2. Linkages Program

4. Mark Twain Mark Twain

9. Calaveras County Demographics 2007 estimate Population of 47,722 2007 estimate Population of 47,722  17.7% increase 4/1/00- 7/1/06 n 3.7% of Population under 5 years old n 18.4% of Population under 18 years old n 17.1% of Population 65 years old and over n 50.5% of Population is Female n 93.2% of Population is Caucasian n 0.9% of Population is African- American n 1.7% of Population is American Indian & Alaska Native persons

10. Demographics, Cont’d  6.5% Unemployment Rate 2007  8.6% July 2008  $46,052 Median Household Income  9.3% Persons below poverty 2004  8,958 Children Ages 0-17  907 Referrals Jan ’07- Dec.’07  11-Children Services Social Workers  5 Emergency Response  6 Continuing (2 not filled)

11. CalWORKS, Welfare to Work  1 Welfare to Work Supervisor  4 Welfare to Work Workers  1 Psychiatric Social Worker  1 Part Time Educational Therapist

12. CalWORKs, Eligibility n 1 Unit Supervisor n 4 Intake Workers (includes all programs) n 2.5 Continuing Workers n 1 Foster Care Worker n.5 Sanction/Linkages Worker

13. n Prevention of Sanctioned Cases n Cases at risk of Sanction n Cases Pending Sanction n Cases Currently Sanctioned Breakdown of Sanctioned Cases

14. Prevention of Sanctioned Cases  Reduction of time between approval and worker assignment.  Maintain client motivation by contacting client between intake and case assignment.  Client may voluntarily participate in WTW prior to approval of CalWORKs.  Maintain weekly contact with client  Telephone  Meeting client at a community outreach office  Mail

15. Cases At Risk Of Sanction  Missed appointment with Welfare To Work worker and no contact.  Inconsistent follow through with Welfare to Work activities.  Attended one appointment, failure to comply with remaining activities.  Started employment, failure to sign WTW Plan and provide verifications (wage stubs, attendance logs, report cards)  Secured employment, unable to retain employment or meet required work hours.

16. Cases Pending Sanction  No show to scheduled appointment (activity).  Job Search  Assessment  No response to attempted telephone contact by Welfare to Work Worker.  No return call or contact from client

17. Cases Pending Sanction, Cont’d  Home visit attempted  No one is home  Refuses to participate  NOA 840 is mailed.  All attempts to contact or meet with client have been exhausted  Appointment can be rescheduled only one time with Welfare to Work Worker.

18.  Failure to meet Work Participation Rate hours and/or non-participation in assigned activity.  Failure to make good progress or to participate in assigned activity.  Failure or refusal to provide proof of satisfactory progress in activity. (i.e. School Attendance, WEX attendance, Report Cards) Cases Currently Sanctioned

19. Cases Currently Sanctioned, Cont’d EEEEmployment terminated without good cause.  C C C Continue employment at same level of earnings. RRRRefusal to accept employment. RRRRefusal to sign Welfare to Work Plan. FFFFailure or refusal to comply or agree with WTW Plan. FFFFailure or refusal to comply when second parent is not participating (i.e. in a 2 parent household, 1 parent is medically disabled and the second parent is caring for a child under 12-months)

20. CalWORKS Sanctions/Penalty CalWORKS Sanctions/Penalty  Failure to cooperate with Family Support Services. (i.e. No good cause granted)  Failure to provide required verification documentation (i.e. school verification, immunization records)

21. Agency Contribution to Sanctioned Cases  Missed Opportunities To Assist Client  During Renewals or client “Drop In”, Eligibility Worker, Welfare to Work Worker, and Children’s Services Worker are not always notifying each other.  Continued Sanction or Sanction is Imposed

22. Is there any correlation between WTW and CWS?  101 families reviewed who were sanctioned or at risk of sanction in 2007.  48 families (comparison group) reviewed who were involved with Welfare to Work and were not sanctioned or at risk of sanction. (Point in time is May 2008)

23. Dynamics of Sanctioned Cases, Comparison Group and Child Welfare Services  63.4% of families who were sanctioned or at risk of sanction were reported to Child Welfare Services. (n=64)  26.6% of these families resulted in an open case with Child Welfare Services. (n=17)  75.0% of families reported substance use as a contributing factor. (n=48)  32.8% of these families reported Domestic Violence as a contributing factor. (n=21)  282 combined reports to Child Welfare Services for these families resulting in 4.4 average reports per family.

24. Dynamics of “Comparison Group” n 33.3% of families were referred to CWS. (n=16) n 18.8% of the families resulted in an open case with Child Welfare Services (n=3) n 68.8% of families reported substance use as a contributing factor (n=11) n 31.3% of these families reported Domestic Violence as a contributing factor. (n=5) n 44 combined reports to Child Welfare Services for these families resulting in 2.8 average reports per family

25. Allegations reported to CWS Allegatio n Sanctio n Comp.County Averag e GeneralNeglect84.4%62.5%55.3% Physical Abuse 35.9%18.8%14.4% Sexual Abuse 25%50%11.4% Caretake r Absence15.6%0%4.0% Severe Neglect 7.8%18.8%0.1% County average data from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research.

26. CalWORKS/WTW Dynamics n 3.6 years is the average length of time current sanction cases are on aid. n 1.9 years is the average length of time comparison group was on aid. n 70% of current sanction cases noted Failure/Refusal to make good progress or to participate in program activity as the reason for sanction.

27. What does this mean?  According to the data, sanctioned cases are 2x’s more likely to have CWS involvement.  Higher incidence of ‘violent’ allegations reported for sanctioned cases.  Family receives aid for approximately 18-months longer for sanctioned cases.  Individuals with multiple sanctions have unresolved barriers and therefore justifies coordination of services with CWS.

28. Planned Linkages Strategies n Send an “easy to understand” letter in conjunction with the NOA 840. n WTW and Eligibility to make follow-up telephone calls prior to WTW appointment to help client to avoid sanction. n Use of Linkages Tracking Tool to communicate client’s needs interdepartmentally. n Under MDT guidelines, WTW/Linkages Liaison meets with CWS Emergency Response Team to review reports and identify common clients and potential barriers to WTW participation.

29. Planned Linkages Strategies, Cont’d n Partnering with agency and community based organizations under the Differential Response Model to prevent a sanction. n Clients with pronounced barriers will be referred to CWS for an evaluation and possible intervention. n Bring the service to the client rather than the client to the service. (i.e. Outstation, home visit)

30. Thank You