Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565122
label
[Welfare] - Management Study - Alameda County Welfare Department, 11/11/1971 (4 of 4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565122
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - Management Study - Alameda County Welfare Department, 11/11/1971 (4 of 4)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565122
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
af4a4f9c2b55d969
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Welfare] - Management Study -
Alameda County Welfare Department,
11/11/1971 (4 of 4)
Box: P39
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
The priorities in promotion and orientation, stipulated in Section
5004.1 are:
(1) An employment and training program.
(2) A special projects program.
(3) An institutional and work-experience training program.
As we shall see - - at least in Alameda WIN - it is priority 3 that has
received the greatest expenditure emphasis.
The general divisions of responsibility for WIN break down as follows:
county welfare departments are responsible for assessing all AFDC applicants
as to appropriateness for referral to WIN, and with respect to all referrals
accepted by HRD, to provide the basic grant plus training connected expenses
(child care, transportation, standard allowance of $25.00, and cost of medical
exams), to assist with whatever supportive social services may be needed, and
the maintenance of certain controls and statistical reports. WIN staff,
under HRD, is responsible for direct work with the client designed to lead to
employment and the actual operation of programs set out in the code.
Specific procedures required of each WIN referral in Alameda County
are rather involved:
(1) An Eligibility Technician in Welfare Department at
intake determines "federal eligibility," which, as
set out in ACWD Procedure 3-10-37 emphasizes the need
to document some connection to the work force by the
applicant. Completes Form 0-228 (referral for services)
and sends to social worker.
(2) A Social Worker completes Form CA 340 (WIN referral
form) and WIN informational record #339 and #339A in a
no 250 -
face-to-face contact with client at home or in
office and within 30 days of first aid payment.
Also completes form 17-106 (WIN statistical data).
Every WIN client receives a physical exam if
desired. The worker may require an exam. These
forms comprise the WIN referral Packet which is
sent to Employment Rehabilitation Service (ERS).
Social worker reviews and attends to whatever
service needs the client may have that would be
related to employment (child care, transportation,
etc.).
(3) The Employment Rehabilitation Section prepares control
cards, retains a copy and forwards control card to
data processing. ERS retains form 17-106 and forwards
WIN packet to WIN office (HRD).
(4) WIN, if it has accepted referral, sends "Notice to
Appear for an Enrollment Interview" to eligibility
technician.
(5) The Eligibility Technician forwards enrollment inter-
view notice to social worker.
(6) The Social Worker should make an immediate home call
to client to assist him in getting to WIN for an
interview.
(7) The Client goes to WIN office. If it is determined
that he is to be enrolled, an assessment is made of
his employment needs by the WIN Team and he is
- 251 -
assigned to a training plan.
(8) WIN returns form CA 340 to ERS with instructions.
Status is changed on control card.
(9) ERS initiates training allowance, refers forms to
eligibility technician at branch office for formal
authorization.
(10) The Eligibility Technician authorizes training
allowance and returns this to Fiscal Division.
Warrant is prepared. According to the ERS Supervisor,
the process for approval of training allowances
frequently requires two weeks and occasions a high
rate of premature drop-outs in training programs.
Once enrolled in WIN and pursuing a training plan, it is expected
that the client will be in the labor market within one year, according to the
Alameda County WIN Director, Ramon Jimenez. This year of attack on client
employment barriers can involve all previously contacted welfare and HRD
staff, although the primary responsibility rests with WIN.
Alameda WIN has 38 employees, most of whom staff five "employability
development teams. " Each team carries a caseload of 225 WIN enrollees. As
explained by HRD,
The WIN employability team usually consists of a
counselor; a work training specialist to do enrolling,
make the arrangements for training, and conduct deter-
minations; a manpower specialist to do job development;
a coach to do follow-up and outreach services; and a
clerk. These five specialists work very closely with
the enrollee, applying their expertise as a team to each
enrollee's problems. The team particularly helps the
client develop and carry out his job-directed Employ-
ability Plan. The team is the enrollee's "home base"
- 252 -
from initial enrollment to termination from the
program. The WIN team concept has been found to
be particularly effective in working with the multi-
faceted problems of welfare recipients: the enrollee
is made aware of all the services available (with
the help of the group leader at orientation sessions),
and is given services by the employability team,
while each team member is able to expedite and coordinate
his particular services to the enrollee with those of
other team members. 4
A frequently voiced complaint, intended to explain WIN's minimal success to
date, is that a team caseload of 225 clients is too high. However, the ratio
of clients to total professional staff (ignoring the somewhat over-specialized
designation of professional skills) is 56-to-1.
The new WIN enrollee, if found to have skills marketable in the
local community, is given help in finding a new job. However, according to
WIN information pamphlet 1055, "Before this can be done there is often need
to provide counseling, guidance, and special services to remove financial,
legal, or sociological barriers." Once again, an expression of the
conventional wisdom on the causes of unemployment.
The WIN enrollee selected for training or work experience commences
the program in "Orientation," which, to cite pamphlet 1055, is:
A two to three weeks' session of general information
through selected speakers, films, field trips, with a
group leader from the WIN staff, and the added benefit of
the mutual exchange of advice and support by the dozen or
so gathered in each daily class, leading to greater know-
ledge about local work and community resources, employer
values, ways and means to deal with the modern world, and
to increased self-confidence.
If orientation is anything like the pamphlet says it is, it must be considered
an insult to the intelligence of the jobless person. What can the returning
4
Human Resources Development, Second Annual Report of the California Work
Incentive Program, January, 1971.
- 253 -
Viet Nam Veteran be told about "ways and means to deal with the modern
world?" Based on what we have learned in this study about the resource-
fulness required to keep a family together in the ghetto, we would imagine
this phase of the program to be barely endurable by some enrollees.
After orientation, the enrollees not ready for immediate work are
placed in educational or vocational training, or are assigned to a work
experience program in a public or private non-profit agency. Pamphlet 1055
states: "Arrangements are made by the WIN team with the respective agency
to give close but sympathetic supervision to the enrollee SO as to accustom
him gradually to the characteristics of the world of work." There are also
special work projects:
Under conditions where local job opportunities are
limited and there are few employment prospects for
enrollees through the services described, the WIN team
may endeavor to develop a local Special Work Project.
This is a project undertaken by WIN in conjunction with
a public or private non-profit agency to provide work
which serves a useful public purpose and which would
not be performed otherwise.
Meanwhile, back in the Employment Rehabilitation Section of the
Welfare Department, welfare employees designated as WIN Coordinators are
working with the WIN team to provide input from the Welfare Department; their
role is to assure that services are provided by both agencies (i.e., counseling
by WIN and financial support by Welfare).
ERS Coordinators review WIN cases in two regularly scheduled half-
day sessions with WIN staff each week. The ERS Coordinator also serves to
explain each agency's policies and regulations to the other. In an interview
with the Supervisor of ERS on February 16, we were advised that coordinators
also make certain that child care arrangements are made. However, Welfare
- 254 -
Departmental Bulletin #929, coincidentally issued on February 16, states
that "child care must be arranged by the social worker prior to a WIN
referral." This bulletin also states "it is the service worker's responsi-
bility to determine the mode of transportation for all grant cases." An
example of an ERS Coordinator's function on the client transportation area
as reported to us by the ERS Supervisor, would be "the evaluation with a
service worker of the feasibility of repairing a car." The ERS Coordinators
reportedly assist the welfare agency in "follow-through with WIN and in
determining the level of client cooperation."
The ERS clerical staff, now numbering 11 positions, is primarily
devoted to maintaining controls and statistics on WIN, such as keeping
statistics on the number of referrals, audit of referral forms, preparation
of control cards, disposition of referrals, subsequent actions by WIN,
information to WIN on client eligibility, changes in address and social
workers, routing of clients to proper workers, form letters to clients, etc.
Only three of the 11 journeyman-level professional staff in ERS
are allocated to WIN. Six of the other eight staff work in a program
designated as Educational Training Service (ETS) and in connection with
referral of employables in the General Assistance caseload. The other two
staff are job developers.
Educational Training Service within the Employment Rehabilitation
Section of the welfare department, is an optional program for the county,
providing combination work experience and training services to employable
non-WIN eligible fathers. In this program a client cannot be assigned to
work experience without assignment to educational training. A' formal
agreement with a school is involved. According to the ERS Supervisor, a
- 255 -
State requirement that an educational institution must administer an
individual's ETS experience "has effectively ended the work experience
aspect of the program." Despite the notion that there are many non-WIN
eligible fathers who could benefit from ETS, its usage since September,
1970, when it was started, has been disappointingly light. The current
year's $100,000 appropriation (75% Federal, 25% county) had been less than
$9,000 expended by April 30. There were 452 referrals by service workers
to ETS between September, 1970 and March, 1971. The total ETS caseload of
280 in mid-March consisted of 39 men in funded job search or training, 168
men in testing and counseling, and 73 women in job search. ETS is felt to
have been instrumental in making 40 job placements in 1970-71.
The ERS unit has been perplexed and concerned about the small
number of referrals. The only explanations we heard are that caseload
separation may have had an effect, because eligibility technicians were not
as aware of the resource as social workers would have been, and that it
took time for word of a new program to get around. The ERS Newsletter for
April, 1971, distributed departmentally, made a special appeal for referrals:
Due to our constant request for referrals, there
has been some interest in the response by area.
Following is a breakdown of caseload by area office:
Area
Caseload
Hayward
66
G400 - KOOO
47
Fremont
46
G100 + G200
40
G300 + D100
35
East Oakland
18
Bond
17
Berkeley
11
280
Please keep referring!!
- 256 -
It may be of some significance that most referrals have come from the
Hayward branch, whose Division Chief formerly headed the ERS unit.
ERS activity with the General Assistance client is primarily an
implementation of the county's mandatory work policy for all employables
in the General Assistance caseload. As a condition for receiving General
Assistance, the physically sound client must be willing to accept employ-
ment or assignment to a work project. No single employable man is aided.
The ERS General Assistance workload therefore consists of employable single
women, employable couples, and some men capable of light work only. If
employment cannot be found by ERS, clients are referred to county work
projects. There are presently 45 General Assistance clients in county work
projects. Between July, 1970 and March, 1971, 880 General Assistance
referrals had been made to ERS, and about half of these were cleared as
employable. In one month in 1970, a concentrated effort was made by the
total ERS unit with respect to General Assistance clients. Of 280 cases
handled, six job placements were made. Since the average length of time
on General Assistance in Alameda County is 60 days, this General Assistance
activity of the ERS unit must be considered primarily as an eligibility
screening device, rather than a rehabilitation program.
The reason for detailed exursion into WIN and ERS procedures is
that we could think of no other way to demonstrate the following conclusions:
1. WIN is no real departure from Community Work and
Training. It merely places the same conceptual
approach in a much more expensive, elaborately
bureaucratized package and labels it with a
catchy deceptive title;
- 257 -
2. WIN is not a clean break with the welfare system;
welfare is just as involved as it was before -- in
"coordinating" the new program and filling in the
gaps left by WIN;
3. WIN has brought the personal barrier theory of
unemployment to a new agency which has embraced
it with all the zeal of new-found faith and intends
to prove itself more effective in relating to client
needs than welfare ever was.
For a bit more emphasis of conclusion #1, consider the differences
in staffing of an employment rehabilitation case pre-WIN and post-WIN:
Community Work and Training
Staffing (1965)
WIN Staffing (1970)
1. Social Worker
1. Eligibility Technician
2. Employment Counselor (ERS)
2. Social Worker
3. Employment Counselor (ERS)
WIN Team, consisting of:
4. Counselor
5. Coach
6. Educational Specialist
7. Manpower Specialist
Still further support for bureaucratic aspects of conclusion #1
can be seen in this trend data on the growth of the Employment Rehabilitation
Section since 1964 (WIN commenced September, 1968) :
Alameda County Welfare Department
Employment Rehabilitation Section
Staff and Budget Trends
Staff
Year
Positions
Man Months
Salary Costs
1964-65
12
144
$ 78,291
1965-66
18
216
121,280
1966-67
18
216
127,918
1967-68
18
216
134,290
1968-69
18
216
148.191
1969-70
21
252
201,468
1970-71
24
288
214,959
- 258 -
It is ironic that a staff that was fairly stable through the mid-1960's
expands after WIN becomes effective. The professional staff, it should
be pointed out, number only two more than in 1965-66. Most of the increase
has come in the clerical area which may be another reflection of the WIN
paperwork blizzard. Alameda WIN (HRD), starting with 27 positions in
1967-68, has had 40 positions since 1968-69 (staff budgets for 1968-69 was
$374,842 and for 1969-70 was $406,194).
As we suggested in conclusion #3, WIN incorporated the personal
barrier concept and very early made it clear that it would do a better job
with it than Welfare. Thus, the early days of WIN were particularly rocky
for interagency relations, and it appears that this was true from the state
department level down through the working staffs. Resentment was expressed
in a variety of ways, and most of it developed from the welfare system. WIN
was accused of "failing to deal with the whole person;" mainstream, "cream-
of-the-crop attitudes" in selecting enrollees; there were endless debates
on procedural and regulatory interpretations. For one specific example of
the interagency dialogue, see an "Analysis of Vocational and Rehabilitative
Services offered in Alameda County for Welfare Clients," a 47-page document
prepared by the Social Workers' Union in late 1969, within a year of WIN's
start.
We do not mean to characterize this debate as a mere bureaucratic
squabble for control of a program -- although some of it does seem to boil
down to just that. Much of the discussion does reveal a real concern for
the issues and the clients, but even some of this could have been avoided
by the "clean break" initially promised by AB 210. If WIN is a "disaster
area," as suggested by several workers in our interviews, one of the major
- 259 -
locations is that territory between the two agencies involved.
Even though WIN has resulted in complex and ambiguous adminis-
trative arrangements, it has brought more staff and money to bear on the
matter of overcoming personal barriers. Has it brought an improvement in
performance? Unfortunately, we must conclude that so far, and based on
Alameda County evidence, WIN does not appear to have been as effective as
the old Community Work and Training Program in job placements and closing
of AFDC cases.
Our basis for this conclusion is a detailed report, dated January
30, 1967 from the then ERS Supervisor, Mr. Kennedy, to the Department
Director. This report was written before passage or close knowledge of the
content of the 1967 Social Security Amendments, and it was therefore not
directed to the WIN question, but to a series of Grand Jury questions. Said
Mr. Kennedy in that report:
"The normal evaluation of the effectiveness of
the Employment Rehabilitation Section program is
based on the number of clients who got jobs after
service by Employment Rehabilitation Section and the
number of those who were discontinued from aid as a
result. In this regard in the calendar year 1966
we have records of
637 placements
and of those 637
453 were discontinued from aid.
