Special education 12 0.0% 23.0%
4. Poor grades 12 0.0% 23.0%
5. Out-of-home placement 12 0.0% 1.1%
Personal and Family Health Barriers NA NA 45%
1. My health poor compared to others 5 7.9% 26.9%
2. Physical, mental health problems 3 0.0% 23.2%
3. Living with/close to someone with AOD 7g 0.0% 12.1%
4. Child’s health poor compared to others 6 5.3% 5.6%
5. Alcohol or drug problems 3 0.0% 4.2%
NA = Not Applicable


Appendix C: All Responses by Gender
All Female Male X2 p
Employment Barriers
1. Unemployed 10+ months 84% 84% 82% 0.03 0.87
2. When working, worked < full time 85% 86% 64% 4.06 0.04
3. No jobs available 26% 26% 18% 0.35 0.56
4. Need to stay home 22% 23% 13% 0.47 0.49
5. Pay too low 14% 15% 9% 0.26 0.61
6. Don't know where to find job 13% 13% 18% 0.26 0.61
7. Don't want to work 0% 0% 0%
8. Spouse prohibits work 0% 0% 0%
Education Barriers
1. Need Education 40% 41% 27% 0.75 0.39
2. <Diploma or GED 29% 28% 36% 0.33 0.57
3. In Education 17% 17% 18% 0.01 0.93
1. Moved in past year 40% 40% 50% 0.43 0.51
2. Last move involuntary 37% 39% 11% 2.76 0.10
3. Problems finding place to live 21% 20% 27% 0.32 0.57
4. Housing not stable 20% 20% 18% 0.02 0.89
5. Undesired roommates 15% 15% 18% 0.10 0.75
6. No permanent address 3% 2% 9% 1.64 0.20
7. No phone 1% 1% 0% 0.14 0.71
8. No shower 1% 1% 0% 0.07 0.80
Stressful Experiences Barriers
1. Hassled by bill collectors 41% 40% 55% 0.95 0.33
2. Relative or close friend in jail 21% 19% 46% 4.45 0.04
3. Someone close died/killed 17% 17% 9% 0.48 0.49
4. Criminal record 9% 8% 18% 1.38 0.24
5. Robbed, mugged, attacked 7% 7% 0% 0.86 0.35
6. Victim of domestic violence 4% 4% 0% 0.49 0.48
7. Sexual assault 3% 3% 0% 0.35 0.56
Resources Barriers
1. Child Care problems 46% 45% 73% 3.30 0.07
2. Need transportation 13% 13% 9% 0.17 0.68
3. Need clothes 10% 10% 18% 0.79 0.37
4. Need ID/Work Permit 10% 10% 9% 0.01 0.94
5. Need tools for trade 1% 1% 0% 0.14 0.71
1. No school recognitions 57% 57% 50% 0.15 0.70
2. No extra-curricular activities 49% 49% 50% 0.00 0.96
3. Special education 24% 24% 25% 0.00 0.95
4. Poor grades 24% 23% 38% 0.85 0.36
5. Out-of-home placement 2% 2% 0% 0.16 0.69
Personal and Family Health Barriers
1. My health poor compared to others 27% 28% 10% 1.51 0.22
2. Physical, mental health problems 25% 24% 27% 0.05 0.83
3. Living with/close to someone with AOD 13% 13% 9% 1.69 0.68
4. Child's health poor compared to others 5% 6% 0% 0.66 0.42
5. Alcohol or Drug problems 5% 4% 18% 4.98 0.03


CalWORKs Survey Report (2010)

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie CalWORKs Survey Report (2010)

Ähnlich wie CalWORKs Survey Report (2010) (20)

CalWORKs Survey Report (2010)