Trends in CalWORKs: Participant Characteristics

analysis full 2025-26 BUDGET Trends in CalWORKs: Participant Characteristics Legislative Analyst Office 2025 www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full AN LAO REPORT 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION This report is the first of a three-part series The report then describes the demographic focused on trends in the California Work characteristics of CalWORKs participants Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) and provides information on which groups program, which provides cash assistance of Californians are overrepresented (or and supportive services to California families underrepresented) in CalWORKs as compared experiencing poverty. Each part of the series to the general population and to Californians in focuses on an area of the program, beginning with poverty. Understanding common characteristics this report on participant characteristics, followed of CalWORKs participants and which California by reports on participant experiences and program communities and families are disproportionately funding. The series provides an overview of the overrepresented or underrepresented in major changes to CalWORKs in recent decades CalWORKs—and the possible reasons why—can and highlights key issues for the Legislature to help the Legislature understand who CalWORKs consider when making CalWORKs policy and serves and determine how the program could be budget decisions. designed to better reach all eligible families. This report first describes trends in the Lastly, the report poses some questions on why CalWORKs caseload over the last two decades, certain groups might participate in CalWORKs at including across geographies and participant higher or lower rates. In part two of this series, characteristics (for example, children versus adults). Trends in CalWORKs: Participant Experiences, Understanding changes in caseload and the we will provide additional insight into some of breakdown between adult and child participants, as these questions and further explore other factors well as how participation varies by county, can help potentially impacting CalWORKs participation the Legislature understand who has been served by and caseload in recent years, such as program CalWORKs over the program’s history. awareness, benefits, and requirements. BACKGROUND In this section, we provide background on Figure 1 the state population—with a particular focus Over Last Two Decades, State Population on families in poverty—and the CalWORKs program. Throughout the report, findings are Generally Increased While Households framed (where feasible and relevant) within With Children Decreased the broader context of the state’s overall Percent Change Relative to 2000 population to highlight how the CalWORKs 20% caseload is similar to and different from the Individuals overall population. 15 39.1 million individuals 10 33.7 million California’s Population 5 individuals California Population Increased Over 4 million Last Two Decades. As shown in Figure 1, -5 households 3.8 million about 34 million individuals resided in -10 households Households With Children Under 18 California in 2000. At the beginning of 2024, -15 about 39 million individuals resided in the -20 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 state, representing a population increase of about 16 percent (relative to 2000). Data from California Department of Finance Population Estimates and American Community Survey. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full AN LAO REPORT However, year-over-year growth slowed in the Poverty in California last decade, with the state population slightly People Living in Poverty Have Incomes Too decreasing (year over year) in recent years. Low to Afford Basic Needs. A family of three with Households With Children Under 18 annual income below $25,820 is considered to be Decreased. As shown in Figure 1, households living in poverty (under the 2024 federal poverty with children (under age 18) in California decreased threshold). The state operates programs aimed from about 4 million households in 2000 to about at assisting Californians in poverty—including 3.8 million in 2023. In 2000, about 35 percent of all CalWORKs—by providing eligible individuals and California households had children (under age 18), families with income supports and other benefits to while only 28 percent of households had children assist them in meeting their basic needs. in 2023. State Poverty Rates Fluctuated Over Last Multiple Factors Influenced Population Two Decades. As shown in Figure 2, California’s Changes. In recent years, domestic outmigration official individual and family (with children under was one factor in the state’s slowing population age 18) poverty rates fluctuated over the last two growth, with more people leaving California for decades. Official poverty rates are based on federal other states than moving to the state each year. poverty levels (FPL), which are income thresholds For many years, international migration generally under which a family is considered to be in poverty. offset these population losses. Since 2019, Poverty thresholds vary based on the family’s however, it has not. Changing demographics size. Official poverty rates generally increase also played a role in the decreasing number and during economic downturns (for example, from rate of households with children, as California’s 2007 to 2011 during and immediately following the population grew older and the state’s annual birth Great Recession) and decrease as the economy rate declined. improves. In the last decade, state poverty rates generally decreased year over year. Annual poverty rates in California have generally been Figure 2 California Family Poverty Rate Fluctuated Over Last Two Decades Individual and Family (With Children Under 18) Poverty Rates 20% 18 California (Families) 16 14 U.S. (Families) U.S. (Individuals) 12 10 California (Individuals) 8 6 4 2 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Data from American Community Survey. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT within 1 percentage point of national poverty rates percentage in the base population—or, in this over this period. Over the last five years, annual case, Californians of all income levels. Figure 4 on California poverty rates were generally lower than the next page provides information on the general national rates. characteristics of California families in poverty California Supplemental Poverty Rates Were as compared to all California families (both with Higher Than National Rates. Poverty can also be measured using the supplemental poverty measure (SPM). The SPM aims to account for forms of public assistance not included in Figure 3 the official poverty rate and adjusts income California's Supplemental Poverty thresholds for additional factors, such as cost Measure (SPM) Rates Higher Than U.S. of living. As shown in Figure 3, California’s SPM Individual SPM Rates in California and United States rates were consistently higher than national SPM rates over the last decade, largely due to 30% the state’s high cost of living. (The nearby box California describes why state and national SPM rates 25 decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic 20 and increased shortly after, while FPL rates United States increased and then decreased during and after 15 the pandemic.) 10 Poverty Disproportionately Affects 5 Different Groups of Californians. Certain demographic groups experience poverty at 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020ª2021 2022 disproportionate rates. A disproportionality ª Due to COVID-19, 2020 data are unavailable. occurs when one group’s percentage in a Note: SPM rates before 2009 are unavailable. SPM rates are at individual level (family SPM target population—which, in this case, is rates are unavailable). Californians in poverty—differs from that group’s Data from American Community Survey. Poverty During the COVID-19 Pandemic California’s Official Poverty Rate Increased Somewhat in Response to COVID-19-Related Economic Downturn. California’s official poverty rate increased somewhat in 2020 (by 1 percentage point as compared to 2019). This increase was largely due to the COVID-19-related economic downturn. In 2022, the poverty rate decreased back to pre-pandemic levels. During and After COVID-19 Pandemic, Official and Supplemental Poverty Rates Moved in Opposite Directions. While California’s official poverty rate increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (and later decreased as the economy improved), the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) rate decreased in 2021 (as compared to 2019) and later increased. SPM Rate Changes During and After COVID-19 Pandemic Were Largely Due to Temporary Benefits. In response to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, many state and federal benefits for lower-income or unemployed individuals (such as unemployment insurance and tax credits) were temporarily expanded. The decreases in national and state SPM rates in 2021 (relative to 2019) were largely due to these expansions, as the SPM reflects economic supports in household income. SPM rates increased in 2022 (relative to 2021) as many of the expansions ended. www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 4 Characteristics of Families in Poverty Differed From Those of All California Families Share of Families in Poverty and All California Families Based on Heads of Household, 2023 GENDER Female Head of Household RACE/ETHNICITY White Black/African American American Indian/Alaska Nativea Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Multiracial Other PRIMARY LANGUAGE English Spanish Chinese Filipino/Tagalog Hindi and Related Vietnamese Otherb REGIONc California Families in Poverty (With Children) Central Coast All California Families (With Children) Inland Empire Los Angeles County North Coast Orange County San Diego and Imperial San Francisco Bay Area Superior California San Joaquin Valley EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTd Less Than High School Some High School Completed High School Beyond High School 20 40 60% a Data on American Indian/Alaska Native individuals are limited due to small sample sizes. b Other language category generally includes various languages spoken by less than 2 percent of heads of household. c Regional data are based on American Community Survey five-year estimates (2022). d Individuals in the “beyond high school” category generally hold high school diplomas or equivalent (but are excluded from the “completed high school” category). Notes: Distributions within each major category are mutually exclusive. Families in poverty have income below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. Central Coast Region: Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura Counties. Inland Empire Region: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. North Coast Region: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. San Joaquin Valley Region: Alpine, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties. San Diego and Imperial Region: San Diego and Imperial Counties. San Francisco Bay Area Region: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Solano Counties. Superior California Region: Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, and Yolo Counties. Los Angeles County and Orange County each form individual distinct regions. Counties not listed are excluded from the figure due to data limitations. These counties are primarily located in the Superior California and San Joaquin Valley Regions. Data from California Department of Social Services and American Community Survey. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT children). Key characteristics of families in poverty Families (TANF) block grant program—replaced the in 2023 include: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement program. CalWORKs—which largely • Disproportionately Female. About serves as California’s version of the national TANF 64 percent of families in poverty (as compared program—was created in 1997. In 2023-24, about to 50 percent of all California families) had 890,000 individuals (in about 350,000 families) female heads of household. participated in CalWORKs, making up over • Disproportionately Hispanic. About 30 percent of all TANF recipients nationwide (by 59 percent of families in poverty were comparison, California residents made up about Hispanic. By comparison, no one racial/ethnic 12 percent of the overall United States population group made up the majority of all California in 2023). families, although Hispanic was the single TANF Program Has Four Purposes. The largest racial/ethnic group among all California four stated purposes of TANF are: (1) assisting families at about 43 percent. needy families so children can be cared for in • Disproportionately Spoke Spanish. The most their own homes; (2) reducing the dependency common primary language of families in poverty of needy parents by promoting job preparation, (Spanish) differed from the most common work, and marriage; (3) preventing out-of-wedlock primary language of all families (English). pregnancies; and (4) encouraging the formation and • Disproportionately Concentrated in Los maintenance of two-parent families. States receive Angeles County and San Joaquin Valley. annual fixed TANF block grants to administer Across the state’s regions, the largest programs designed to meet (one or multiple) concentrations of families in poverty were in TANF purposes. Federal law allows for some state Los Angeles County (28 percent) and the San flexibility in the use of federal TANF funds; however, Joaquin Valley (20 percent). Los Angeles County TANF includes federal participant requirements and (23 percent) and the San Francisco Bay Area time limits (many of which were not included in the (18 percent) were the most common places AFDC program), described in more detail later. California families resided. Federal, State, and County Governments • Disproportionately Lower Levels of Share Program Costs. California receives Educational Attainment. About one-quarter $3.7 billion annually for its TANF block grant (which of heads of household in poverty had not generally does not change from year to year), completed high school, compared to about over $2 billion of which goes to CalWORKs. The 11 percent of all heads of household who had remainder of the state’s grant helps fund aid for not completed high school. About one-third of some low-income college students and various heads of household in poverty had completed other human services programs. In 2023, California education beyond high school, as compared to received about 22 percent of all TANF funds about 60 percent of all heads of household. nationwide. States’ TANF grant amounts (which generally do not change from year to year) are CalWORKs largely based on how much federal AFDC funding CalWORKs provides cash assistance and each state received before TANF replaced the AFDC supportive services to low-income families with program in 1996 (AFDC funding was formula-based children. The program is administered by counties and largely driven by caseload and state economic and overseen by the California Department of Social conditions). To receive its annual TANF block grant, Services (CDSS). the state must spend a maintenance-of-effort CalWORKs Created in Response to 1996 (MOE) amount from state and local funds to provide Federal Welfare Reform. Federal welfare reform services for families eligible for CalWORKs. This legislation of 1996 substantially changed the United MOE amount is approximately $3 billion annually, States welfare system. The centerpiece of the which can be spent directly on CalWORKs or other legislation—the Temporary Assistance for Needy programs that meet TANF requirements. www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full AN LAO REPORT CalWORKs Provides Cash Assistance Figure 5 describes the CalWORKs eligibility and Supportive Services to Low-Income requirements and the nearby box describes Families. To qualify for CalWORKs, families how CalWORKs eligibility requirements interact generally must earn less than about 80 percent with federal TANF requirements. Generally, if of the FPL (about $20,000 annually or $1,700 per an individual is ineligible for CalWORKs, other month for a family of three in 2024) and have limited members of the family (including children) who savings or other assets. CalWORKs cash grants themselves meet eligibility requirements can vary based on region, number of eligible family receive assistance. members, and income. Families living in high-cost Cash Grants Based on Number of Eligible coastal counties such as Los Angeles and San Family Members, Not Overall Family Francisco receive grants about 5 percent higher Size. Monthly grant amounts are set according to than similar families living in inland counties such as the size of the assistance unit (AU). The size of the Fresno and Shasta. In general, grant sizes increase AU is the number of CalWORKs-eligible people in as family size increases and decrease as family the household. Grant amounts are adjusted based income increases. In 2023-24, the administration on AU size—larger AUs are eligible to receive a estimated the average CalWORKs grant to larger grant amount—to account for the increased be $1,000 per month across all family sizes and financial needs of larger families. As of December income levels. Recipients are often also eligible to 2023, about 40 percent of CalWORKs cases receive supportive services and resources, such as included everyone in the family, making the AU subsidized child care, employment training, mental size and the family size the same. In the remaining health counseling, and housing assistance. 