If we use the average aid payment of $183.00 on a
basis of remaining off aid one year grant savings are
indicated of
$994,788"*
Mr. Kennedy went on to qualify his claims by commenting that some clients do
not stay off aid all year, others would have gotten jobs without ERS help,
*Report by Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Terzian, January 30, 1967.
- 260 -
and the amount of help given in many instances was in inverse ratio to
results obtained. Mr. Kennedy also noted, with creditable candor that
there were a total of 1786 AFDC (FG & U) discontinuances due to employ-
ment in 1966! This meant that 1333 cases were closed due to employment
without any noticeable contact with ERS.
By contrast with the 453 AFDC cases closed by ACWD ERS in 1966,
Alameda WIN -- in the 29 months between September, 1968 and February, 1971
--- had closed a total of 250. We must now add some qualifications:
(1) HRD claims 307 AFDC cases have been closed in
Alameda County through WIN. This could be; the
250 case count is a figure from SDSW and is foot- -
noted: "cases closed because of employment or
increased earnings within six months following
participation in WIN."
(2) Labor market conditions in 1966 and the end of the
decade are quite different; 1966 was an ascending
economy (unemployment reached 3.8% in 1967), and
the economy has been "cooling off" for two years
and under these conditions it is the lower skilled
employment market that is hardest hit.
(3) The $30.00 plus 1/3" income exemptions and the
work-related expenses have no doubt had a
profound effect in retaining employed AFDC
mothers from welfare rolls.
(4) We do not, in any event, feel that the differences
in the performance of ERS and WIN are primarily
- 261 -
attributable to differences in quality of staff
or effort, or desire to do a good job, or wish
to understand the problems of hard-core unemployed.
It is primarily a result of the broader forces at
work in the economy and labor market.
Nevertheless, we think it is fair and appropriate to evaluate
vocational programs on the basis of how many people they put to work and
remove from welfare -- at least as long as their legislative and profes-
sional sponsors advocate and seek their enactment on that basis. That
was precisely the rationale behind A.B. 210; its author predicted that
25,000 persons who were then welfare recipients would become job holders
or trainees. Perhaps it was not understood at that time that WIN slots
would be limited or that WIN would apply to only 27 counties, but the actual
performance in terms of cases closed 29 months later, is 6,380. It should
be noted that this is an SDSW figure. HRD, in its Second Annual Report of
the California Work Incentive Program (January, 1971, p. 12) reports 12,821
persons "going to work" between September, 1968 and November, 1970, and
4,952 "completing an employability plan" within the time period.
On April 9, 1971, an HRD press release claimed a savings of $40
million in welfare payments based on "successful program completions" of
6,287 persons. The program completion figure is, coincidentally, close to
the number of cases closed through WIN -- as reported by SDSW. We say it
is coincidental because not all welfare clients successfully completing an
employability plan go off welfare. The press release expressed the cost
of the WIN program in terms of the average cost per enrollee, which was
quoted as $1,080. The release concluded with a statement from the HRD Director:
- 262 -
"But the impact of this program shouldn't be
measured only by the number of welfare recipients
who have gone from the welfare rolls to payrolls,"
said Sheffield. "For that modest investment of
$1,080 there's the intangible but clearly signi-
ficant return in the quality of employability and
motivation that our WIN graduates have. This
conversion of an apathetic, unskilled, embittered
welfare recipient into a self-sufficient, ambitious
and skilled breadwinner is at least as significant
an achievement in terms of the long-range benefits
to the community and the state," he said.*
We attempted to verify the welfare savings performance claimed
for WIN. We are sorry to report that despite the cost effectiveness
reporting requirement in early drafts of A.B. 210, it is almost impossible,
30 months later, to make a reliable statement. We discussed the matter
with several HRD staff (below the Director level) and nobody was willing to
back the $40 million claim. We were told, in fact, that savings estimates
have not been made for over a year, because it is a manual computing
operation. We were also told that there is hope it will become an electronic
data processing application in the near future.
We did come across in the course of this study an internal HRD
memorandum which presented a cost benefit analysis of WIN for calendar 1969.
It is the only documentation from HRD sources we have seen that reflects
a careful analytical effort. This study presents a welfare savings for
calendar 1969 of $9,877,004, based on $4,112,970 for persons completing the
employability plan and $5,764,034 for other terminations.
We have done some manual computing of our own, in the hope of
estimating welfare savings for the full term of California WIN. Our approach
*Human Resources Development, Press Release No. 564, April 9, 1971.
- 263 -
has been to use the monthly figures on persons completing employability
plans (as reported by HRD) and assume a monthly grant savings of $258.33
per case. (This monthly figure is an acceptance of the $3,100 annual
savings used by HRD -- which includes administrative overhead). We have
further assumed that all who completed employability plans did, in fact,
go off welfare and have remained off permanently. Of course, many who
successfully completed WIN plans did not go off welfare, even though grants
were reduced. On the other hand, many who terminated before completion
found employment and did go off welfare. It is possible, however, that
welfare savings from early terminations and program completions may balance
out.
Note the closeness of the savings estimate below for 1969 with
that computed for HRD's internal use. If we conclude that HRD's method
was superior and accept their 1969 savings estimate, which is $220,000
higher than ours, and extend the margin of difference through the whole
term of WIN, it is difficult to see how WIN could have generated a welfare
grant savings in excess of $20,000,000 by March 30, 1971.
- 264 -
Estimated Historical Savings in AFDC Grants
Attributable to WIN Program
Estimated Savings
Number
Completing
Months from
Grant
Based on Average Grant
Year/Month
Employability Plan
April, 1971
Months Saved
of $258.33/Month
1969
January
1
27
27
$
6,975
February
8
26
208
53,733
March
12
25
300
77,499
April
17
24
408
105,399
May
115
23
2,645
683,283
June
147
22
3,234
835,439
July
209
21
4,389
1,133,810
August
273
20
5,460
1,410,482
September
314
19
5,966
1,541,197
October
368
18
6,624
1,711,178
November
215
17
3,655
944,196
December
281
16
4,496
1,154,477
Sub-total, 1969
$ 9,657,668
1970
January
273
15
4,095
1,057,861
February
330
14
4,620
1,193,484
March
365
13
4,745
1,225,776
April
302
12
3,624
936,188
May
298
11
3,278
846,806
June
242
10
2,420
625,159
July
232
9
2,088
539,393
August
210
8
1,680
433,994
September
253
7
1,771
457,502
October
267
6
1,602
413,845
November
220
5
1,100
284,163
December
333 (est.)
4
1,332
344,096
Sub-total, 1970
$ 8,358,267
1971
January
333 (est. )
3
999
258,072
February
333 (est. )
2
666
172,048
March
333 (est.)
1
333
86,024
Sub-total, 1971
$ 516,144
Total
$18,532,079
- 265 -
The semantic inflation attendant to the start-up and the
reporting on the WIN program in California seems appropriate only to its
costs, which will approximate $100 million by the end of 1970-71. Shown
below, based on a table in the most recent WIN Annual Report, is the
intergovernmental allocation of WIN budget costs, from September 1, 1968.
Those budget costs allocated to HRD are for WIN staff and operational costs,
and contract services in on-the-job training, basic education, institutional
training, and incentive payments. The SDSW budget figures are for training
allowances and expenses (child care, transportation, medical exams, etc.).
WIN Funding 5
80%
20%
HRD
Total
Federal Share
State Share
Fiscal Year
1969 Budget
$15,289,935
$12,231,948
$3,057,987
1970 Budget
$26,656,250
$21,325,000
$5,331,250
1971 Budget
$26,651,985
$21,321,588
$5,330,397
SDSW
75.000%
16.857%
8.125%
Total
Federal Share
State Share
County Share
Fiscal Year
1969 Budget
$ 4,085,746
$ 3,472,886
$ 414,346
$ 198,496
1970 Budget
$13,122,352
$ 9,841,764
$2,230,800
$1,049,788
1971 Budget
$12,849,665
$ 9,637,249
$2,168,381
$1,044,035
It is important to note that the above figures do not include budget
allocations for Welfare Department staffs in units such as the Employment
Rehabilitation Section in the Alameda County Welfare Department. It is
5
Department of Human Resources Development, Second Annual Report of the
California Work Incentive Program, p. 13.
- 266 -
also important to note that some other counties have significantly larger
employment rehabilitation staffs than Alameda.
We should also emphasize that the above figures are budget
appropriations. Actual HRD expenditures for WIN from September, 1968
through March, 1971 are $53,083,000, and we estimate training allowance
expenditures through the welfare system for the same time period to being
the total historical cost of WIN to approximately $75,000,000 by March 30,
1971.
Since about 6700 AFDC cases will have been closed by the end of
March, 1971 as a result of WIN, this means that the cost to close a case
through WIN has been about $11,200.
HRD prefers to express unit costs of WIN in terms of cost per
enrollee, which it reported on April 9 as $1,080. Aside from the fact that
this is one of the lower unit cost figures in the WIN statistical array,
its use can probably be justified on the basis of statistical measures used
in another system which "enrolls" people for education and training -- the
public schools. In that system, however, the use of cost per average daily
attendance is in part to get a comparative measure of where one school or
group of schools ranks with others. It is not a measure of the success of
educational program, but it is still useful, because many schools are being
compared. WIN is a single statewide program; there is really nothing to
compare it with. Therefore, is the cost per enrollee too high or too low?
We cannot tell from the cost per enrollee statistics alone; it is meaningless
(it may be of interest to note that average statewide cost per unit of ADA
in California high schools in 1969-70 was $944.72). We also do not know
how the cost per enrollee is computed; is it charged to all those formally
- 267 -
enrolled in the program, regardless of subsequent disposition? Is it
charged to successful plan completion and other terminations who went off
welfare?
Another enrollee statistic that provides some measure of WIN is
the percentage of enrollees that complete the employability plan and
graduate. The latest figures here are from the Second Annual Report of
November, 1970 and are cumulative from September, 1968. Out of 46,181 new
enrollees, 4,952 (or about 10.7%) completed a WIN employability plan. The
ratio of AFDC case closures to WIN enrollees is slightly better: since
5,758 cases had closed as a result of WIN by November 30, 12.5 of every
100 WIN enrollees made that successful trip "from welfare to wages. if
Only 27 of the more populous of California's 58 counties have
the WIN program. The other 31 counties refer employables directly to HRD.
A review of the comparative performance of WIN and non-WIN counties poses
the intriguing possibility that some non-WIN counties are more effective in
closing AFDC cases after HRD placement than are some WIN counties. The
February, 1971 edition of Public Welfare in California indicates, for
example, that 2,971 AFDC cases have been closed since 9/1/68 because of
employment or increased earnings within 6 months of referral to and placement
by HRD in non-WIN counties, compared to 6,380 in the WIN counties. Non-WIN
counties have closed roughly 47% as many cases through HRD as have WIN
counties, which would not seem to be a bad performance by some of the poorer
relations in the county family. The fact is, some of the small counties
seem to be doing better than some of their adjacent WIN neighbors. A few
cases in point:
- 268 -
Cases Closed after WIN or HRD
Placement Since 9/1/68
Selected Counties
Cases Closed
after HRD
WIN Counties
Cases Closed After WIN
Non-WIN Counties
Placement
Humboldt
62
Del Norte
73
Butte
22
Tehama
62
Sacramento
148
El Dorado
151
Sonoma
138
Mendocino
150
Merced
21
San Benito
76
As with many statistics, a large grain of salt is called for. The above
table does not show how many cases were closed in WIN counties after a
direct referral to HRD. An inquiry of a WIN official met with the response
that the data for the non-WIN counties does not disclose the kinds of jobs
people go into. We were advised that "WIN makes a real effort to secure
good paying jobs with upward mobility and also makes an effort to provide
supportive and follow-up services that will enable a worker to stay in a
job. "
We were so intrigued with the WIN VS. non-WIN county comparison
that we made a call to two non-WIN counties with which we are closely
familiar: Yuba and Sutter. These two counties, between them, are reported
to have closed more AFDC cases through direct referral to HRD than Alameda
has closed through WIN (as of 2/28/71 Alameda WIN had closed 250 AFDC cases
and Yuba and Sutter counties had closed 309 cases after direct referral to
HRD). We recalled that the Marysville HRD office which covers both Yuba and
Sutter counties makes a strong effort to work with welfare clients, as well
as develop jobs.
In checking with them, we found that aside from following procedures
that had been observed for some time, they had no special methods that would
- 269 -
account for these relatively good results. We also asked the Welfare
Director if he was aware of the good performance of Yuba county in AFDC
discontinuances due to referral to HRD. He responded that he was a bit
skeptical about the statistics, but he did pull files on all discontin-
uances due to employment between November 1, 1970 and March 30, 1971. Here
is what he reported for this five-month period:
Discontinuance due to employment
29
AFDC-U
25
AFDC-G
4
Jobs found by client
28
Jobs found by welfare
1
Service referrals to HRD
9
Number placed by HRD
0
Number returning to previously held work
15
Number not returning to previously held work
14
Type of work found:
Farm labor
12
Labor and construction
12
Military
2
Miscellaneous
3
Four of the 29 discontinuances (all AFDC-FG) were restored to welfare after
an average of 2-3/4 month's work.
These data do not make us extremely confident in SDSW statistical
reporting, although they are for a different period than covered by
February 1 monthly report (none of the above had been employed six months
by February 1, which is the basis of SDSW reporting). We would have
expected, nevertheless, some HRD placements during this period. Perhaps
the significance of these Yuba county statistics is that they square with
something in the report of the Alameda ERS Supervisor to his Director in
- 270 -
January, 1967: most welfare clients who discontinue because of employment
find work on their own.
We have used more space in this analysis of WIN and ERS than
some readers might think necessary. But it always takes a bit longer to
plow new ground, and no one to our knowledge has taken the time to look
very closely at WIN. Further, we feel that the future of a program which
will expend about $100 million in its first three years should be based on
more than press releases and annual reports that screen from public scrutiny
facts that are known within the responsible department.
There is another relevant aspect to this discussion. The State
Administration has proposed expansion of WIN in its current welfare reform
plan, which speaks of the program in this way:
WIN is the only federally and state funded program
that deals exclusively with the training and placement of
welfare recipients. It will continue to be a significant
part of our program to move welfare recipients into regular
jobs. California has developed a nationwide reputation as
pioneer and leader in WIN. We are increasing the number of
WIN openings this year.
Improvements are being made in the original design and
emphasis of WIN. Since only a limited number of openings
are available in WIN at any one time, it is necessary to
complete a recipient's program in as short a period as
possible.
To do this, we have eliminated training and counseling
which does not relate to placement and are emphasizing on-
the-job and vocational training which will lead promptly to
jobs. This gives the trainee the immediate substitution of
a paycheck for a welfare check and gives the employer the
benefit of his productivity while being trained. 6
6 Meeting the Challenge: A Responsible Program for Welfare and Medi-Cal
Reform, Governor Ronald Reagan, Transmitted to the California Legislature,
March 3, 1971.
