TANF and Child Welfare: Policy and Programmatic Opportunities

1
TANF and Child WelfarePolicy and Programmatic
Opportunities

• Jill Duerr Berrick
• School of Social Welfare
• University of California at Berkeley
• SW 230

Berkeley, CA
2
Presentation Overview

• Poverty and maltreatment
• Welfare and maltreatment
• Factors influencing family instability and child
  welfare involvement
  
• Coordinating social workers with TANF staff to
  improve child and family well-being
  

3
Poverty / MaltreatmentTypical Service Responses

• TANF
• Goal Self-sufficiency
• Staff
• Secondary School
• Technician
• Rule-bound, compliance oriented
• Assess barriers to self-sufficiency
• Access services

• Child Welfare
• Goal Child safety
• Staff
• MSW
• Social Worker
• Autonomous, high discretion, professional
• Assess family problems and needs
• Access services

4
Poverty and TANF

• Poverty never eliminated with TANF
• TANF
• Work requirements
• Time limits
• Sanctions for infractions
• Povertys effects on children - powerful

5
TANF Policy Currently Under Review

• HR 240
• House Ways Means Senate Finance
• Work requirements
• Child care funding
• Marriage promotion
• Extension to June 30

6
Whats the Relationship Between Poverty and Child
Maltreatment?

• NIS-3
• Income maltreated compared to family income 30,000.
  
• Poverty is the strongest predictor of
  maltreatment
  
• But correlation is NOT causation

7
U.S. Child Poverty Population

• 72.0 million children in the U.S.
• 11.5 million children are poor (about 16)

8
U.S. Child Welfare Population

• 896,000 child victims of child abuse or neglect
• 550,000 children in out-of-home care
• Over half of all foster children come from
  AFDC-eligible homes
  

9
Whats The Overlap?
             
 
Children in foster care .5 million
U.S. Child population 72.6 million
Maltreated children
10
Why Such a Strong Connection?

• Poverty-related stress
• Daily hassles
• Inadequate coping skills
• Parental mental health/depression
• Social Support
• Substance abuse
• Subjective experience of poverty
• Assaults to the caregiving system

11
Whats the Relationship Between Welfare and Child
Maltreatment?

• Children in families receiving aid have an
  increased risk of a substantiated report.
  
• Children in families receiving aid are almost two
  times as likely to be placed in care
  
• More generous benefits may provide protection for
  children
  

12
Children Entering AFDC Reported for Child
Maltreatment
13
Children Entering AFDC with Case Openings
14
Children Entering AFDC with Foster Care Entries
15
Whats the Relationship Between Welfare and Child
Welfare?

• Under TANF, children reunify more slowly, are
  less likely to move to permanency through
  guardianship, and are more likely to remain in
  LTFC at 12 months
• Children reunify more slowly with caregivers who
  have lost welfare income (regardless of income
  from work)
  

16
Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of
Child Welfare Events

• Young children
• Single parent family
• Larger families
• Born with low birth weight
• Late or no prenatal care
• Increased time on aid
• Breaks in aid receipt

17
Characteristics Associated withIncreased Odds of
Child Welfare Events(cont)

• More hardships
• Deeper poverty
• Homelessness
• Substance abuse
• Parental stress
• Prior child welfare
• contact

18
Whats the Relationship Between Employment and
Child Welfare?

• Some studies point to an increase in neglect
  among mothers working following a welfare spell.
  
• Other studies show a protective effect.
• Income from employment may lengthen time to
  reunification among child welfare involved
  families.
  

19
Welfare Reform and Family Well-Being
Use of Childcare
Surveillance
Work
Sanctions Penalties
Welfare Income
Family Caps
TANFServices
Behavioral RequirementsTeens live at homeNo
drug feloniesPaternity establishmentImmunizati
ons
Child Welfare Services
Effects on Parenting
Positive
Negative
Complicated or Unknown
20
Aspects of Welfare Programs Likely to Have a
Negative Impact on Child Welfare Events

• Material hardship
• Family Cap
• Full family sanctions
• Shorter time limits
• Undue emphasis on employment

21
Aspects of Welfare Programs Likely to have More
Positive Child Welfare Effects

• Income
• Higher benefits
• Uninterrupted TANF payments during childrens
  stay in out-of-home care
  
• Concrete services

22
Sentinel Family Overview

• Context of welfare reformin Alameda, CA
• Study methods
• Description of sample
• Case study of pathwayfrom welfare to child
  welfare

23
CalWORKs in Alameda County

• Time limits
• Work requirements
• Child-only provision
• Program implementation slow
• Separation of CalWORKsfrom eligibility