60 percent of cases, one or more family members Program Eligibility Based on Various Factors were ineligible for CalWORKs (such as those in Addition to Income. Only families with children ineligible due to citizenship status or receipt of under age 18 can qualify for CalWORKs, with Supplemental Security Income [SSI], for example) limited exceptions. Eligibility status can also and therefore the AU size was smaller than the vary by individual within a family. States have family size. some flexibility in setting eligibility requirements. Figure 5 CalWORKs Eligibility Requirements Family Eligibility 9 Include at least one child (per federal and state rules).a 9 Earn less than about 80 percent of the FPL (the exact income eligibility threshold varies by family size and from year to year and is set by state law). 9 Include children who are deprived of parental support and care due to the incapacity, death, or absence of a parent, or, in two-parent families, unemployment of the principal wage earner (per state rules). 9 Own less than $10,000 in property (other than their primary residence), have less than $10,000 in their bank accounts, and own less than $25,000 in automobiles, per state rules.b Individual (Within Eligible Family) Eligibility 9 Be either citizens or lawful permanent residents (per federal and state law). 9 Not receive Supplemental Security Income (per state law). 9 For adults, have not exceeded state and federal lifetime aid limits.c a Pregnant women can also be eligible. b The CalWORKs asset limits are generally higher for families with individuals who are age 60 or older or disabled. c Both the CalWORKs and federal TANF aid limits are 60 months. The CalWORKs limit only factors in months an individual has received CalWORKs assistance, while the federal limit factors in months the individual previously received TANF assistance in another state. An adult CalWORKs recipient who has exceeded the federal time limit but has time remaining under the CalWORKs limit can generally continue to receive aid (via state funds). Children of adults who have reached the state time limit can generally continue receiving aid. Note: There are also various other requirements CalWORKs participants must meet to maintain eligibility, which are not included in this figure. FPL = federal poverty level and TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Interactions Between Federal TANF Policies and CalWORKs Eligibility Requirements Federal Law Generally Sets Basic Eligibility Requirements for TANF-Funded Programs, With Some State Flexibilities. As previously mentioned, states have some flexibility in setting eligibility requirements for state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs such as the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program. Federal law requires that TANF recipients be “needy,” but does not set specific income or asset requirements. Therefore, income and asset limits for TANF-funded programs vary by state. As of July 2022, California had one of the highest income limits nationwide and a higher asset limit than 40 other states. States also have the flexibility to set eligibility requirements beyond income or asset levels to determine a family or individual’s need. For example, as described in Figure 5, California requires that children receiving CalWORKs be determined to by “deprived” of parental support and care due to the incapacity, death, or absence of a parent, or, in two-parent families, unemployment of the principal wage earner. There are no federal eligibility rules on child deprivation and, as of 2022, few states had similar rules in place. Many Adult Participants Must Meet maximum penalty of 21 percent) each successive Participation Requirements. Per federal and state year a state fails to meet the requirements. States program rules, most adults receiving CalWORKs generally may appeal penalties (for example, by grants must be employed or participate in specified claiming reasonable cause for failure to meet the activities intended to lead to employment, known as WPR requirements). A state that meets the all welfare-to-work (WTW) activities for 20 to 35 hours families requirement (50 percent participation) per week (with some exceptions, such as adults but not the two-parent requirement (90 percent who are over age 60, disabled, or caring for a child participation) may incur a smaller penalty than it under six months of age). If adult participants do would if it had failed to meet both requirements. not meet the WTW requirements, they may be While California has failed to meet the WPR in sanctioned, leading to a grant reduction. some instances, the state has not paid penalties to The Federal Government Measures Program date. (However, California was notified in January Success Through Work Participation Rate 2025 that its 2026 TANF grant would be reduced (WPR) Requirements. A state’s WPR is the by about $20 million as the state’s final WPR percentage of adult participants engaging in penalty for failing to meet the two-parent WPR required WTW activities. The WPR is currently the requirements in 2012 through 2014. According to only federal measure of program performance. the administration, the state’s assessed penalty Under federal rules, at least 50 percent of all amount for these years was decreased from the families and 90 percent of two-parent families originally assessed penalty amount of over $1 billion receiving CalWORKs (with work-eligible adults in to the final