- 271 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
We come now to the part of this section where we must make
recommendations, based on our research of ERS and WIN. In framing these
recommendations, we have kept in mind the interrelated and inter-governmental
nature of welfare and manpower programs. There are certain recommendations
for action that will involve individual governmental entities; some will
require joint action, still others will not be necessary if the state or
federal government should take action first. All recommendations will
require legislative action at some level. We commence with local level
recommendations.
62. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
THAT THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE EMPLOYMENT REHABILITATION SECTION --
WIN COORDINATION, ETS, AND GENERAL ASSISTANCE EMPLOYMENT REVIEW -- BE
DECENTRALIZED TO SOCIAL SERVICE STAFF AT BRANCH OFFICE LOCATIONS, AND THAT
THE EXISTING ERS UNIT BE ELIMINATED.
63. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
THAT THE SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES UNIT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY WELFARE DEPART-
MENT REVIEW, DETERMINE, AND RECOMMEND THE CENTRAL CLERICAL, ACCOUNTING, AND
STATISTICAL CONTROLS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE RETAINED FOR WIN, ETS, AND
GENERAL ASSISTANCE EMPLOYMENT FUNCTIONS AND THAT SUCH CONTROLS AND MINIMUM
ESSENTIAL CLERICAL STAFF BE ASSIGNED TO THE FISCAL SECTION.
These recommendations are not intended as a reduction in services,
but in the staff required to perform them. The recommendations are intended
as a means of simplifying the routing and processing of WIN referrals and
the provision of training allowances. With sound selection and training of
- 272 -
district service staff, it is quite feasible to think in terms of good
employment and vocational rehabilitation services in the branch offices.
In our interviews with service workers we were generally impressed with the
knowledge and understanding of community resources possessed by branch
office workers. There seems little reason to think that selected workers in
the various branches could not work as well directly with WIN as they do
now through coordinators within the Welfare Department. Based on ERS
referrals for Educational Training Services and General Assistance in the
current year, the decentralization of these activities could be absorbed by
service workers in various branches and represent very little in terms of
added burden, and promote more speedy services to clients. This recommendation
is also based on the significant decline in responsibilities and workload
in the ERS unit since the days of Community Work and Training. We are guided
once again by Mr. Kennedy's 1967 report, in which it is quite apparent that
there was a depth of involvement with the client formerly required of the
employment coordinators (especially before caseload separation), and it is
also obvious that much effort was required of staff in the community and
with training projects. Depending upon the size of central clerical staffing
determined to be required for (fiscal/statistical) employment service
controls, this recommendation should save in excess of $200,000. (75%
federal, 25% county).
64. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
THAT FUNDS FOR EDUCATIONAL TRAINING SERVICES BE REDUCED FROM $100,000 TO
$25,000. THIS IS BASED ON EXPENDITURE ACTIVITY IN THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH
WILL PROBABLY NOT EXCEED $15,000 OF THE $100,000 BUDGETED. THE BOARD COULD,
OF COURSE, LEAVE THE ETS BUDGET AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL, BUT THIS WOULD NOT IN
- 273 -
ITSELF CREATE DEMAND FOR SERVICES OR ALTER THE EXPENDITURE PATTERN. $25,000
SHOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR 1971-72.
The following recommendation may require action by Congress, the
Legislature, the State Departments of Social Welfare and Human Resources
Development and the County Board of Supervisors; it would take longer to
accomplish, but should not preclude action on the above recommendations in
the meantime:
65. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE WIN PROGRAM AND WIN ENROLLEES BE
TRANSFERRED COMPLETELY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND
THAT ALL WIN ENROLLEES WITHIN AN ACTIVE TRAINING PLAN BE REMOVED FROM
WELFARE ROLLS ENTIRELY AND THAT THE RELATED GRANT AND TRAINING ALLOWANCES
BE ADMINISTERED ENTIRELY THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT.
This recommendation has a number of reasons behind it:
(a) It is obviously the "clean break" between the two
systems originally envisioned by A.B. 210, and this
gives us cause to believe it could be authorized in
California by state legislation and administrative
regulation. It has implications for a clear assign-
ment of departmental responsibility and account-
ability in the conduct of the program; it would
minimize interdepartmental buck-passing tendencies
which have plagued WIN thus far;
(b) It has motivational implications for the client;
when he goes to WIN, he leaves the welfare system.
When he interviews potential employers he is not a
- 274 -
welfare client -- he is an applicant from the
public employment agency;
(c) The WIN program, especially with its comprehensive
team of all the skills thought to be required in
developing employability, should be the one and
only agency needed to address the problems of the
client. Why should an eligibility worker, a social
service worker, and a WIN coordinator be required
in addition to four members of the WIN team?
(d) The transfer would allow a unitized payment for all
activities while a WIN enrollee. This is another
concept of A.B. 210 that has gone astray. Every
effort should be made to see if this could be worked
out by administrative regulations; it seems quite
important that the agency that conducts the training
program should be responsible for making the
training and subsistence payments.
(e) WIN is supposed to be a manpower program and should
be handled by the manpower agency -- the agency with
the strongest avenues to the employment market.
Welfare is a social service and income maintenance
agency for the temporarily, partially, and permanently
unemployed. A clearer division of responsibility
between the agencies would bring a sharper definition
of agency roles and assist in the future assignment
and implementation of public policies in the manpower
and welfare areas.
- 275 -
66. THE MISSION OF THE WIN PROGRAM SHOULD BE SHARPLY REDIRECTED
FROM ITS EMPHASIS ON TREATMENT OF PERSONAL BARRIERS AND INSTITUTIONAL
TRAINING TO JOB DEVELOPMENT AND ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.
There is always a lag between what man knows, and what he does
with what he knows. We know that "full employment" is primarily a function
of the economy rather than individual decisions to work or not to work. We
know that in our manpower programs, neither education nor social services
seem very effective in reducing employment. And yet, we seldom revise and
seemingly never discard a manpower program approach until long after it is
known to be a failure. And we continue to develop new programs to train,
educate, and motivate the unemployed.
Instead of focusing on the unemployed, public policy and dollars
should be directed toward the job market and efforts to develop the single
most important spur to the motivation of the unemployed: a job. The
single most effective approach to job development, motivational achievement,
and relevant training is on-the-job training.
On-the-job training has a number of advantages over institutional
training in a manpower program. For example:
In on-the-job training, jobs are directly, visibly,
and risklessly tied to completing training courses. A
visible job can provide the incentives necessary to
persuade workers to complete courses of instruction.
Without a visible job, the risks of not finding a job or
refusing a job offer given during the training period may
be so large as to not make training worth while.7
7Thurow, Lester C., testimony in Employment and Manpower Problems in the
Cities: Implications of the Report of the National Advisory Commission
on Civil Disorders (Hearings before the Joint Economic Committee, 90th
Congress, 2nd Session), (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968), p. 146.
- 276 -
The Report of the President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs also
acknowledges:
A distinct advantage that OJT enjoys over
institutional training is its immediate job
relevancy, coupled with the very high likelihood
of a job upon completing training. 8
We expend a considerable amount of money in WIN mainly in institu-
tional training for what is recognized by the training program enrollee - -
and his teachers - as an uncertain job possibility. Many of the unemployed
are poorly motivated through experience with previous failure, and the
absence of a real, live job connection to his training is likely to make it
difficult for him to stick with it. Should he complete his training program
his chances of a job are still not good, but should be become employed, he
may be confronted with another period of training - on-the-job. In short,
the rewards for much of our manpower training are too remote, and the
training too often unrelated to real job needs.
There are some curious peripheral phenomena in our manpower
training programs which we have run across in this study. One of our readings
suggested that the unemployed person who is highly motivated to work will
quickly reject institutional training, while a poorly motivated jobless
person will play the training game for the money that is in it during the
course of the program. The irrelevancy of institutional training extends
to the instructors. We also encountered a former instructor from an Oakland
manpower program who reported being indignant with the conduct of the
program, and had thoughts of resigning, but reconsidered it when he realized
⁸The Report of the President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs,
Poverty Amid Plenty -- The American Paradox, November, 1969.
- 277 -
he would lose a good salary and be replaced by someone who would feel as he
did about the program, but not bad enough to reject the position, which
paid very well.
We would summarize the advantages of OJT as follows:
1. It is an immediate conversion of a welfare check
to a paycheck -- that has a very strong likelihood
of being a continuing situation after completion
of training;
2. It has motivational advantages to the employee, in
that he can directly link what he is doing and
learning to continued employment;
3. It saves the unemployed person time-consuming
orientations on the "world of work" which are not
necessarily related to a specific job requirement;
4. It is conducted by private enterprise itself,
rather than government and provides instruction
on what is needed as determined by the business
requiring the skill, rather than by government
employees;
5. The employee is in an actual work situation,
associating and working with others who have a
job, rather than a part of a group that is out
of work in an institutional training program;
6. Working has a multiplier effect on the economy,
even at a low salary.
- 278 -
Some observers hold that the advantages of OJT as compared to
institutional training are not that clear-cut. Once again, the President's
Commission on Income Maintenance observed:
The employer is less likely than the vocational
training center to teach skills which might be trans-
ferable to other jobs. Thus, the greater trans-
ferability of institutional training in the long run
may offset the more immediate advantages of narrowly
oriented OJT training. 9
We would suggest, however, that in a poor employment market, "transfer of
training" is not apt to be so important, because people will not be moving
from job to job, but simply attempting to find and keep a job. Because of
its job development aspects (before you can start someone in OJT, you have
to get him the job), the current employment situation really favors OJT as
a strategy. If, however, we look at the March statewide breakdown of WIN
enrollees, we note that only 5.2% are currently in OJT, as opposed to 77.5%
in vocational training and basic education:
Enrollees active in training
March 31, 1971
8,368
100.0%
Vocational training
4,110
49.2
Basic education
2,366
28.3
Orientation
707
8.4
Work experience
662
7.9
On-the-job training
438
5.2
Other training
76
.9
Special work projects
9
.1
8,368
100.0
We should also note that WIN leadership is emphasizing OJT; March OJT
enrollment represented a 15% increase over the previous month and a 150%
increase over the same month the previous year. Furthermore, WIN subsidizes
9
The Report of the President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs,
Poverty Amid Plenty - The American Paradox, November, 1969.
- 279 -
firms for participation in OJT in relation to length of training required
and up to 50% of salary. In Alameda WIN, historical expenditures as of
March 31, 1971 were: for institutional training $1,022,101; for OJT
$125,806. One institutional training contract in the current year is with
Oakland City Schools for $200,000, of which $120,000 is for basic education
and GED. Another contract is with Peralta Jr. College District in the
amount of $116,000, and other districts in the county have "lines of credit"
based on anticipated enrollments, all of which suggests the stake that
school districts rather than enrollees have in WIN. Here again, we should
note that the actual current year encumbrance for OJT is higher than the
March expenditure figure -- $158,821, as Alameda WIN is moving more strongly
into this area. Also, the unit claims the largest single OJT contract ever
negotiated by WIN -- for the training and placement of 33 people as guards
at the U. C. Berkeley Art Museum. This OJT contract is regarded -- and
rightly so -- as one of the real success stories of California WIN.
How can the movement to OJT be accelerated? We have only taken
the time here to suggest a direction; HRD has the information, the expertise,
and the staff to pursue it. For a model, they might take a close look at a
related program that is partially staffed with HRD administrators: NAB-JOBS
(Job Opportunities in the Business Sector, sponsored by the National
Alliance of Businessmen). This program was started by President Johnson,
and continued (and expanded) by President Nixon. Governed by a Board of
Directors from private business, it is staffed heavily with private business
"loan executives" who promote the program and the hiring of disadvantaged in
the private sector. The program is directed toward welfare clients and
individuals and families with income below poverty levels.
- 280 -
As a manpower program, NAB/JOBS is totally devoted to OJT and
seems relatively successful. For example, in Alameda County, one consortium
in local NAB/JOBS (Oakland Chamber of Commerce) between February, 1970 and
February, 1971, reports it contracted 298 jobs with 34 local employers. 66
of these had been welfare clients. National figures on the JOBS program
disclose its costs at about $3,000 per trainee. We recall WIN's cost of
$1,080 per enrollee, but we would suggest a bigger payoff in JOBS: the WIN
enrollee stands one chance in ten of going "from welfare to wages." In the
Alameda County JOBS program, however, out of 7,000 placements since May,
1968, 3,000 are still working in these jobs. To be sure, the populations
are slightly different (some are on welfare and some are not) but the
essential characteristics of disadvantaged status are not.
- 281 -
APPENDIX A
INTAKE APPLICATION PROCESS
FOR AFDC
APPENDIX A
INTAKE APPLICATION PROCESS
FOR AFDC
When a family decides to make an application for welfare, they may
either call or come into the nearest welfare office. They are usually
advised that unless there are extenuating circumstances, they will be
serviced faster if they come into the office. Home call applications are
generally discouraged.
A person coming into a welfare office, first stops at the main desk
in the waiting room and discusses his need with the receptionist. The
receptionist needs to ascertain whether the family is living within the
boundaries served by the office, and then for what type aid the family is
applying.
The receptionist then will complete the form 10-16, listing the
names of all for whom aid is requested, as well as reference persons. She,
too, will inquire whether the family, or any member has received aid
previously in the county.
The date the client requests assistance, whether it be by phone, in
person, or through an agent, is the date of application. The State form ABCD
200 is completed. (This may be done by the receptionist or the eligibility
worker).
When the client will be seen varies from office to office. In
some offices the client is given an appointment, with information regarding
what needs to be completed and brought in (emergency situations are naturally
screened out). In other offices the client is seen as soon as possible after
he enters the office.
The client generally will not have with him necessary supporting
documents, however, as a home call is made before aid is approved such data
may be readily gathered at the home call. Usually clients are not too
successful in completing State forms; the eligibility worker always has to
help the applicant with its completion.
After the client leaves, or while he is waiting, the receptionist
"clears" the 10-16. That is, checks with central index to determine if any
of the family has been known to the agency previously, whether the case is
still active, etc. Frequently this will result in discovery of a false
application, or the finding that the case is not closed but still located in
another office. Until it is established that aid is not being paid to any
members of the family for whom aid is requested, the office cannot secure
a case number. Due to volume problems in Central Index the offices cannot
call in whenever they wish, but have to wait for Cen ral Index to call them,
which is usually on the half hour.
Once the receptionist secures a case number and is able to determine
the case is not active she assigns an application number to the case. Each
office keeps individual logs. It is mandatory that all these numbers be
acted upon. In some offices it is now the practice not to give application
numbers until after the initial interview. Since there is no scroening
process some clients, after speaking for a short time with the worker, will
withdraw their application.