24
Methods

• Design
• Longitudinal, qualitative (ethnographic)
• Sampling
• Precarious families
• Data collection
• Observer-participant
• Audio-taped
• Transcribed

25
Who is Leticia?

• Single mother
• 4 children
• No job history/ no skills
• 8th grade education
• Began AFDC 1982 breaks in aid due to prison,
  loss of children
  
• Previous substance abuse
• In recovery

26
Leticias Welfare/Child Welfare Timeline1982
1997
AFDC SSI
SSI
AFDC
No GA, No AFDC
1997
1982
1987
1996
LeticiaIn Out of Prison
1st Child Born
2nd Child Born
(Cut offSSI a few months later)
(SSI Eligiblefor Drug Addiction)
3rd Child Born
4th Child Born
3 Children Removed, Placed in Foster Care
27
Leticias Welfare/Child Welfare Timeline 1997
2001
No GA, No TANF
-------TANF/CalWORKs-------
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
Leticia in Prison4th Child Living with Partner
Collecting AFDC, Removed to FC
Family Cap
4th Child Removed, Placed in Foster Care
Began CalWORKs some PT work
5th Child Born
Recd. EmergencyTANF Check
(Cut offSSI a few months later)
5th Child Removed, Placed with Father
4th Child Reunifiedwith Leticia
28
Leticias ParentingDuring the Study Period

• Characterized by
• High warmth, responsiveness, engagement
• Parent and child enjoyed one another
• All basic care and protection needs met
• Leticia relatively secure about herself as a
  parent
  
• Leticia worried yet hopeful about Dashons future
  (4th child)
  
• Leticia coped quite well with parenting in
  conditions of poverty

29
From Welfare to Child Welfare
Leticia as a case example

• Barriers to employment
• Inadequate education
• Little work experience
• Inadequate job skills
• Lack of understanding of workplace norms and
  behaviors
  
• Employer discrimination
• Domestic violence
• Substance abuse
• Mental and physical health problems
• Inadequate child care
• Lack of reliable transportation

30
Leticias Welfare/Child Welfare Timeline 1997
2001
No GA, No TANF
-------TANF/CalWORKs-------
2001
1997
1998
1999
2000
Leticia in Prison4th Child Living with Partner
Collecting AFDC, Removed to FC
Family Cap
4th Child Removed, Placed in Foster Care
Began CalWORKs some PT work
5th Child Born
Recd. EmergencyTANF Check
(Cut offSSI a few months later)
5th Child Removed, Placed with Father
4th Child Reunifiedwith Leticia
31
Leticias Income and Expenses
TANF Work Research Men Friends Food
Stamps WIC (50 Value)
Rent Bills
1999
2000
32
May 2001 Update

• New baby
• Relapsed
• 4th child removedto non-kin foster care
• Infant sent to father
• Leticia disappeared

33
Economic Precursors toChild Welfare Involvement
X

• Possible work sanctionsor time limits
• Family Cap
• Increase in expenses related to infant
• Increase in energy costs

34
Options for Balancing the Ledger
Work
Family
Church/Recovery
ChildWelfare
Boyfriends
35
Family Vulnerabilities
Leticia as a case example

• Known risk factors
• Single parent
• Young child
• Large family
• Significant time on aid
• Breaks in aid
• Birth outcomes
• Substance abuse
• Hardships
• Prior child welfare contact

36
Developing a Better System for Vulnerable Families

• A vulnerable family, known to both systems
• Not meeting CalWORKs goals
• Infant birth
• Family cap
• Would coordination make a difference?

37
Using TANF as a Child Welfare Intervention

• Screening TANF clients for child welfare risk
  factors
  
• Offering TANF clients support services to promote
  positive parenting and reduce stress and
  hardship
  
• Reducing the emphasis on work for families with
  children in out-of-home care.
  
• Eliminating requirement to work for families
  newly entering foster care.

38
What Does Your Improved Policy Look Like?

• TANF clients who might benefit from child welfare
  services
  
• Child welfare clients who might benefit from
  CalWorks services.
  