amount of about $20 million through the family) must work or engage in WTW activities the penalty dispute process and completion of a for the requisite number of hours per week. Federal corrective compliance plan. More information on law outlines specific WTW activities that count this penalty assessment will be provided in our toward the WPR requirements. future post on the final June 2025 spending plan.) Moreover, due to changes regarding the measure States May Face Financial Penalties for of the WPR, the state is likely to meet federal WPR Failing to Meet WPR Requirements. Federal requirements for the next few years (described financial penalties for failing to meet the WPR further in our recent post The 2024-25 Budget: requirements can start at 5 percent of a state’s Overview of the Federal Fiscal Responsibility annual TANF grant. Penalties can increase (up to a Act’s Impacts on CalWORKs). www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Federal WTW Requirements Focus on (about $500). These increases were provided Core WTW Activities. As mentioned, the federal by both formula-driven and one-time increases government requires most adult TANF recipients to to grant levels. As a result of these increases, participate in WTW activities for a certain number maximum cash grants now provide assistance of hours each week. Federal rules also dictate how levels similar to 50 percent of the FPL many of those hours must be spent on work or (based on the number of CalWORKs-eligible work-like activities, which are called “core” WTW individuals in a family). Prior to these activities. To fulfill federal requirements (and to increases, grants were about 40 percent of the be counted as meeting the WTW requirements in FPL. Additionally, until 2017, a family generally a state’s WPR), most individuals must spend the could not receive an increase to its monthly majority of their WTW hours on core activities. grant after the birth of a new child (with some Core activities include, but are not limited to, exceptions) under the maximum family grant employment, community service, and job search (MFG) policy. This policy was repealed in the activities. Noncore activities include certain job 2016-17 Budget Act. skills training and educational activities (with • Increased Adult Recipient Time Limits. some exceptions). The adult lifetime aid limit changed twice States Have Some Flexibility in the Types between 2010 and 2024. In 2011, it was of WTW Activities and Services Provided. In reduced from 60 months to 48 months (in 2012, the state modified rules governing allowable an effort to reduce costs). In 2022, the limit WTW activities. The modified WTW rules provide increased from 48 months to 60 months. greater flexibility for CalWORKs participants to • Increased Earned Income Disregard (EID). receive services aligned with addressing barriers The EID for applicants and participants (or to employment, such as mental health issues. the monthly dollar amount applicants and California’s rules provide more flexibility than the participants can earn before further income federal rules on the types of activities that can be affects eligibility) changed multiple times counted towards WTW participation. Additionally, over the last decade. Most recently, the EID California does not dictate how many hours an increased from $90 to $450 for applicants individual must spend on core activities. Therefore, (as of March 2023) and from $225 to $600 for some CalWORKs participants meet their WTW participants (as of June 2022). requirements through mostly noncore activities, • Modified Reporting Requirements. In 2012, such as barrier removal or education. Generally, participant reporting requirements for certain individuals who spend more time on noncore case types were modified, decreasing the activities than is allowable under federal rules are frequency with which many households must included in the state’s work-eligible caseload (the verify income. WPR’s denominator), but are excluded from the • Expanded Supportive Services. California number of cases meeting the WTW requirements introduced multiple new programs designed (the WPR’s numerator). These individuals may be to provide additional supportive services meeting the state’s WTW requirement—therefore to CalWORKs participants, including family avoiding a sanction—but not meeting the federal stabilization in 2013 (which provides intensive WTW requirement, which negatively impacts case management and services to recipients the WPR. experiencing crises), the housing support California Made Various Program Changes program in 2014 (which assists recipients Over Last Decade. Some notable changes are experiencing homelessness in obtaining outlined below. A more detailed time line of changes permanent housing), and the home visiting can be found on the CDSS website. program in 2019 (which provides home-based • Increased Cash Grants. Since, 2010-11, services to pregnant women and families with maximum cash grants for a family of three in young children). a high-cost county increased over 70 percent 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT • Established New Program Performance and dissemination of program outcomes and Measurement. California established the best practices. The system, implemented CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability in July 2021 (after a COVID-19 related delay Review (Cal-OAR), a local program in 2020-21), includes various performance management system, through the 2017-18 measures, including on engagement, Budget Act. Cal-OAR is designed to participation, supportive service delivery, and facilitate improvement of county CalWORKs post-program outcomes. programs through the collection, analysis, CASELOAD TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS In the following sections, we describe