Even if the client is obviously ineligible, he has the right to
complete a full application. The majority, however, will leave if they are
told they do not qualify.
The intake application in Alameda County is accomplished in most
cases in two phases: the waiting room interview and the home call. In some
instances there will be only the home call. Specifically, the State does not
mandate the use of the home call, but indicates the need of only a face-to-
face contact. Because of many previous difficulties in establishing living
arrangements, the county requires a home call be made. Recently the county
went even further and made it mandatory for a home call to be made before
any type of aid be approved (the program actually allows for aid to be
granted presumptively after the initial interview but the disappearance of
some recipients after receipt of warrant brought a halt to this practice).
The initial intake interview naturally differs from worker to worker,
but the method we describe will be generally correct.
The eligibility workers first will ask the client for what aid the
application is being made. Once it is determined that the application is
for AFDC, the eligibility workers will review basic eligibility for the
program, e.g., deprivation, property limits. etc. She will also advise them
of all eligibility requirements, and the areas where mandatory cooperation is
needed. The recipient is always advised of his rights to appeal a decision.
If the worker determines there is probable eligibility the application process
is pursued. Some steps, because of time. may be completed in the home and
not in the waiting room. Usually, however, the applicant will complete form
CA201, the Affirmation of Eligibility, and with the worker's help, the two-
page face sheet. The worker will also determine the reason for the current
-2-
application, and how the family supported itself previously.
Depending on the type of application made, different forms have
to be completed as soon as possible. An example is a pregnancy verification
or medical statement to be completed by a doctor. If there is an absent
parent there might be need for an immediate referral to the District Attorney,
or if the father is in the home and unemployed, he will be referred to
Human Resources Development and told to file for unemployment or disability
insurance. The worker will advise the applicant that aid will not be granted
if they do not comply with all application steps.
RESIDENCY
If the applicant is not a resident of California he will be required
to sign an intent to reside form. Failure to comply would be grounds for
denial. However, any verbal contradictory statement may be considered too.
This is unfortunately a judgment area which is very hazy and needs further
clarification from the State. The non-county or non-State resident will be
advised that his place of former residence will be contacted regarding aid
in that jurisdiction and that an answer will have to be on file prior to
the granting of aid. Such investigation prevents the duplication of aid. All
counties pay aid out of their area and many states pay aid out of State.
The applicant who is born in a foreign country will have to present
proof of legal entry. If there is no legal entry, no aid will be granted.
If the applicant has been in the USA less than five years he will be notified
that the U. S. Department of Immigration will be contacted as will his sponsor.
This frequently results in the withdrawal of an application.
VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY
The eligibility worker will require identification of every person
for whom aid is being requested. The applicant is asked to present primary
identification such as driver's license, draft card or birth certificate.
In areas of difficulty two or three items of secondary identification will be
accepted. Also, there is a requirement that all adults in the application
present a social security card; if they do not have one they will be asked
to file for one immediately and present evidence. The index system has been
programmed to cross reference social security numbers. Both of these requests
are county requirements and not mandated by the State.
The request for identification and the social security number is a
direct result of false applications and duplication of aid granted. In general,
-3-
all applicants can provide identification or can be assisted in securing the
same. In general, this is a logical requirement, not degrading to the
applicant, and serves a purpose in "weeding out" the potential fraudulent
application.
All members of the family for whom application is being made are
supposed to be seen by the worker. Actually, a mother must apply for all of
her children; she cannot choose to not apply for some members; so must the
father apply for himself. If a member of the family is not applied for
there is a question of the family's need.
FACTORS OF DEPRIVATION
The worker must explore carefully the reasons for the deprivation.
There are different types of deprivation involved in an AFDC application and
in some cases there might be more than one deprivation, e.g., unemployment of
the father and the absence of another father. The types of deprivation are:
1. relinquished for adoption (not common);
2. parent of child deceased (either);
3. parent of child absent (either);
4. parent of child unemployed;*
5. parent of child incapacitated (either).
We will not discuss (1) as it is not pertinent, however aid may be
granted an unborn child, if there is other deprivation and the child will be
given up for adoption. Also there are a few legal guardian cases (Boarding
Home & Institutions) aided with AFDC cases. If a parent is claimed to be
deceased, no verification is required. This is out of line when everything
else is verified and should become mandatory.
*If the father is fully employed there is no deprivation for his children,
but there is eligibility if only the mother is employed. This is, of course,
one of the inequities of the program. The one parent can, of course, be
fully employed if the other parent is incapacitated, deceased, or absent.
The program actually encourages desertion.
-4-
ABSENT PARENTS
If the parent is absent an automatic referral to the District
Attorney is required. The only exception is when the child is to be placed
for adoption; then information only is relayed to the Family Support
Division. If the applicant is non-needy and only to be the payee, the county
may make the referral itself to the Family Support Division (e.g., an aunt
applying for a niece).
The worker carefully explains failure to cooperate in this area
as grounds for denial or discontinuance of aid. The actual verification of
absence becomes a hazy area. The State does not differentiate between an
absence of one day or three months, but emphasizes the family's need.
The three-month waiting period that used to be required has been
ruled illegal. Thus, the determination of absence is left to the judgment
of the worker. The State allows 30 days for action on an application.
However, the neediness of the family must be established and the needs met.
The county, therefore, has had to rule uniformly on cases where the separation
is only for a short period of time. If there has been no legal action, the
applicant is requested to contact the Family Support Division prior to the
granting of aid. This, again, is irregular based on current litigation and
we suggest that the State seek an amendment to the rulings so that aid may
be withheld on those separated less than two weeks, until contact is made
with Family Support Division. If the family's need is great there must be
a way to arrange an emergency appointment with FSD.
UNEMPLOYED CASES (AFDC-U)
In cases of unemployment, we are usually talking about the father,
as the unemployed mother is a rarety. The worker needs to verify quite a
few areas:
1. Date of last employment.
2. Date of last paycheck, and total amount of wages
and income for the month of application.
3. Reason for termination of employment; strike,
quit, lay-off, fired, or leave of absence.
4. Registration for work at Human Resources Develop-
ment and filing for benefits such as unemployment
insurance benefits or strike benefits.
-5-
While discussing the father's unemployment, the workers will also
be able to determine federal eligibility. (When there is a two-parent
household for the county to claim federal eligibility there must be a legal
marriage). This is an area which is sometimes overlooked, but should not
be as it affects the grant as well as eligibility. Thus, it should be
mandatory that the marriage be verified by more than the applicant's state-
ment. When there is no legal marriage, the family will be aided at only
the one-parent maximum. The other areas of federal eligibility are linked
to Work Incentive Program eligibility. The eligibility worker thus also
determines the Work Incentive Program eligibility of the father, but the
social worker makes the final decision.
In instances where the father claims part-time employment, it is
necessary to determine the number of hours worked and the availability of
full-time employment through the employer. This, again, should be obtained
procedurally, and not based on the judgment of the worker. For strikers a
weekly record is kept and forwarded to administration.
PHYSICAL INCAPACITY
When a parent is incapacitated, there is need for medical verifi-
cation. If it is the mother, the children are deprived of a caretaker and
if it is the father the family is deprived of a breadwinner. The county needs
to verify, immediately, that the parents' incapacity prevents any type of
employment and the duration of the incapacity. The State requires the use of
form CA343, but it is a deterrent to establishing eligibility. Doctors dislike
the form as it is so long and complicated. They want pay for their services.
The county, therefore, has resorted to another method. The worker utilizes a
form originally designed for the General Assistance Program, Statement of
Employability, as it is short and to the point. If, on the receipt of this
form, there is still a question regarding incapacity (of the man) a WIN
referral is processed with the request for a medical examination. These
examinations are paid for by the WIN program. The county is determining
incapacity accurately, but not in compliance with the State. The State has
been informed on many occasions of the unweildiness of their form but no
change has occurred. The State should either revise the form, so that it is
easily completed, or arrange to pay for the preliminary medical evaluation.
If the examination shows a severe and permanent incapacity the
eligibility worker will make a referral to Aid to Disabled. Also there needs
to be explored other benefits and the applicant must be informed that it is
mandatory that they be filed for, and the filing should be verified. For
example, Disability Insurance, Social Security, Workmen's Compensation, sick
pay, pension, etc. If there are any questions regarding sick pay the
eligibility worker must call the employer. This, again, should not be placed
on judgment but a mandatory requirement. It would be simple to devise a form
letter to cover this area.
-6-
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY DETERMINATION
The personal property limits of the AFDC are the most restrictive
of all programs. For personal property the limit is $600 and for real
property $5,000 assessed value less encumberances. Also, all real property
holdings must have a verified plan for utilization. The applicant's
property is declared on the sworn statement (CA201) and the face sheet. All
property claimed must be verified. If car registrations are not available
estimates of the value from dealers must be acquired. If bank books and life
insurance policies cannot be reviewed they must be verified through contact
with the source. The amount of the cash surrender value of the life insurance
policy is used. The worker, too, must look for large withdrawals in bank
accounts. Funds cannot be transferred to receive assistance. The property
of all family members must be explored. Children, stepfather, etc. Even if
the stepfather and his children are non-needy, the wife does have a share of
the community property. These determinations are extremely difficult without
adequate guidelines.
A home lived in is considered to be utilized. The worker needs to
establish the assessed value and amount owed to determine the eligibility.
The difficulty comes when the home is not being lived in; the recipient must
be renting, selling or planning to qualify. Usually this area is enforced
rigidly. As it is a difficult area decisions are made by the Grade I
Supervisor. For instance, the recipient cannot be renting a home for the
same amount of the house payment; a 6% profit must be realized.
CAR AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCES
There are, of course, exemptions that may be excluded in the deter-
mination of property value. A car or equipment used for, or to seek, or to
retain employment may be exempted. With regard to equipment it has become
more prevalent to ask the Human Resources Development to make the deter-
mination. We feel this should become mandatory and Human Resources Develop-
ment be made aware of this need, e.g., does the applicant need a backhoe to
find employment? How many workers even know what a backhoe is.
There are, of course, other types of property we have not discussed
but these examples readily explain the complexity of the program and the
continued need for guidelines from the State and county in order to eliminate
the extensive need for judgmental decisions.
-7-
RESPONSIBLE RELATIVES
When a man and woman make an application they are advised that the
agency plans to contact their parents and adult children as there is a mutual
responsibility to aid each other. If the applicant refuses to have their
parents contacted aid would be withheld. The worker, after being advised
that a contact would be acceptable, explores the status of the parents. If
the parents are pensioned, or on aid themselves, no letter is sent. In all
other instances letters are forwarded to the responsible relative requesting
a contribution. There is no enforcement of this regulation. If they know
the parents net over $10, 000 a year they must notify the Assistant Director
but that is a rare situation.
There is, of course, a different situation if an unemanicipated
minor applies for herself. The difficulty arises if the minor is not living
with her parents. This usually results in contact with parents and often a
referral to the juvenile authorities. The worker must also explore whether
the children 16-21 are in school or disabled. If they are 18 or over and
disabled AFDC may not be granted but a referral to ATD will be made. School
status is verified by direct contact. This is a vague area procedurally
that needs better guidelines.
Usually the worker will explore the area of income as soon as
possible for if the applicant has a fixed income it is easy to determine
eligibility. The worker advises the applicant that all types of income must
be reported, and that for determining eligibility income exemptions will not
be applied. To make sure this is understood the worker will review possible
income to the family, e.g., rental, earned, absent father, social security,
unemployment insurance benefits, etc. ALL MUST BE VERIFIED.
GRANT COMPUTATION
Let us assume the waiting room interview is completed and the
worker is going to now schedule a home call. She advised the applicant
when the call will be made, what information will be needed, such as birth
certificates, the savings account, etc. Also, she needs to know the
household composition and the total rent paid. Rent receipts need to be
seen (rent is allowed at actual cost up to a maximum and prorated if needed).
The applicant will have to account for the income of all those she lives
with. If there is an unrelated male adult in the home he will have to be
contributing for his needs. The main concern is that there will be no
misuse of welfare funds (a referral to the District Attorney may be made).
-8-
The eligibility worker tries to see all the children in the
home but this is sometimes too difficult to do. If one of the adult
applicants did not come to the office the worker will have this individual
sign all necessary forms. Both parents must sign sworn statements and they
all must know their reporting responsibility. Besides reviewing the
reporting responsibility and budget the worker will have the applicant sign
form 3-44, the Applicants' Statement. This is a review of their reporting
responsibility and the amount of aid they will receive. This is a useful
tool; frequently applicants will later say something wasn't explained, but
they signed the statement.
At some time during the interview or home call a civil rights
pamphlet will be given to the client, the medical program explained, and
the family asked if they wish to receive food stamps, and if so their
eligibility determined.
Now to determine the grant for a family. First we will use simple
examples and than a more difficult one and the complications.
Knowing the family composition the worker turns to the coded cost
schedule. The State puts out a schedule approximately once a year. Needs
are based on the ages of the children and adults. The rental allowance is
not included. Three things have to be remembered:
1. the family's need;
2. the maximum participation bases;
3. rental maximums.
Below is the table which shows the new State maximums effective 6/1/71.
Also we have recorded the rental maximums.
Number of people in the F.B.U. (Family Budget Unit)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or more
RENTAL MAXIMUM:
$88
99
124
124
152
152
173
173
194
Understanding the coded cost schedule is not so easy. First the
family is broken up into four different components.
Female 13 years & over
Male
Child
Infant/child
Incapacitated adult male
13 yr. & over
7-12 yrs.
1-6 yrs.
Thus if a family is composed of a mother and two children ages nine and 3, the
code for this family will be 1011. The worker, to determine the family's
needs, would look up this code and determine the needs at $147. This figure
includes food, clothing, personal needs, recreation, utilities, household
operations, education and transportation. The allowance for each item can be
-9-
individually broken down for each family member. Naturally the food allowance
for the mother is more than the child. (See breakdown example for non-needy).
A flat $21 is allowed for unborn, e.g., X months pregnant and two children -
$147 + $21 - need $168.00.
If the family were buying their home, let us use the figure of a
payment at $166. The rental maximum for a family is $124, so the $166 cannot
be allowed. Assuming this family has no other needs and no outside income we
can easily determine the grant.
Total Needs:
$147
+ 124
$271
The Grant will be $204 - $67 of the family's
needs are not met due to the MPB.
If, for instance, the mother was receiving $152 social security
benefits her needs would be:
$271
Less 152
$119
As the $119 is below the MPB, she will receive this amount.
If, for instance, we have a nine year-old boy living with an aunt
who is non-needy, the code is not used but two separate allowances rent and
utilities share.
e.g., $38.65 for basics and $12.95 for incidentals.
