Social Work Research: Program Evaluation Major federal legislation was enacted in 1996 related to welfare  reform. Financial assistance programs at the national level for  low-income families have been in place since the mid-1960s through the  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The Personal  Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, or  welfare reform, created TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).  Major components of the new TANF program were to limit new recipients of  cash aid to no more than 2 years of TANF assistance at a time and to  receive no more than 5 years of combined TANF assistance with other  service programs during their lifetimes. The goal was to make public  assistance a temporary, rather than a long-term, program for families  with children. Beyond these general rules, each of the 50 states was  given substantial latitude to adopt requirements to fit their own  objectives. The new law also allowed states that reduced their public  assistance expenses to keep whatever support was already being provided  by the federal government for use at their own discretion. This was seen  as a way to encourage states to reduce welfare dependency. In response, the state of California decided to call its new program  CalWORKs, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids  program. CalWORKs is California’s application of the new TANF federal  law. Like most of the other states, CalWORKs provided its 58 counties  with a fair amount of discretion in how to implement the new provisions.  Some counties chose to develop strong upfront “employment-first” rules  that mandated recipients be employed as soon as possible. Others chose a  response that included testing and assessment and the provision of  education and training services. One of the largest counties in the San Francisco Bay Area developed  several options for CalWORKs recipients, including immediate job  readiness (Job Club) help, remedial education for recipients lacking  basic skills, and vocational training at local community colleges and  adult education centers for those seeking higher level education and  skills. Recipients could take up to 5 years to complete these activities  and even longer in certain circumstances to maximize their chances of  success. Recipients were predominantly single mothers. If recipients  fully complied with the rules, they received a variety of financial  incentives, while those who did not comply received sanctions that often  resulted in reduced benefit levels. The county provided grants to a  wide array of education, training, and service programs to work as  partners in serving the needs of participants. In 1996, the county’s CalWORKs program enrolled approximately 22,000  families in various forms of public assistance programs. Of these,  approximately 10,000 elected to participate in one of the education and  training programs, 9,000 elected to attend intensive job placement .

1. Social Work Research: Program Evaluation
Major federal legislation was enacted in 1996 related to welfare
reform. Financial assistance programs at the national level for
low-income families have been in place since the mid-1960s
through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, or welfare reform, created TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Major components
of the new TANF program were to limit new recipients of cash
aid to no more than 2 years of TANF assistance at a time and to
receive no more than 5 years of combined TANF assistance
with other service programs during their lifetimes. The goal
was to make public assistance a temporary, rather than a long-
term, program for families with children. Beyond these general
rules, each of the 50 states was given substantial latitude to
adopt requirements to fit their own objectives. The new law
also allowed states that reduced their public assistance
expenses to keep whatever support was already being provided
by the federal government for use at their own discretion. This
was seen as a way to encourage states to reduce welfare
dependency.
In response, the state of California decided to call its new
program CalWORKs, the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids program. CalWORKs is California’s
application of the new TANF federal law. Like most of the
other states, CalWORKs provided its 58 counties with a fair
amount of discretion in how to implement the new provisions.
Some counties chose to develop strong upfront “employment-
first” rules that mandated recipients be employed as soon as
possible. Others chose a response that included testing and
assessment and the provision of education and training

2. services.
One of the largest counties in the San Francisco Bay Area
developed several options for CalWORKs recipients, including
immediate job readiness (Job Club) help, remedial education
for recipients lacking basic skills, and vocational training at
local community colleges and adult education centers for those
seeking higher level education and skills. Recipients could take
up to 5 years to complete these activities and even longer in
certain circumstances to maximize their chances of success.
Recipients were predominantly single mothers. If recipients
fully complied with the rules, they received a variety of
financial incentives, while those who did not comply received
sanctions that often resulted in reduced benefit levels. The
county provided grants to a wide array of education, training,
and service programs to work as partners in serving the needs
of participants.
In 1996, the county’s CalWORKs program enrolled
approximately 22,000 families in various forms of public
assistance programs. Of these, approximately 10,000 elected to
participate in one of the education and training programs, 9,000
elected to attend intensive job placement (Job Club) classes,
and the remaining 3,000 opted to not comply with the new
program and accepted reduced benefit sanctions.
To meet its state and federal mandates, the county carefully
tracked the progress of all program participants and compiled
comprehensive quarterly reports that summarized assignments
and outcomes at each of the contracted partner sites as well as
countywide trends. During the first 11 years of the program,
from 1996 through 2007, the county’s public assistance roles
were reduced by approximately 40%, from more than 22,000 to
about 13,000 families. The best results were obtained among
participants in education and training programs, who accounted
for about two-thirds of long-term outcome success, although

3. this group was also found to be more costly to the local
CalWORKs program during their years of study. These costs, in
addition to the longer period of monthly benefits received, also
included the cost of education and training and, in some cases,
childcare expenses. Among the participants who were placed in
the immediate job search (Job Club) program, total costs to the
county were somewhat less per year, but more than 50% were
still not successful in gaining employment, and those that did
find a job received a much lower salary and fewer benefits, and
another 23% fell back on CalWORKs after later losing their
employment.
Although the results of the CalWORKs program in this county
seemed to be following a mostly positive trend from 1996
through 2007, the situation changed dramatically in the
opposite direction during the national economic downturn from
2007 through 2011. Total public assistance rolls more than
doubled to about 30,000 during this time as the local and state
unemployment rate rapidly grew from about 7% to more than
12%. The county was initially successful in getting the state to
grant it waivers to allow recipients to extend their period of
benefits during education and training, but these waivers were
considerably restricted after 2011 due to major state budget
cuts. Between 2011 and early 2013 the total number of
recipients began to decline again by about 10% from its peak 2
years earlier. However, the total number of CalWORKs
recipients is at 27,000, still about 5,000 recipients higher than
when the program started in 1996.
Compounding the difficulty of more people becoming eligible
for CalWORKs’ benefits due to poor economic conditions, the
state’s budget crisis prompted a reduction in state allocations
to counties and recipients. Nonetheless, county administrators
were still pleased to report that more than more than 16,000
recipients during the program were able to obtain employment
or other support that eliminated their dependency on cash

4. public assistance.
Post an evaluation of the success of the CALWORKS program
based on the information presented in the case study. Be sure to
define what success would be for the program and how you, as
an administrator of the program, might evaluate whether
success has been achieved. Finally, make
one
recommendation for improving the program’s effectiveness.
Explain whether you agree with your colleague’s definition of
success and method for evaluating success, and why
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be
sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
gs
Benton, A. D., & Austin, M. J. (2010). Managing nonprofit
mergers: The challenges facing human service organizations.
Administration in Social Work,
34
(5), 458–479.

5. King, D., & Hodges, K. (2013). Outcomes-driven clinical
management and supervisory practices with youth with severe
emotional disturbance.
Administration in Social Work
,
37
(3), 312–324.
Lawrence, C., Strolin-Goltzman, J., Caringi, J., Claiborne, N.,
McCarthy, M., Butts, E., & O’Connell, K. (2013). Designing
evaluations in child welfare organizations: An approach for
administrators.
Administration in Social Work
,
37
(1), 3–13.
Lynch-Cerullo, K., & Cooney, K. (2011). Moving from outputs
to outcomes: A review of the evolution of performance
measurement in the human service nonprofit sector.
Administration in Social Work

6. ,
35
(4), 364–388.
Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014c).
Social work case studies: Foundation year
. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing
[Vital Source e-reader].
“Social Work Research: Program Evaluation” (pp. 66–68)