trends Caseload Over Time in the CalWORKs caseload, including across Historically, Caseload Generally Increased geographies and participant characteristics (for Following Economic Downturns. During example, children versus adults). Understanding economic downturns, many households lose how caseload has changed over the last two jobs and other sources of income. Some of these decades, how participation varies by county, households enroll in CalWORKs. Historically, and how the breakdown between adult and child families generally enrolled in CalWORKs participants has changed over time can help the after exhausting other sources of economic Legislature understand who has been served by support like unemployment benefits. As such, CalWORKs over the program’s history. CalWORKs caseload often began increasing about a year (or more) after an increase in Figure X the state’s unemployment rate. As shown in Figure 6, caseload reached its all-time high Figure 6 CalWORKs Caseload Generally Declined Over Last Decade Households and Individuals (In MIllions) Unemployment Rate 1.5 30% 1.4 28 1.3 26 Individuals 1.2 24 1.1 22 1.0 20 0.9 18 0.8 16 0.7 14 0.6 12 Households 0.5 10 0.4 8 0.3 6 0.2 4 Unemployment Rate 0.1 2 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 2023-24 Data from California Department of Social Services and Federal Reserve. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full AN LAO REPORT (about 600,000 households) in late 2010-11 families (with children under 18) participating following the Great Recession. From early in CalWORKs—referred to in this report as the 2011-12 to late 2019-20 (prior to the COVID-19 CalWORKs participation rate and described pandemic), caseload mostly declined as the state’s further in the nearby box—were generally similar economy improved. to year-over-year changes in the poverty rate of Historically, Year-Over-Year Caseload California families with children under 18 (as would Changes Generally Were Also Similar to be expected given the income-based eligibility rules Year-Over-Year Changes in Family Poverty Rate. for CalWORKs). As shown in Figure 7, historically, year-over-year changes in the percentage of California Figure 7 CalWORKs Participation Rate Deviated From Family Poverty Rate in Recent Years 18% 16 California Family Poverty Rate 14 12 CalWORKs Participation Rate 10 8 6 4 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Note: CalWORKs participation rate is percentage of California families (with children under age 18) participating in CalWORKs. Family poverty rate is percentage of California families (also with children under age 18) with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal poverty level does not factor in public benefits like CalWORKs as income. Data from California Department of Social Services and American Community Survey. How Is the CalWORKs Participation Rate Different Than the CalWORKs Take-Up Rate? Throughout this report, we reference the percentage of all California families (with children under 18) participating in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which we refer to as the CalWORKs participation rate. In a series of posts, Comparing CalWORKs Take-Up Rates Across Demographic Groups, we estimated the CalWORKs take-up rate—or the percentage of eligible individuals who are actually enrolled in the program—to be about 60 percent in 2019. (In February 2025, the California Department of Social Services [CDSS] also released information on the annual CalWORKs take-up rate, available on the CDSS website. According to CDSS, the 2019 and 2023 CalWORKs take-up rates were about 58 percent and 54 percent, respectively.) The CalWORKs participation rate differs from the CalWORKs take-up rate in that it considers all families with children statewide (including those who are not eligible for the program), while the take-up rate focuses only on likely eligible families (for example, households that meet the income and categorical requirements for CalWORKs). Therefore, the CalWORKs participation rate is, by definition, far lower than the CalWORKs take-up rate. For example, the CalWORKs participation rate was about 10 percent in 2019. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT However, Caseload Declined During and Caseload Changes During and After Immediately After COVID-19 Pandemic Despite COVID-19 Pandemic Likely Reflected Impacts High Unemployment and Poverty. As shown in of Increased Temporary Benefits Outside Figure 6, the state’s unemployment rate reached CalWORKs. As mentioned, despite all-time high historic highs during the COVID-19 pandemic unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic, (peaking at about 16 percent in May 2020). caseload generally declined throughout and Similarly, as shown in Figure 7 and described immediately following the pandemic. As discussed earlier, the state’s poverty rate (among families with in our budget analysis at the time, various state children) also increased year over year in 2020. and federal benefits outside of CalWORKs were Despite increased unemployment and poverty, temporarily expanded and extended during CalWORKs caseload generally declined during and the pandemic. Many of these benefits—such immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic. as stimulus payments and unemployment In fact, CalWORKs caseload reached a historic insurance—had fewer recipient requirements or low of about 285,000 households in August 2021, simpler application processes than CalWORKs. representing decreases of about 22 percent relative The increased availability of other benefits likely to pre-pandemic caseload in February 2020 and led some CalWORKs-eligible families to utilize about 52 percent relative to its peak in June 2011. these benefits rather than apply for CalWORKs. We discuss why this decrease in caseload might