Let us break this down more specifically:
Food
$26.05
Household operations
$ 8.60
Clothing
10.45
Education
1.95
Personal needs
1.60
Transportation
2.40
Recreation
.55
$12.95
$38.65
Assuming the boy's share of utilities is $12.75 and his share of
rent is $50.00 his total needs are $38.65 + $12.95 + $12.75 + $50.00 for a
total of $114.35. As the $114.35 is below the MPB of $176.00 the total need
will be met plus the worker could allow $61.65 monthly for special needs (up
to the MPB). As you can see, the recipient whose needs are $271 but will
only receive $204 will also not be entitled to special needs allowance as
there is no leeway between the MPB and her needs. However, the recipient
with the $152 social security benefits can be allowed $85 a month for special
needs. It is obvious to all that such a system can be most unfair as it,
in essence, penalizes the family without outside income. Furthermore, as the
-10-
needs of a family increase due to the ages of the children the maximum
remains the same.
rent
MPB Code
a mother & two children under
6
boy & girl
$136+124=$260
204
1002
a mother & two children, 5 and
8
"
11
11
147+124= 271
204
1011
"
"
"
17
11
9 and 13
If
11
11
163+124= 287
204 2010
"
11
89
11
17
14 and 15
11
11
11
174+124= 298
204 2100
The recipient who has no outside income and is receiving the MPB
may be allowed a special need out of the county funds set aside for this
purpose. It is, however, unlikely as the allocation is limited. For
instance, in divisions where the money is divided by units the monthly
allocation for 720 families is approximately $175. That is about 24¢ per
family per month, or $291 per year.
100
By special needs we are referring to items specified as special
needs by the State and not covered in the basic schedule allowances; furniture,
appliances.
The budgeting becomes more difficult when the recipient is working
for the eligibility worker has to determine what allowances may be made before
the adjusted net income may be applied against the basic need. Before we
discuss the manner of determination, let us show some examples. Again using
the same family, mother and two children with a basic need of $271. Never
received aid previously.
Example #1
gross earnings $650 month
paid once a month.
Net $520.00
Expenses: $ 75.00 car paymt. & upkeep
6.00 mileage
100.00 child care
$181.00 Total
$520.00
Less 181.00
$339.00
as income is in excess of needs there is no
eligibility
Example #2
gross earnings $450 month
paid once a month
Net $360
Expenses: same as example #1
$360.00
Less 181.00
$179.00
there is a deficit between the needs and the
income and therefore there is eligibility.
-11-
However, we have still not arrived at the grant as once it is
determined that the family is eligible utilizing the net and work-
related expenses, then the earned income exemption may be applied to the
gross so that the adjusted net income may be arrived at. We, too, may add
into the work-related expenses $25 for miscellaneous expenses; this is
commonly referred to as the standard allowance or standard deduction.
Gross
$450
$450
$274 less expenses & $25 standard
less $30
30
less
176
deduction & mandatory deductions
less 1/3 of $420=$140
$274
of $90.00.
$176
$274
less 296
$000 to the budget
Thus the total need is $271 less earned income of $000 leaving a deficit of
$271. The mother will receive MPB of $204.
To take these examples to an extreme, let us assume Example #1 had
received AFDC in the past four months, which is the same as an AFDC finding
a job while on aid. This applicant's eligibility for aid would be computed
with the benefit of earned income exemptions.
Example #1
receiving AFDC in one of the four months prior to date of
application.
Gross:
$650
less $30
and 1/3 of the remainder $236
$650
less 236
$414 non-exempt income
Mandatory deductions:
$130
Work-related expenses :
181
Standard deduction:
25
$336
$336 total allowable
deductions
$ 78 income to budget
Total need:
$271
Total income :
78
Deficit:
$193
Grant : $193.00
However, due to new regulations this family will remain on aid for
four months and then aid will be re -evaluated as if the family was a new
applicant. A student once on aid (16-21) may have all income exempted if
attending school full-time, but the total income is included, for purposes of
determining eligibility.
*If there was two people working the earned income exemption is applied to
their total gross.
-12-
Before we venture into the area of work-related expenses it would
be interesting to show how the family with earned income benefits from
special needs.
Using the above example - Total basic need
$271
Special need for refrigerator
100
total
371
less income
78
$293
As the $293 is above the State maximum the special need will be allowed
probably over a period of nine months.
One word of caution, special needs are not to be added in to deter-
mine eligibility. For example, our first ineligible example would be eligible
if the refrigerator had been allowed as a need. Although it is not a common
practice, special needs are once in awhile allowed erroneously at the time of
intake.
Most of the above items do not take judgment on the part of the
worker as the regulations are precise, coded cost schedule indisputable,
and the county has been very careful regarding the shared housing situation.
It is in the area of work-related expenses that things become complicated.
Guidelines are needed desperately in this area, for while one worker will
make a family eligible by allowing a car for a work expense another worker
may only allow public transportation, creating ineligibility or at least a
great difference.
The same guidelines used for determining the exemption of the car
are used to determine whether the car will be allowed as a work-related
expense. With the car come additional costs of upkeep, payment, gas,
insurance and parking. Thus, in determining the need for a car the worker
has to review the case and reason whether the recipient/applicant can reach
their place of employment readily, without an automobile. (Moving is costly,
as few allowances are made at this time, yet in the long-run it would be
cheaper for the State to allow the cost of a move, rather than the cost of
the car).
Assuming that the eligibility worker/social worker determine that
there is a need for the car there is now the need to resolve the amount to
be allowed. First two criteria must be met:
1. the car is insured for PL and PD (county requirement);
2. the car is not financed under a chattel mortgage
(State requirement).
-13-
Both the above need to be verified usually by reviewing pertinent
documents. Secondly then, the eligibility worker has to advise the recipient/
applicant that the county limits the amount it will participate in. The
maximum is $770 plus tax and interest. Therefore, the recipient may owe
$3000, but after the county has allowed the $770+, the car payment will no
longer be allowed. Furthermore, the maximum car payment to be allowed is $50
per month. Therefore, the payment may be $100, but only $50 will be budgeted.
Also to be allowed is a flat $25 which is to cover upkeep, repair, insurance,
etc. and the cost of mileage (4¢ per mile). All of the above expenses have
to be verified on a monthly basis.
The problems we see are:
1. the worker knows the limitations of the county
participation, but reviews cases infrequently
to see if participation should continue. A
tickler system would work adequately, i.e., a
reminder card;
2. the worker does not verify that car and insurance
payments are made;
3. the worker does not verify the mileage claimed by
the recipient. If the report sounds reasonable
they accept the recipient's word. In the manual
regulations the State has compiled a very simple
table for mileage amount and cost to be allowed,
but this is not utilized to the extent it should.
Another area where there is a lack of consistency is in the allow-
ance of child care. The variety of plans available in the county is
numerous, from day care centers costing $7.00 a week, to private care
costing from $20 to $50 a week. The county has always indicated that
children need to be cared for in a licensed home, if they are cared for out-
side of their own home. Ideally licensing is good, but in terms of the
needs of the recipient it borders on the ridiculous. There is a procedure
whereby the worker whose client establishes a new child care plan, and not in
a licensed home, forwards a communication to the licensing section of the
welfare department. If the county enforced the procedure as an absolute
policy, 75% of the present employed welfare population would have to make new
child care plans; many could not and would have to terminate their employment.
Many more women would be able to work if they could locate adequate child care
facilities. Some plans on developing foster homes and day care facilities by
using AFDC mothers have been presented to management but no definite action
has been taken as yet. We have only alluded to this in the report, but it is
an important area of need.
-14-
However, how is the eligibility worker going to determine a
reasonable cost of child care when there are no guidelines available?
When is $150 month cost reasonable? When there is one child under two, or
five children ages 5-12 years, when the child is home all day, or only
home a few hours after school. There is a wide area for the exercise of
individual judgment. The worker might know that $200 is unreasonable, but
isn't too sure about whether to allow $150 or $130. The $20 difference
might also be the difference between eligibility and ineligibility.
The only way to solve this problem is for the county to put out
guidelines that pertain to geographic location, ages of children, and hours
of care. Anytime a family claims it is impossible to work within the
guidelines, the case will need administrative approval. It is evident now,
that we might have two identical situational families, but with different
allowances for child care, and this is most inequitable.
At this time if a problem arises the worker may use BHI rates,
which tend to be high. We are aware of guidelines that have been worked
on, but not implemented. It is evident that this should be reviewed
immediately.
There are five areas that need further study:
1. Expand the local child/day care facilities in the
county, and if a recipient lives within reasonable
distance, if there are vacancies, these facilities
must be used over the private plan, unless the
private plan is cheaper.
2. Renew the attack on the possibility of licensing
AFDC homes: many AFDC mothers are most capable
and experienced people.
3. Establish a child care cost guideline for the county,
with the implementation being mandatory.
4. Restate the county's policy of not paying child care
costs to immediate relatives, unless the relative
would be employed elsewhere if they were not baby-
sitting. Due to many extenuating circumstances a
service assessment should be required.
5. Child care costs should be allowed only after
verification. Therefore, the budget cannot be
completed without child care receipts.
-15-
INCOME VERIFICATION
There are many problems actually surrounding the review of wage
stubs. It is necessary that the worker understand different variables.
1. What is the pay date of the recipient? First of
the month, bi-weekly, every Tuesday? The impli-
cations are obvious.
Frequently, however, the worker does not get this information and
when there is any question this should be immediately verified with the
employer. It is not uncommon for a recipient to report four wage stubs
when there is a five week pay period, or to submit two wage stubs claiming
they are paid bi-weekly when, in fact, they are paid weekly. Although this
really doesn't happen too often it should not happen at all.
2. How many dependents is the recipient claiming?
It is common knowledge that if you have six children but only
claim two dependents, that the next year the federal government will send
an income tax refund check. For the welfare recipient the refund is not
considered income, but personal property, and, therefore, does not affect
the budget. Because of this the county tries to insure that the recipients'
claim the correct number of dependents. To insure this a welfare bulletin
has been issued, but it is far from complete, therefore, we have recommended
that the county make available to all workers income tax tables that are
readily available at all Internal Revenue Service offices. The stipulation
being, of course, that the worker always recompute the taxes withheld to
provide for correct amounts.
3. What are mandatory deductions?
This would seem to be an area where there should not be any confusion,
but there is. Different employers take out different deductions. For instance,
all civil service agencies deduct mandatory retirement; one large employer
makes a mandatory deduction for the United Bay Area Crusade; some restaurants
deduct the cost of meals whether eaten or not. The worker needs to establish
the nature of the deduction and it is more confusing with union dues. For
some jobs they are mandatory, for others they are not. We do not expect the
worker to be familiar with all the different aspects of deductions so there is
the need for careful review of wage stubs, and if there are any doubts to
contact the employer directly.
In line with the above we recommend that the below points become
policy.
-16-
1. Wage stubs to be seen monthly by worker; phone
reports not to be acceptable.
2. Pay dates to be on file in the case.
3. A written report regarding tips received to
be sent in; correlate with Internal Revenue
Service.
4. The self-employed recipient to submit monthly
bookkeeping reports and copies of income tax
returns.
CLIENT REPORTING
Assuming now we have computed the family's budget, it has been
explained to the applicant, the 3-44 has been signed, the last thing the
worker usually does before leaving the home is to again review the reporting
procedure. This is one of the major responsibilities of the intake worker.
Emphasis is, of course, on the reporting of income, changes in household
composition, children in/out of school, etc. He is also advised that the
family's eligibility will be reviewed either every six months for AFDC-FG
or every three months for AFDC-U.
On leaving, the worker will also inform the applicant when he
should expect to receive his first check. If this is a priority situation
it will be within a day. However, for routine actions the average delay
will be 10 days. Also, the recipient will be told the first (and sometimes
second month) warrant will be received in one payment, as it is processed
manually. However, the ongoing warrants will be received on the first and
15th in equal amounts unless otherwise designated (the recipient can request
more on the first and less on the 15th if desired). Also explained is that
a social worker will be making an appointment to see them to explain the
services available. They are advised acceptance of services is not mandatory
except in specific areas: protective payment, protective services, and WIN.
As the service worker completes the WIN referral, the case needs to be
referred immediately as action is needed within 30 days of date of approval.
All new cases to the agency are seen at least once by a social worker.
-17-
In the office the worker will review all of her information. If
she hasn't done so she will record data on appropriate forms, e.g., personal
property, vital statistics, etc. Then, depending on the experience of the
worker, she will either take the total case to the supervisor for review, or
she will proceed with the budgetary action.
PAY AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURE AND RECORDATION
The first form to be completed is the State CA241 AFDC budget work
sheet. On one side is the actual budget as derived from the coded cost
schedule, and on the reverse the explanation of the determination of the
eligibility. This form remains in the case at all times and is usually
signed by the worker and the supervisor. The next process is completing
form 0-19; this is the document that actually puts the case on the pay tape.
It can authorize aid for the prior, current, and future month. One of its
four copies remains in the case, one is forwarded to the statistical depart-
ment, one to fiscal, and one to Data Processing Center. Thus, all the case
information for statistical purposes derives from this initial authorization.
Certain problems can result if the form is improperly completed. If it is
returned in error the future month's check will be delayed. Also, if the
family had received pay recently and the information on this form did not
coincide with other previous input it would be returned in error.
The worker will also post the authorization to pay form 0-22
which is a State requirement. It may be likened to a ledger card of all
case actions and payments made, but is retained in the case at all times.
Both the 0-19 and 0-22 must be dated and stamped with the authorized signa-
ture (Hrayr Terzian). The worker will also complete a "Notice of Action
Letter' that will be forwarded to the recipient. This tells the recipient
how much they will receive. Anytime any budget action is taken a letter
must be forwarded.
The 0-19 is forwarded via the mailroom in the downtown office to
Fiscal Section, where the current and prior actions are completed. The
information is then typed on a typewriter key punch and this produces a card
that is then forwarded to the Data Processing Center. From there an
"interpreted" form 0-20 is returned to the worker. This is an IBM card with
holes. Anytime the worker wants to make a change to the future grant she
puts the information on the interpreted 0-20 and forwards.
In intake most actions are reviewed at the time of the budget by
the supervisor. All the above procedures are a part of the computer system
known as the 0-20 system or manual. This is because it is only partially
computerized. The worker does have the option of later putting the case on
the fully computerized system, the 3-1; this is never done until the case is
transferred out of intake.
-18-
If the worker had wanted to issue a special emergency warrant she
would need the authorization of her supervisor, and usually the Grade II
Supervisor too. In the area offices emergency checks are only sent once a
day in the late afternoon, and the request for these checks must be in the
previous day's afternoon mail. However, in the downtown office, checks can
be picked up twice a day and a request on the day of pickup, before 9:00,
will be honored. Thus, the emergency needs of the recipient living in
Oakland are more easily met than those living in Fremont.