39
Group Activity
40
Californias Partnership Experience

• 13 counties participating
• Support and technical assistance provided by
  Center for Research on Women and Families
  
• Efforts to link welfare and child welfare
  bureaucracies

41
Goals for Coordination

• Promoting self-sufficiency
• Providing improved services
• Reduce conflicting requirements
• Create safety for children
• Facilitate permanency for children
• Provide additional resources for families

42
Client Case Planning

• Coordinated case planning
• Includes benefits assistance, employment
  services, and child welfare services
  
• Complementary or unified case plans
• Client goals, services, and timelines coordinated

43
Other Coordinated Services

• Co-located staff
• The one-door model
• Sometimes also includes Behavioral Health and
  Substance Abuse
  
• Joint case staffing
• Single case manager
• Joint home visits

44
Special Populations

• Sanctioned time-limited families
• Child-only families
• Family Reunification
• Family Maintenance
• Family Preservation
• Alternative Response

45
Client Identification, Confidentiality, and Cross
Training

• Automated data systems to identify mutual
  clients
  
• Confidentiality agreements in place
• Formal cross-training protocols

46
Leadership, Leadership, Leadership

• Champions may be needed within the agency
• Success propelled by top level managers who share
  the vision
  

47
Blending Cultures

• Competition for programmatic ascendance
• Eligibility moving toward service
• Typical welfare services become family focused
• Typical child welfare services become employment
  oriented
  

48
Re-Defining Goals

• Self-Sufficiency
• vs.
• Family Support

49
From Pilot Project to Sustainable Infrastructure
X

• Policies and procedures in place
• Formal and informal leaders
• Preachers and teachers
• Experiences of success

50
References

• Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Dworsky, A., Zinn,
  A. (2001). Involvement of TANF families with
  child welfare services. Paper presented at
  Association of Public Policy Analysis and
  Management Research Meeting. Washington, D.C.,
  November 2, 2001.
• Ehrle, J., Scarcella, C.A., Geen, R. (2004).
  Teaming up Collaboration between welfare and
  child welfare agencies since welfare reform.
  Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 265-285.
• Frame, L., Berrick, J.D. (2003). The effects
  of welfare reform on families involved with
  public child welfare services Results from a
  qualitative study. Children and Youth Services
  Review, 25(1-2), pp. 113-138.
• Geen, R., Fender, L., Leos-Urbel, J.,
  Markowitz, T. (February, 2001). Welfare reforms
  effect on child welfrae caseloads. Washington,
  D.C. The Urban Institute.
• Goerge, R.M., Lee, B. (2000). Changes in child
  social program participation in the 1990s
  Initial findings from Ilinois. Chicago, IL
  Chapin Hall Center for Chidlren, University of
  Chicago.
• Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A.,
  Lee, S. (1999). Transitions from AFDC to child
  welfare in Calfironia. Children and Youth
  Services Review, 21(9-10), 815-841.Nelson, K.E.,
  Saunders, E.J., Landsman, M.J. (1993). Chronic
  child neglect in perspective. Social Work, 38
  (6), 661-671.
• Ovwigho, P., Leavitt, K., Born, C. (2003).
  Risk factors for child abuse and neglect among
  former TANF families Do later leavers experience
  greater risk? Children and Youth Services
  Review, 25 (9-10), 139-163.

51
References(cont)

• Paxton, C., Waldfogel, J. (1999). Welfare
  reform, family resources, and child maltreatment.
  In B. Meyer G. Duncan (Eds.), The incentives
  of government programs and the wellbeing of
  families. Chicago Joint Center for Poverty
  Research.Ryan, J.P., Schuerman, J.R. (2004).
  Matching family problems with specific family
  preservation services A study of service
  effectivness. Children and Youth Services
  Review, 26 (347-372).
• Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare
  income increase the risk of involvement with the
  child welfare service system? Children and Youth
  Services Review, 21 (9-10), 781-814.
• U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Trends in the well-being of
  Americas children and youth. Washington, D.C.
  Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
  and Evaluation.
• U.S.D.H.H.S. (2002). Child maltreatment 2002.
  Washington, D.C. Childrens BureauU.S.D.H.H.S.
  (1996) Results of the third national incieence
  study on child maltreatment in the U.S.
  Washington, D.C. National Center on Child Abuse
  and Neglect.
• Wells, K., Guo, S. (2004). Reunification of
  foster children before and after welfare reform.
  Social Service Review
  
• Wells, K., Guo, S. (2003). Mothers welfare
  and work income and reunification with children
  in foster care. Children and Youth Services
  Review, 25(3), 203-224.

52
Acknowledgements

• Thanks to the following for their collaboration
  on welfare child welfare projects in the CSSR
  Laura Frame, Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, Barbara
  Needell, Jodie Langs, and Lisa Varchol.
• Data pertaining to Leticia were derived from
  Frame, L. , Berrick, J.D. (2003) The effects of
  welfare reform on families involved with public
  child welfare services Results from a
  qualitative study. Children and Youth Services
  Review, 25(1-2), 113-138.
• For more information on the CSSR go to
• http//cssr.berkeley.edu
• For more information on the Partnership Project
  and the California Center for Research on Women
  and Families go to
  
• http//www.ccrwf.org/