Further illustrating the likely impact of temporary have occurred in the next section. expansions in other programs, CalWORKs caseload Caseload Generally Increased Month Over began increasing in late 2021 (after months of Month Beginning September 2021. After decline) when many of the other expanded benefits beginning to increase in late 2021, caseload ended or were reduced. reached about 360,000 households at the end of Changes in State Caseload Generally Aligned 2023-24 (an increase of about 25 percent relative to With Changes in National TANF Caseload. August 2021). Based on estimates from our office Over the last decade, CalWORKs cases made up and the administration, caseload is likely to reach 30 percent to 35 percent of national TANF cases pre-pandemic levels in 2025-26 or 2026-27. annually. Both the CalWORKs caseload and the national TANF caseload declined from 2010 to 2021 Key Caseload Trend Findings (at similar annual rates) in concert with the ongoing In Recent Years, Caseload Trend Deviated post-Great Recession economic expansion and From Poverty Trend. Although the gap between declining national and state poverty rates. As also the CalWORKs participation rate and the poverty occurred in the CalWORKs caseload, the national rate was greatest during the pandemic, these TANF caseload reached its lowest levels of the last trends started to diverge in 2015. During the decade in 2021, after which it began increasing at pandemic, the differences between these rates similar annual rates as the CalWORKs caseload. likely were impacted by temporary pandemic Geography assistance. However, the earlier—and continued— divergence indicates other factors may be Caseload Varied by County. As shown in impacting participation. We will explore these other Figure 8 on the next page, about 34 percent factors—such as program awareness, benefits, and of CalWORKs households were located in Los requirements—in part two of this series, Trends in Angeles County in 2023-24. The second and third CalWORKs: Participant Experiences. largest proportions of cases (relative to other counties) were in San Bernardino (9 percent) and Riverside (6 percent). www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full AN LAO REPORT County CalWORKs Participation Rates Varied. However, Drivers of Other Variation Less Clear. As previously described, the CalWORKs participation Family poverty rates generally exceed CalWORKs rate is the percentage of all California families (with participation rates (among families with children) children under 18) participating in CalWORKs. both at the county and statewide level. This is As shown in Figure 9, the statewide CalWORKs because not all families in poverty are eligible for participation rate was about 9 percent in 2023-24. CalWORKs and some eligible families are likely not However, across counties, county-level CalWORKs participating. However, in 2023-24, the extent to participation rates (among families with children) which county-level family poverty rates exceeded varied from under 3 percent in certain counties (such CalWORKs participation rates varied from county to as San Mateo, Placer, and Marin Counties) to over county. For example, urban counties generally had 20 percent in other counties (such as Del Norte and poverty rates and CalWORKs participation rates that Imperial Counties). were somewhat more similar than rural and suburban counties. This means there may be characteristics Key Geographic Findings of urban counties that resulted in higher CalWORKs Some Geographic Variation in Participation participation. We pose some questions on why Likely Explained by Where More People, this may be the case in the “Issues for Legislative Especially Those in Poverty, Live. Californians— Consideration” section. including those in poverty—are particularly concentrated in certain areas. For example, in 2023, CalWORKs Family Composition about one-quarter of all Californians and almost Over Three-Quarters Of Recipients Were one-third of Californians in poverty lived in Los Children… As shown in Figure 10, children made Angeles County, the state’s most populous county. up over three-quarters of CalWORKs recipients This concentration of residents likely partially explains annually for the past two decades. By comparison, why CalWORKs cases were also concentrated in the percentage of individuals in the state who were many of these areas (like Los Angeles County). children decreased from about 28 percent in 2000 to about 22 percent in 2023. Figure 8 Figure 9 One-Third of CalWORKs Households CalWORKs Participation Rates Varied by County Were in Los Angeles County CalWORKs Participation Rate Among Families With Children, 2023-24 CalWORKs Households by County, 2023-24 Average Monthly Caseload CalWORKs Participation Rate 0 58,000 116,000 0% 24% Statewide CalWORKs participation rate 9% Sacramento 18,000 Cases San Bernardino 29,000 Cases Fresno 17,000 Cases Los Angeles Note: Data are not available for counties shaded in grey (due to data privacy concerns). 116,000 Cases The CalWORKs participation rate is the percentage of families with children under age 18 that participated in CalWORKs. Riverside Data from California Department 19,000 Cases Data from California Department of Social Services and American of Social Services. Community Survey. 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Key CalWORKs Family Figure 10 Composition Findings Over Last Two Decades, Over Three-Quarters of In Many CalWORKs Households, at CalWORKs Recipients Were Children Each Year Least One Family Member Is Not Eligible. In Percentage of CalWORKs Recipients Who Were Children about 60 percent of cases, one or more family members (who are often adults) are ineligible 90% 80 for CalWORKs. Various factors—including 70 citizenship status, receipt of SSI, or receipt of 60 CalWORKs for an extended period of time in the 50 past—can render an individual ineligible while 40 30 other family members are eligible. 