Usually if the applicant is requesting food stamps, the budget is
computed at the same time as for the warrant. A form like the CA241 and 0-22
is used, but is initiated by an IBM card. Food stamps can be issued for both
a current and future month. The forwarding of these cards will bring the
return of an interpreted FS-20.
For a denial the same documents are forwarded but nothing, of course,
is returned. At the time of approval the worker also completes a tickler
which is forwarded to control for updating of the application log showing
approval or denial action. This is a very poor system as this is frequently
forgotten, plus the clearance of the logs is done infrequently.
Once a budget is completed and no more changes appear forthcoming
the case is readied for transfer. Of course, things don't go as smoothly
and as speedily as indicated. Often the budget action must be delayed until
the worker can receive necessary evidence or the applicant secures necessary
verification or documentation.
However, when all actions are completed the case is then recorded.
One office used forms which show that a family is or is not eligible, while
another used dictation machines, and dictated the format previously used by
social workers. There is now in use for all offices a form, legal size,
which the worker fills in. It covers all possible points of eligibility.
We do feel this is a needed improvement, and at least now the cases can be
readily audited, as there is all pertinent documentation related to the
approval.
Once the case narration is completed and there are no outstanding
documents, the case is ready to be transferred to a district worker carrying
a caseload of 120.
The case is sent to a transfer desk in the office where it is then
reassigned. It is logged out of the unit and the 0-20 and FS-20 are attached.
The average new case remains in the intake unit approximately 30 days.
-19-
The standard for the AFDC intake worker is 26 cases a month.
Actually many workers are only averaging 20 per month. The weighted count
per case is 4.6, thus, at 26 a month this averages to a caseload of 119.60
which is the number of cases carried by continuing eligibility workers.
-20-
APPENDIX B
TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF ELIGIBILITY ERRORS FOUND IN
SAMPLE OF 100 ADULT CASH GRANT CASES
APPENDIX B
TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF ELIGIBILITY ERRORS FOUND IN
SAMPLE OF 100 ADULT CASH GRANT CASES
1. Case No. 1. It was not possible to determine the correct amount of
grant for this case, as there is no explanation of the basis for the
$15 medical transportation allowance. Form 201 does not specify the
number of visits to the doctor or the manner in which the allowance
was computed.
2. Case No. 2. The grant is obviously incorrect as the analyst used the
wrong figure in computing the housekeeping need, although verification
of the correct amount is filed in the case record. It appears that the
correct grant should be $53, rather than $48.
In part 1 of the Form EC 125 there is an erroneous entry of $47
under Item 022. It cannot be determined when or by whom the entry was
made; it is obviously not the analyst's handwriting. The amount should
be $48.
Since the agency is budgeting medical transportation on a bus fare
basis, the analyst should not have considered the client's car exempt
for medical transportation.
The eligibility worker allowed 80¢ per month for medical trans-
portation. The analyst verified the need for four trips per month at
50¢ per roundtrip and made the correct $2 allowance.
3. Case No. 3. The eligibility worker allowed $3 per month for laundry;
the analyst deleted the allowance, stating that the client had his own
laundry facilities. She indicated she had seen the bill and payment
plan for the washing machine but failed to make the correct $7.75
allowance for client's one-half share of cost.
-1-
The analyst corrected the Social Security income figure.
The eligibility worker used the face value of the insurance policy;
the analyst accepted this figure, although she had determined the
verified cash surrender value.
It should be noted that the analyst's decision on the amount of the
grant was not implemented by the agency, although there is no discussion
to show disagreement between analyst and eligibility worker or any
arbitration on the case. Laundry allowance was not deleted until
December. There is no entry under Item 025 "Final Agency Decision.
4. Case No. 4. The eligibility worker allowed the $9 special diet item,
although there apparently had been no verification of need since a
medical statement was obtained in 1967. The analyst concurred and
stated that "Form seen at home." This is not acceptable verification
as the source and content of the form cannot be determined nor is there
any reference to a date.
The analyst entered the $500 face value on Form EC 125, instead
of using the known cash surrender value of $542.
5. Case No. 5. The analyst failed to note that the eligibility worker
had correctly allowed the verified $20 need for an essential furniture
payment. The grant change had already been set up and implemented
before the case was assigned for validation. The eligibility worker's
$195 grant determination was correct and the analyst's recommendation
for $175 was erroneous.
6. Case No. 6. On Form 201, the client claims a need for medical trans-
portation and states that he goes by bus. He also gives the name of
his doctor. No allowance was made by either the eligibility worker or
-2-
the analyst, and there is no indication in the record that the need
was discussed or considered.
7. Case No. 7. The need for the $16 medical transportation allowance
made by both the eligibility worker and the analyst is not substantiated,
The analyst notes that the client uses her car "several times per month,"
for medical transportation. However, no computation of cost is shown,
and the allowance is questionable, in any case, as bus service is readily
available in the community where client resides and the client is
physically able to take the bus.
8. Case No. 8. The client has two motor vehicles and the analyst exempts
the truck for essential medical transportation: however, Form 201 showed
no need for transportation, and the analyst shows no transportation
allowance on the Form EC 125 or in her November budget. She did,
however, send a memo to the eligibility worker, dated December 4, 1970,
which shows a $1.00 need but does not show how she determined this cost.
Personal property status is not clear because in addition to the
erroneous exemption of the truck from the personal property determination,
the analyst also shows that the client has a Metropolitan Life Insurance
Policy, but does not show how, or if, she ascertained that this policy
would have no cash surrender value.
The analyst states that the verified amount of rent is $89 but in
her computation she uses the $87 shown on Form 201. She says that no
utility bills are available "so $15 is allowed." She then uses $13 in
her computation and in prorating the client's share of housing.
It is not possible to determine either the amount of personal
property or the correct grant for this case.
-3-
9. Case No. 9. It is not possible to determine the correct amount of
grant because the allowance for restaurant meals is not substantiated.
The record contains conflicting information about the number of meals
eaten in a restaurant, and neither the eligibility worker nor the
analyst showed the need for three restaurant meals per day.
10. Case No. 10. The correct grant cannot be determined because it is not
possible to assess the validity of the analyst allowance for medical
transportation. The eligibility worker allowed a flat $15 to recipient
and his OAS spouse. The analyst allowed $6.01 as the client's share of
expense but did not follow the computation procedure stated in the
regulations. The agency accepted the analyst's decision but did not
implement the change for several months.
It should be noted that the analyst incorrectly validated the
April budget instead of the May budget.
11. Case No. 11. The analyst erroneously accepted the eligibility worker's
method of budgeting on the room and board basis in the home of the
daughter with an additional attendant care allowance. Regulations
44-239 and 44-209, would require that the case be budgeted the same as
though it were a Group I, Out of Home Situation. Attendant care is not
an allowable need; also, home remedies should not be allowed.
The analyst uses $500 face value for the insurance in her personal
property computation.
12. Case No. 12. The correct amount of grant cannot be determined in this
case because it is not possible to determine client's housing arrange-
ment or the cost of housing during a few months. When Form 201 for the
renewal was signed June 16, 1969, client stated that she was living
-4-
"with one daughter." Under "relative," she lists a daughter, Marie
Ibey, at her own address. The record would indicate that the daughter
was away from her job on somewhat protracted sick leave; however, it
is not possible to determine when she moved into the home or when she
left it as the housing plan is not noted by the eligibility worker and
there is no indication that it was discussed by the analyst. Nothing
can be determined from the date in the record. As noted, client signed
her Form 201 on June 16, 1969 but the analyst did not complete her
investigation until a year later, June 30, 1970, although the date of
the case action was February 20, 1970 and the case was assigned to the
analyst on April 29, 1970. The duration of the daughter's stay in the
home cannot be determined. It is not possible to decide whether she was
in the home during the review month and whether she had the status of a
visitor or a permanent resident. In the latter event, housing should
have been computed on a shared basis.
On the 201 the client states she is receiving "free rent," and the
agency goes along with this and credit the daughter with a $15 contri-
bution for rent. Neither the eligibility worker nor the analyst
questioned this, although the record clearly shows that the client
transferred this property to her daughter, properly reserving a life
estate in the apartment which she occupied. The daughter, who when
employed, consistently had a high liability for her mother's support,
protested the agency's refusal in the past to consider that she is
providing her mother with free rent. There was an appeal on this matter
which the client lost. There is nothing to explain why the agency has
now reversed itself and is crediting the daughter with partially meeting
-5-
her liability by providing free rent to the mother in the mother's own
home. This is an ongoing arrangement which is now sanctioned by a
letter sent to the daughter in October by an eligibility worker acknow-
ledging partial meeting of her liability by the $15 free rent contri- -
bution. It would seem, in view of her illness and the fact that she
had a reduced income when the mother signed the 201 renewal form, that
the daughter may have had no liability during the review months.
However, the agency may wish to review the total case situation.
Conclusion of Form 125 on this case is highly inaccurate. Housing
costs are allowed under the item for Rent, instead of under Owned Home.
The alleged $15 rent contribution is allowed under Other instead of
under the item for In Kind income.
13. Case No. 13. In this case the client signed the Form 201 on July 1,
1970 but the eligibility control analyst verified the amount in client's
bank account for December, and there is no way of determining why this
month was selected since it is not the review month.
The analyst did not indicate the date she used in determining the
market value of client's shares of stock.
14. Case No. 14. The need for the special diet allowance cannot be sub-
stantiated because the last verification on file is more than one year
old.
15. Case No. 15. This case cannot be considered as validated because the
analyst apparently merely reviewed documents in the case record sub-
mitted by the hospital social worker, - Patton, State Hospital where
client is confined.
-6-
16. Case No. 16. The analyst exempted a dump truck owned by client as
personal property on the basis that it was needed for medical trans- -
portation. However, she said that according to his statement, client
was either taken to the doctor by a friend or used a taxi. It, there-
fore, appears that the exemption of the truck was improper. There was
insufficient information in the record to determine the personal
property value of the truck.
The analyst determined that the client had medical appointments
two or three times per month, and was taken by a friend or used a taxi.
Since there was no computation of need the proper allowance for trans- -
portation cannot be determined. The maximum special need allowance
should not have been made without documentation.
17. Case No. 17. The eligibility worker showed two different sets of figures
for income computation. The analyst did not make a separate deter-
mination on the amount of income but said that she was accepting the
computation of the eligibility worker. Since there is no verification
of the amount of income, the amount of grant cannot be determined.
The eligibility worker properly considered excludable income;
however, in completing the Form 125 the analyst marked "none" for this
item.
18. Case No. 18. The analyst failed to substantiate the allowance for
restaurant meals. Form 201 did not indicate this need and the record
would indicate that the man lived in an apartment. There is no evidence
to show that he would not be physically capable of preparing his meals.
19. Case No. 19. A special need for medical transportation is not sub-
stantiated by the record. Apparently the client claimed to use a car
-7-
for the purpose but the analyst did not compute transportation on a
mileage basis. She accepted the client's statement that $15 a month
was spent for gas and oil. The analyst noted that client himself
lived within a few blocks of the shopping district and the doctor's
office; therefore, the $15 allowance is not justified.
20. Case No. 20. The analyst verified the amount of client's money for
a month which was five months subsequent to the date on which the
woman signed the Form 201 for the renewal. Therefore, the correct
amount for personal property for the review month cannot be determined.
-8-
APPENDIX C
SOCIAL SERVICE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY: A RESEARCH REPORT
Dorothy Miller, D.S.W.
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS CORPORATION
4339 California Street
San Francisco, California 94118
June, 1971
(Under Subcontract with California Taxpayers' Association)
SOCIAL SERVICE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY: A RESEARCH REPORT
Table of Contents
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Sample
B. Interviews
C. Research Design
III.
FINDINGS
A. Social Service Workers
B. The Clients
C. The Social Services
1. Type of Services (Workers' and Clients' View)
2. Source of Referral (Workers' and Clients' View)
3. Social Services Given (Workers' and Clients' View)
4. Evaluation of Effectiveness (Workers and Clients' View)
5. Suggestions for Improving Service (Workers' and Clients' View)
D. Amount of Agreement between the Worker and Client
IV.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
SOCIAL SERVICE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY: A RESEARCH REPORT
INTRODUCTION
One-third of the Alameda County budget is allocated for public
welfare programs. One aspect of the public welfare program is the
provision of "social services" to welfare recipients. The budget for
social services represents approximately 12% of the total welfare budget.
How and for what is this money spent, and how effective are the services
which are provided?
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
In order to examine these questions, we conducted a survey of
welfare workers and their clients, asking each of them to define social
services and to evaluate their effectiveness.
At the time of our survey (April - May, 1971) there were approxi-
mately 300 persons employed by Alameda County and charged with delivering
social services to county recipients and others. Financial assistance
programs were excluded from social service programs; money payments were
handled by eligibility workers, while social services were provided by
workers with at least a B.A. degree.
These social service workers were listed, numbered, and a random,
representative sample was drawn from the group. The sampling technique
used was a two-step, single-variable Kirsh formula, and it allowed us to
randomly select (from a table of random numbers) thirty-six names of social
service workers within the probability limit of .10. These sample workers
were active in several welfare programs, and located in several offices
throughout Alameda County. Most of them (80%) worked with AFDC clients,
-1-
15% worked in Adult Services, while 3% served OAS clients.
Each of the selected social service workers were interviewed,
using a structured interview (See Appendix I). The social service inter-
views were conducted by two experienced social researchers, Arlen Bean and
Richard Simpson, from the California Taxpayers' Association. In each
interview, the worker was asked to describe two recent incidents where a
social service had been delivered: one "successful case" and one "unsuccessful
case." The next step of the research design involved obtaining interviews
with each of the clients named by the worker. Thus, we then had an inter-
view with a social service worker about one "successful case" and about one
"unsuccessful case," and an interview with the "successful client," and an
interview with the "unsuccessful client." Thus, the research design looked
as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
WORKER
CLIENT
SUCCESSFUL
UNSUCCESSFUL
SUCCESSFUL CASE
X
UNSUCCESSFUL CASE
X
Each client was interviewed, using essentially the same focused
questions about the social service delivered, as were used in the workers'
interviews (See Appendix I for clients' interview schedule). We then had
data which would allow us to examine the delivery of social services as seen
from each participant's perspective, i.e., that of the worker and that of
-2-
the client, as shown in Figure II.
FIGURE II
WORKER'S
SOCIAL
CLIENT'S
VIEW
SERVICE
VIEW
GIVEN
This type of design permitted us to 1) learn what a social
service is as it was defined by both members of the worker-client pair;
2) learn how the social service related to the client's presenting
program, in each participant's view; 3) evaluate the effectiveness of the
social service in each participant's judgment.
In addition, our interview questionnaire asked each respondent to
describe problems affecting the delivery of social services, and to outline
alternative social service programs. By utilizing both a "successful" and
an "unsuccessful" case, we felt we could compare and contrast the conditions
and aspects of each in order to highlight both positive and negative aspects
of the social service delivery system. Our rationale basically was that
unless a social service is acknowledged by both the workers and the clients,
no real delivery of service has occurred.
As the study progressed we learned that the worker morale was
very low due to the many agency changes and the increase in public criticism
of the welfare program in general. Several workers were laid off due to
program and budget changes, worker and client turn-over was very high and
the political leaders were publicly calling for drastic changes in all
aspects of the public welfare program. This milieu of tension was reflected
-3-
throughout all respondent's data.
Our final study data were derived from interviews with thirty-three
social service workers and sixty-six clients. (Two workers had left the
program before they could be interviewed, thus we lost 6% of our selected
sample due to worker turn-over). Yet, even in the face of such tension and
uncertainty, most workers were cooperative with the study, offering much
information and many suggestions for program improvement. They were frank
in their own self-evaluations, and often gave us extensive critiques of the
present system. They were often protective and concerned with their client's
potential reaction to our interviews and many attempted to aid us in reaching
the clients and assuring us valid responses from clients.
Client interviews were conducted by a team of five trained inter-
viewers on the staff of Scientific Analysis Corporation. They visited
clients in their homes, by appointment. One or more call-backs were necessary
in one-fourth of the cases, but in general, client cooperation was excellent.
There were only three difficult cases, all involving clients with severe
anxiety or psychotic reactions. In most cases, responses represent high
face validity.
FINDINGS
A. The Social Service Workers.
The delivery of social services is generally thought of as
"professional work," that is, non-routine work which requires special know-
ledge and special skills. In the profession of social work, the worker
with a Master's degree in social work (MSW) is viewed as having the pre- -
requisite needed in providing casework services, i.e., counseling, casework
-4-
therapy, etc. But in our sample of social service workers, less than 15%
had any graduate or specialized training as professional social workers.
These social service workers were not "professionals," and these findings
must not be interpreted as an evaluation of professional competence in the
social work field. These social workers all had B.A. degrees in the
following fields:
Social Welfare, Sociology
52%
English
15%
Psychology
9%
Business
6%
History
6%
Religion
3%
Anthropology
3%
Biological Sciences
3%
Home Economics
3%
We asked each worker about his length of time he worked with 1) the
Welfare Department; 2) with the Social Service Program; 3) with the successful;
and 4) with the unsuccessful cases. The responses are shown in Table I.
TABLE I
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASES
Length
Service
Successful
Unsuccessful
of Time
Agency
Program
Case
Case
3 mos. or less
-
3%
33%
27%
3-5 months
I
3%
15%
18%
6-11 months
-
-
12%
9%
1 year
3%
6%
12%
18%
2 years
15%
9%
5%
18%
3-5 years
48%
48%
3%
9%
6-10 years
27%
24%
3%
-
10 years or more
6%
6%
17%
-
Average
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
1 yr.
1 yr.
Length
2 mos.
9 mos.
6 mos.
1 mo.
*Other studies, however, which did focus on "trained" social workers, found
that their services were often ineffectual or unconclusive. For example,
see Girls at Vocational High, Meyer, Borgatta, & Jones, New York, and
several others.
-5-
As can be seen, most workers had been in social service programs up to five
years (average 4 years, 9 months) and had been employed in the Alameda
County Welfare Department for an average of five years and two months.
These workers apparently are somewhat more stable than workers in the general
welfare programs studied elsewhere. (For example, in Santa Clara County,
the average length of stay for welfare workers was 2.6 years). These social
service workers reflect the change in welfare programs, that is, the
separation of eligibility and social services. Due to this program change,
the "veterans" were chosen to establish social service caseloads and thus
tend to represent the most experienced employees of the Alameda County
Welfare Department. They served the successful cases a somewhat longer
period of time; on the average, than the unsuccessful cases, one and a half
years compared with approximately one year for the unsuccessful cases.
This worker stability is also reflected in the workers' marital
status in that 70% are married and most are thirty to forty years of age.
These workers are career-welfare workers and most wish to remain in this
type of work even though they are not professionally trained as social
workers. These workers were understandably concerned about their jobs,
faced with the changing welfare programs and this concern was apparent in
all of their responses
B. The Clients.
Those successful and unsuccessful clients named by the workers
were nearly all family cases with minor children--except for 18% of the
successful cases and 29% of the unsuccessful cases. Successful cases
average 4.3 children and unsuccessful cases had, on the average, five
children in the home. There were no significant differences between
-6-
racial distributions of successful and unsuccessful cases - 52% to 55% were
white; 39% of both groups were black, and the balance was Spanish-American
or others. The educational background of the two client groups are given
in Table II.
TABLE II
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASES
Successful (N-24) Unsuccessful (N-27)
Less than 7th grade
5%
15%
7th - 9th grades
22%
22%
High school (some)
32%
22%
High school graduate
36%
41%
Some college
5%
-
100%
100%
As can be seen, the successful case tended to be somewhat better educated
than did the unsuccessful cases. The successful cases tended to be slightly
older on the average (40 years) as compared with the unsuccessful cases
(35 years). (Nearly 30% of the successful cases as compared with none of
the unsuccessful cases were over 50 years of age).
Both types of social service cases tended to have relatively long
histories on public welfare: an average of five years and six months for
the successful cases and an average of six years and four months for the
unsuccessful cases. These clients were also "veterans" of the social
services, having been on service caseloads on the average of twenty-three
months for the successful cases and eighteen months for the unsuccessful cases.
More successful cases had other sources of income than welfare
(72%) as compared with 55% of the unsuccessful cases. Both groups had
appoximately the same average income-the successful cases $315 per month,
the unsuccessful cases $318 per month. These incomes must be considered as
very inadequate for families which averaged four to five children each. It
-7-
is extremely important to place all findings in juxtaposition to the fact
that the total monthly income for these large families is so very low.
Indeed, how much can be accomplished by social services for families living
at such a level.
C. The Social Services.
Given this extreme poverty, what social services were given to
these successful and unsuccessful clients? We asked each social service
worker the following question: "During the past month, what social service
did you deliver which you feel helped the client and had a positive outcome?"
We also asked which services did not have a positive outcome. The workers'
responses to these two questions were subjected to content analysis* and the
coded responses were then tabulated as shown in Table III.
TABLE III
TYPE OF SOCIAL SERVICE GIVEN TO SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL
CASES AS SEEN BY SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER
Type of Service
Successful
Unsuccessful
Counseling
24%
36%
Medical referral
22%
21%
Housing aid
12%
15%
Psychiatric referral
12%
-
Employment referral
12%
-
Drug referral
9%
3%
Special Funds
9%
9%
Other agency referral
-
16%
100%
100%
As can be seen in Table III, the more unsuccessful cases received counseling
and referral to other agencies, while more successful cases received
psychiatric or employment referral services.
*See Berelson, B., "Content Analysis, " in Gardner Linzey (ed) Handbook of
Social Psychology.
-8-
Each of the "successful" and "unsuccessful" clients were also
asked to recall a situation during the past month when they received social
services which they felt were successful or a failure. The clients responses
to that question were also content-analyzed using the Berelson method. The
responses were coded into the following categories, as shown in Table IV
which compares the services as received by both "successful" and "unsuccessful"
clients.
TABLE IV
SUCCESSFUL & UNSUCCESSFUL CLIENTS VIEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES RECEIVED
Service Received
Successful
Unsuccessful
Employment, training
18%
10%
Family adult functioning
18%
15%
Income maintenance
18%
6%
Health referral
10%
18%
Housing referral
9%
21%
Trouble w/law & community agency
6%
-
Child functioning
6%
6%
Homemaking, food stamps, etc.
6%
15%
Other
6%
9%
100%
100%
As can be seen in Table IV, those clients who were judged as being "successful"
social service cases, were significantly more likely than "unsuccessful" cases
to state they had received employment/training referrals, income maintenance
services, and help with legal or community problems. "Unsuccessful" cases,
in the view of the clients, were those who stated they received social
services for health referrals, housing problems or homemaking or food stamp
problems. There were no differences between "successful" and "unsuccessful"
social service cases among those who stated they received services in the
area of family or adult functioning, child problems or other non-specific
problems. In short, in the situations where counseling would seem to
constitute the type of social service delivered to clients, there was no
-9-
appreciable difference between the "successful" and "unsuccessful" clients.
However, "successful" cases, in the clients' view, were those which
resulted in successful referrals for employment or training, or actual
advocacy in behalf of the client with other agencies or "helpers." Finally,
services dealing with health problems, assistance with food stamps or
homemaking problems, or income maintenance were characteristic of the
"unsuccessful" cases.
Each social service worker was asked how the need for a client's
social service came to their attention. The responses to this question for
both "successful" and "unsuccessful" cases are presented in Table V.
TABLE V
SOURCE OF REFERRAL FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASES AS
VIEWED BY SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER
(Percentage)
Source of Referral
Successful
Unsuccessful
Eligibility worker
48%
49%
Continuous service case
25%
24%
Client, family
18%
15%
Other agency, institution
6%
12%
Unknown
3%
-
100%
100%
As can be seen in Table V, most referrals for both "successful" and
"unsuccessful" cases for social service originated with the eligibility
process, that is, in situations arising out of financial need. Those cases
referred for social services from other agencies or institutions were
significantly more likely to be "unsuccessful." Self referrals or
continuous service cases were equally divided between "successful" or
"unsuccessful" cases.
Clients were asked the question: "Why did you go to the social
worker with this problem?" Their responses were content-analyzed and coded
-10-
in the following categories.
TABLE VI
REASON FOR SEEKING SERVICES AS VIEWED BY
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASE
Reason
Successful
Unsuccessful
Sent by Eligibility Worker
45%
45%
Already receiving services
43%
37%
Told to go by others
8%
15%
No response
14%
6%
There was very little difference in reasons for seeking services, as seen
by the generally similar rates for "successful" or "unsuccessful" cases.
However, nearly twice as many "unsuccessful" cases, as compared with
"successful" cases were told to go for services. It would seem that
authoritarian referrals for social services are more likely to have
"unsuccessful" outcomes.
In the next series of questions, social service workers were asked,
"What was done?" in each incident. Their responses were coded and tabulated
for both "successful" and "unsuccessful" cases as shown in Table VII.
TABLE VII
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS' VIEW OF ACTION TAKEN FOR SUCCESSFUL
AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASES
(Percentage)
Action Taken
Successful
Unsuccessful
Counseling
66%
63%
Referral to other agency
3%
9%
Additional funds
24%
9%
Obtain housing
6%
15%
No specific action
1%
4%
100%
100%
There was no significant difference in the counseling service given to
"successful" and "unsuccessful" cases. "Unsuccessful" cases were signi-
ficantly more likely than "successful" cases to have been referred to other
-11-
agencies, to have received housing assistance or to have had no specific
action taken. "Successful" cases were more likely than "unsuccessful"
cases to have received supplemental funds, thus once more drawing attention
to the fact that these welfare families live at dangerously low levels of
poverty and this desperate need situation greatly influences the effectiveness
of any social service delivery system.
TABLE VIII
CLIENT'S VIEW OF ACTION TAKEN ABOUT PROBLEM
(Percentage)
Action Taken
Successful
Unsuccessful
Took direct action
39%
33%
Referral to other agency
33%
24%
Arranged financial help
19%
9%
Failed to arrange financial help
3%
10%
Counseling, referral problem
6%
15%
No action, no response
-
9%
100%
100%
In the view of the client, as can be seen, "successful" cases were more
likely to have received supplemental financial aid, or to have been referred
to other agencies for assistance, while "unsuccessful" cases were likely to
have failed to have received the supplemental financial help they sought
or to have received counseling for their problem. There were no differences
between the two groups when the social workers took other direct action or
delivered concrete services.
With regard to the "successful" cases, the social service worker
was asked, "How do you feel the client was helped?" The workers' responses
to this question were subjected to content -analysis and then coded as
reflected in Table IX.
-12-
TABLE IX
REASON SUCCESSFUL CLIENT WAS HELPED
IN SOCIAL WORKERS' PERSPECTIVE
Reason for Success
Successful
Improved living conditions
27%
Improved work, school function
18%
Family kept intact
18%
Client felt better
18%
Found job, employment school
15%
Other
4%
100%
Social service workers were asked why they felt they failed to
aid the "unsuccessful" cases. Content-analysis of those responses are
shown in Table X.
TABLE X
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS' REASONS FOR
INABILITY TO HELP UNSUCCESSFUL CASE
Reason for Failure
Unsuccessful
Client unable to cope
30%
Failed to follow referral
21%
Client's problem too difficult
27%
Lack of Administrative support
6%
Program too inflexible
6%
Inadequate funds, time
6%
Other, unknown
4%
100%
Most social service workers located the reason for failure in the unsuccessful
cases in the clients' inability or failure to follow-through (51%), or in
the difficult nature of the clients' situation (27%). Only a few seemed to
see the failure located in the agency itself, in its program or in the
inadequacy of the funding (18%).
Each social service worker was also asked, "How often are your
services "successful" (or "unsuccessful"). The responses are shown below.
-13-
TABLE XI
FREQUENCY SOCIAL SERVICES ARE SUCCESSFUL OR
UNSUCCESSFUL WITH SOCIAL SERVICE
(Percentage)
Frequency
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very often
24%
3%
Fairly often
48%
52%
Not often
25%
33%
No response
3%
12%
100%
100%
As can be seen most social service workers felt they were more often
successful than unsuccessful, (72% to 55%), in their delivery of social
services.
Clients were also asked the same question, and their content-
analyzed responses are presented in Table XII.
TABLE XII
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CLIENTS' VIEW OF
THE FREQUENCY OF SUCCESS OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(Percentage)
Frequency
Successful
Unsuccessful
Very often
15%
9%
Fairly often
58%
39%
Not often
24%
46%
No response
3%
6%
100%
100%
As can be seen, successful clients were significantly more likely to
evaluate social services as being usually effective (73%) while many
unsuccessful clients felt services were not often helpful (46%).
Social service workers were asked the reason that services were
sometimes not successful, with reference to both "successful" and
"unsuccessful" cases. The results are shown in Table XIII.
-14-
TABLE XIII
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS' REASONS FOR FAILURE
Reasons
Successful
Unsuccessful
Inadequate grant
18%
6%
Client does not follow through
15%
18%
No cooperation from outside agency
12%
15%
Caseload too large
9%
6%
No cooperation inside agency
6%
9%
Goals unrealistic
3%
18%
No response
37%
28%
100%
100%
Social service workers felt several factors contributed to their
lack of success; often feeling the client's condition was such that they
either wouldn't or couldn't benefit from service.
"Successful" and "unsuccessful" clients were asked, "What do you
feel could have been done, but wasn't?" Their responses were coded and
tabulated and is presented below.
TABLE XIV
CLIENTS' VIEW OF INADEQUACY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Inadequacy
Successful
Unsuccessful
Worker did all he could
48%
42%
Worker didn't act
18%
15%
Need additional funds
18%
18%
Need medical care
6%
6%
Need child care
4%
-
No response
6%
19%
100%
100%
As can be seen, many clients felt that, despite unsuccessful outcomes, the
social service worker had done all that was possible under the circum-
stances. Less than one-fifth of the clients in either category complained
that the worker did not act in their behalf. The only three specific unmet
needs that the clients' mentioned were more money, additional medical care
and adequate child care. Throughout the clients' responses runs a thread of
-15-
despair about social services--that somehow, they just aren't sufficient to
meet the pressing problems of poverty on a day-to-day basis.
Each client was asked to discuss any suggestions they might have
for improving services and about which services they needed most. Their
responses were coded by content analysis and the results are shown in Table
XIV.
TABLE XV
CLIENTS' SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING SOCIAL SERVICES
Suggested Services
Successful
Unsuccessful
Increase money
46%
40%
Better Agency policies
27%
30%
More compassion
15%
6%
Jobs, training needed
6%
9%
Need housing
-
12%
Medical care, follow-up
6%
3%
100%
100%
As can be seen, a significant number of the clients in both categories
indicated their need for additional funds or for more lenient agency
policies. Once again clients seem to be focused upon their day-to-day
problems of living on welfare, to such an extent that any need for specific
social service is secondary to their need for more money.
On the other hand, social service workers offered suggestions for
improving social services which seem to reflect their own work-related
problems, i.e., caseloads, supervisors, training, etc. Each social service
worker was asked, "What suggestions do you have for improving social
services to clients?" Their responses are presented in Table XV.
-16-
TABLE XVI
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS' SUGGESSTIONS FOR IMPROVING SERVICES
Suggestions
Percentage
Lower caseloads, no time limit
36%
Better Agency relationships
27%
Better training
21%
Realistic grants of money
10%
Educate clients about services
6%
100%
As would be expected, social service workers feel clients would benefit from
services if the working conditions, supervision and training of workers were
improved. As can be seen, clients do not seem to agree with these
suggestions.
Social service workers were asked, "What services are you best
able to provide welfare recipients?" Nearly all workers felt that counseling
was their best service, closely followed by referral services. Only a few
mentioned any specific or concrete service. Thus, workers relied heavily
upon their counseling skills, despite their lack of formal education, or
the clients' lack of acceptance of counseling services per se.
Many social service workers were concerned about the impact of the
recent program change which separated social services from the money payment
and eligibility determination. These concerns were reflected in the
question, "Do you believe the request (for social services) would have been
made regardless of economic need?" The workers' responses were as follows:
Yes
30%
Yes, but to another agency
24%
No
22%
No response
24%
As can be seen, less than one-third of the respondents felt that clients
would have requested social services from the welfare agency, if it were
-17-
not for the financial relationship. In fact, one-half of the workers
indicated that the clients would have requested social services from any
agency aside from their economic need.
Each social service worker was asked, "Is there anything about
social services not covered in this discussion which you would like to add?"
The following is the gist of these workers' additional comments.
Social Worker is appalled with community resources
(referrals) because there is no joint effort to help
client unless its on a "personal" level, i.e., workers
personally know someone in referred agency.
Housing - no success, huge problem area and agency itself
doesn't help much, very little done.
Job training and employment. WIN is a farce, it holds
thousands of people in limbo waiting for larger economic
conditions to improve.
Protective services should be expanded, there are no
alternatives in too many cases and happens too frequently.
Welfare successes, few that they are, are often direct
consequence of a social worker breaking regulations.
The worker is afraid to do this but interest of client
problems causes it to happen frequently.
Social Workers need more training--direct people and
community involvement. Services should not be limited
to welfare. Need more education and training regarding
drug problems (rehabilitation and counseling).
Group services for clients.
Supervision of services mainly involves review of current
workers' (or latest) dictation. Cases lasting more than
60-90 days are just closed arbitrarily. Little service
can be rendered in that short of time. When service
referrals are low (monthly account) workers are told
(informally) to keep cases a "little longer."
No short term facilities available to handle abandoned
children. Has to be better understanding and cooperation
between probation department and welfare. It is also
suggested that mothers receiving AFDC could be contracted
through the department to provide this service.
-18-
Hostility and friction between E.T. and S.W. interfere
with service.
Interagency problems.
Kick now is goal-oriented service and turnover of
cases every 60 days. Agency policy is not consistent.
Question is not more money but welfare traps people
and fails to respect them as individuals and the
community gets a negative reaction. Little or no self-
respect and/or confidence is provided.
Social services deals with long-range problems. Too
much intervention by S.W. robs development of problem-
solving in the clients.
Fraud happens two ways: intentional (which is few),
confusion in regulations.
Welfare should provide money managers and advisors (or
consultants) for the clients to use.
S.S. takes everything in the way of problems. No chance
to choose between provider and client. Need specialization.
Better drug education. Also welfare should cover the cost
of drugs. Many times the client cannot afford the drug
prescribed by the M.D.
Better use of Services Catalog (this one for everyone doing
service work).
Most of the time S.W. is a buffer between E.T. and the
client.
S.W. in adult services are primarily concerned with
manipulating grant funds around.
Geographic service areas too large and scattered.
Better way to organize and assessing the giving of
the services.
Supervision of S.W. is not supportative. They (the
supervisors) are poorly trained and removed from
social worker and clients.
Unless S.S. department can be separated from welfare,
services and eligibility should be put back together
again so at least the flow of information is faster
and correct.
-19-
S.W. is not qualified to do most of the counseling,
which is the largest part of the service.
S.S. department should work more with public and
private institutions to consolidate efforts.
We should do some vocational counseling with kids
in the school system.
Basic idea is good and sound, just need a system
that works.
Caseload management.
There are a lot of people who would do nothing
(emotionally disturbed, etc.) if they had no
social worker.
How do you eat an elephant? (ONE BITE AT A TIME).
As can be seen from these workers' frank comments, they are often
critical of the structure of the welfare and social services.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WORKERS AND CLIENTS.
These data were collected in such a manner that allowed us to
analyze how well the workers viewed the clients' situation or disagreed
with the clients' own perception of his problem. As could be expected
there was by no means perfect agreement, as shown in Table XVI.
TABLE XVII
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS' AGREEMENT WITH CLIENTS FOR
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CASES
(Percentage)
Agreement
Successful
Unsuccessful
Agreed
76%
42%
Partly agreed
9%
9%
Did not agree
15%
49%
100%
100%
As can be seen, in the unsuccessful cases, the client did not tend to agree
with the workers' view of the services delivered. One possible hypothesis
-20-
to explain the service failure could well be the breakdown in communication
between the worker and client. We noted that the actual social service
exchange often occurred by telephone, rather than in a face-to-face contact,
and it would seem that communication between the worker and client might
have been improved.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.
A random representative sample of social service workers in Alameda
County were asked to describe a recent "successful" and "unsuccessful" social
service case. Then each of the two clients named were also interviewed to
gather data as to their perspective of the social service delivery system.
We were interested in learning just how social services were
defined by both workers and clients, and in learning how effective the
social services were in terms of both the workers and the clients. The
findings from the analysis of the data were as follows:
A. Social Characteristics of Workers and Clients.
1. Most social service workers have only a B.A., and
only one-half of them had an undergraduate major
in social welfare or sociology.
2. Social service workers averaged 5 years, 2 months
in agency employment and 4 years, 9 months as
social service workers. "Successful cases" had
received services over an average of 1 / 2 years;
"unsuccessful cases" an average of approximately
one year.
3. Most social service cases involve families with an
-21-
average of between four or five children, with
an average monthly income of $315.
B. Description of Social Services.
1. Counseling and referral are the workers' most
frequently mentioned social services, while
clients saw employment, medical and housing
referral services as being the most frequent
ones.
2. Most referrals for social services are initiated
by the eligibility worker, that is, approximately
one-half of all referrals were directly traceable
to financial problems.
3. About one-fourth of the social service cases are
continuous service cases.
4. The differences between the two client groups
about the nature of services delivered were
not marked; most clients sought social services
because they were "sent" by someone. "Successful
cases" were more likely than "unsuccessful cases"
to have received aid,
C. Evaluation of Impact of Social Services.
1. Most social service workers located the reason for
a lack of success in the client's inability or
failure to follow-through. Only a few saw failure
as being located in the agency or the program.
2. Clients felt that despite unsuccessful outcomes,
-22-
social service workers had done all that was
possible, given the actual size of their problems.
3. Clients' felt that additional financial assistance
was the most important unmet service need; while
workers' felt they needed lower caseloads, more
referral resources and better training of
supervisors.
4. About one-half of the workers' felt clients would
seek services regardless of economic need, while
clients' stated they had sought services because
they had been told to do so by their eligibility
worker.
-23-
APPENDIX D
NEW ACWD PROCEDURE RE: ABSENT PARENTS
APPENDIX D
NEW ACWD PROCEDURE RE: ABSENT PARENTS
At the time of application for AFDC involving absent parent, the
applicant signs a form 0-51, an agreement to cooperate in the absent parent
procedure. The eligibility worker contacts the Family Support Division and
secures an appointment date for the applicant. The address of the absent
parent is secured from the applicant. The applicant is informed that although
welfare will attempt to contact the parent, it is still mandatory for the
applicant to go to FSD. The eligibility worker sends the absent parent a
financial statement and a support agreement that must be completed and returned
within 10 days on penalty of the issuance of a criminal complaint for failure
to provide. If papers are not returned in time. the eligibility worker for-
wards the recipient's budget to the Family Support Division. If these are
returned to the worker in the designated time period, the recipient's budget
is attached to the statements and all are forwarded to the Family Support
Division.
When the recipient keeps the appointment with FSD, the original
0-51 is returned to the worker, informing her of the FSD number. If the
recipient fails to keep the appointment, FSD sets up a new one, with carbon
copy going to the worker. If the recipient fails to keep the second appoint-
ment, a lack of cooperation form is sent the eligibility worker.
At the FSD office, the recipient will be asked to sign a complaint
for failure to provide. If a financial statement is received from the eligi-
bility worker and is supporting according to a uniform contribution scale,
the complaint is either not filed or is dismissed. If support is not indicated
according to the uniform contribution scale, the absent parent is contacted
by FSD, who will arrange a proper agreement.
All information regarding the agreement will be then fed into the
computer. Each month a bill will be processed and sent to the parent, to
arrive before or on the 1st of the month; if payment is not received by the
5th of the month, a delinquency notice is sent; if payment is not received
by the 15th a criminal complaint is prepared by the computer as well as needed
evidence for conviction under 270 P.C. These will be forwarded to the District
Attorney who will sign the complaint and a warrant will be issued. There will
be review for extenuating circumstances; the warrant will be issued even if
the man has not signed a support agreement or he claims no ability to pay as
this should be determined in court. The cases will be heard in Municipal Court
and the men placed on probation to the District Attorney who has as his tools
wage assignments, etc. If the man still fails to pay, probation will be re-
voked and the case returned to court for a further decision.
APPENDIX E
ELIGIBILITY TECHNICIAN QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX E
Eligibility Technician Questionnaire
1. Personal Profile.
a. I am an Eligibility Technician Grade I
Grade II
b. My caseload is: intake
continuing
C. How long have you been employed by ACWD?
d. How long have you served as an Eligibility Technician?
e. What other positions have you held in ACWD?
Position
Length of Service
f. What branch office are you now assigned to?
g. From actual knowledge of your duties, do you feel that any of your previous
work experience was helpful in performing your work as an Eligibility
Technician?
Yes
No
h. Regardless of whether you had it, what type of work experience has been most
beneficial in preparing you for your current work?
Clerical
Other
Accounting
Social Service
i. What parts of your actual job requirements did you find were you most
adequately prepared to handle as a result of your initial training? Number
each answer in order of their importance.
Budgeting
Special needs allowances
Knowledge of pertinent laws & regulations
Interviewing techniques
Use of forms
Documentation
Other
Other
j. List in order of their importance the important areas of your actual job duties
that were not covered in the formal training that you have received.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
k. has helped you the most in learning the things that you consider to in be
What the most important in the performance of your job? Number each answer
order of its importance.
The Department's initial training program
My Grade I Supervisor
My Grade II Supervisor
Other, older & more experienced E.T.'s in my eligibility unit
Learning on my own by making mistakes & finding out about
them as my cases are reviewed
1. Do you feel that you understand most of the basic and most frequently used
rules and regulations well enough by now to apply them consistently and
correctly in most of your cases?
Yes
No
m. How many months of experience do you feel are required to make a person a
good eligibility worker?
3 months
6 months
12 months
Longer
n. Since you were actually placed on your job have you received any other
scheduled or formal training through the staff of the central training
division? Estimate the amount of it in number of hours.
Less than 5 hours
10 to 20 hours
20 to 40 hours
More than 40 hours
O. Have you received any scheduled or formal training since you started work
through the branch office that was not sponsored by the central training
division? Estimate the amount of it in the number of hours.
Less than 5 hours
10 to 15 hours
15 to 25 hours
Over 25 hours
p. Do you feel that your Grade I Supervisor is sufficiently knowledgeable about
eligibility to answer most of your questions and otherwise assist you in
doing a good job?
Yes
No
If not, why
-2-
q. List in order of their importance the five problems which you think cause the
most mistakes in making proper grant or eligibility determinations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
r. From what you have learned about your job through actual work experience do
you think it would have been more or less effective to assign you to your
unit first and then provide more on-job training as opposed to going through
an intensive period of training before being placed on the job?
1. Less effective
2. No more effective
3. Slightly more effective
4. Much more effective
These questions only apply to eligibility workers having district caseloads:
S. What percentage of your eligibility renewals would you estimate are made
through home visits?
t. What kind of contact do you have with the client in doing the greatest
number of your eligibility renewals?
u. How important do you think it would be to have more home contacts with the
client as a means of keeping grants correct and current?
1. Not important
2. Important
3. Highly important
V. From yourexperience how would you say that errors involving either under-
payments or overpayments to clients are usually discovered:
1. Calls from neighbors or acquaintances
of the recipients
2. Home visits
3. Supervisory review of my cases
4. My own routine review of cases
-3-
W. We are most interested in your opinions and recommendations following:
caseload standards, communication, morale, supervision, training
delinquencies, realistic expectations of Eligibility Technicians or
any other comments you might feel are pertinent or useful.
-4-