20 Limited Insight Into Overall Family 10 Makeup. Demographic data are generally only 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 2023-24 collected on eligible family members, limiting Note: Differences in data availability make the proportion of recipients who were children more variable in recent years (as compared to the proportion from five or more years ago). the conclusions that can be drawn about Data from California Department of Social Services. family makeup. For example, in 2023-24, the average AU size was 2.6 individuals. However, the average family size—including ineligible ...With About Two Children and 2.5 Individuals individuals—was unknown. We discuss this data Per Case, on Average. In 2023-24, the average limitation further, including its impacts and potential number of child recipients (under age 18) per options to address the limitation, later in the “Issues CalWORKs household was about two children, for Legislative Consideration” section. as shown in Figure 11. The average number of High Share of Recipients Who Are Children individuals per CalWORKs household was about May Be Partially Explained by How Program 2.5 people. Statewide, the average number of Eligibility and Participation Requirements children per family (with children under 18) was also Differ for Adults and Children. Generally, an adult about two children, with about 3 individuals per member of an income-eligible family faces more family (among families with children under 18). Figure 11 CalWORKs Family Size Relatively Stable Average Number of Children and Adults Per CalWORKs Case Average Number of Adults Per Case 3.0 Average Number of Children Per Case 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Data from California Department of Social Services. www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full AN LAO REPORT eligibility criteria and participation requirements some exceptions) under the MFG policy (newly than a child in the family (for example, the lifetime born children were, therefore, excluded from the aid limit of 60 months and WTW requirements). caseload). This policy was repealed in the 2016-17 Most adult participants can be sanctioned if they Budget Act. After the repeal of this policy, the do not meet WTW requirements or have their aid average number of children per case generally discontinued if they meet the lifetime aid limit. remained at about two children per case. When adults are sanctioned or have extinguished Percentage of Recipients Who Were their grant eligibility (timed-out), they are no Children Was Similar in California and longer included in the caseload. However, eligible Nationwide. In 2023, about 71 percent of TANF children (under age 18, with limited exceptions) recipients nationwide were children, compared of sanctioned or timed-out adults generally to about 75 percent of CalWORKs participants. can continue receiving aid. Additionally, eligible CalWORKs and TANF caseload data are not children of adults who are categorically ineligible directly comparable, as California provides (for example, those who do not meet citizenship state-funded benefits to some recipients who requirements or who receive SSI, as mentioned may not meet federal TANF requirements, such as previously) are also generally able to receive aid. children of some timed-out adults. After excluding Number of Children Per Case Did Not individuals in these non-federally eligible cases, Substantially Change Following MFG Repeal. about 70 percent of California recipients were As previously mentioned, until 2017, a family children in 2023. Across states, the percentage of generally could not receive an increase to its TANF recipients who were children ranged from monthly grant after the birth of a new child (with 53 percent in Kansas to 98 percent in Idaho. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS In the following sections, we describe the CalWORKs caseload than of Californians in poverty demographic characteristics of CalWORKs (meaning the group’s CalWORKs participation rate participants. As described earlier in the “Poverty is higher than the group’s share of Californians in California” section, some demographic in poverty). In this report, we describe these groups—such as Hispanic individuals, non-English groups as disproportionately overrepresented in speakers, and those with limited education— CalWORKs. Other groups are disproportionately experience poverty at disproportionate rates underrepresented in CalWORKs, meaning the (meaning these groups make up larger shares of group’s CalWORKs participation rate is lower California’s population in poverty than they do of than the group’s share of Californians in poverty. the general California population). As described in Understanding common characteristics of the following sections, many of these same groups CalWORKs participants and which California are also overrepresented in CalWORKs (a group is communities and families are disproportionately overrepresented in CalWORKs when its share of the overrepresented or underrepresented in CalWORKs caseload is larger than its share of the CalWORKs—and the possible reasons why—can general population). help the Legislature understand who CalWORKs As mentioned, CalWORKs is designed to assist serves and determine how the program could be families in poverty. Therefore, the fact that many designed to better reach all eligible families. CalWORKs families have characteristics more The nearby box provides additional context similar to those of Californians in poverty than to around the data used for this report, including those of the general population is not surprising. information on some potential data limitations. However, as described in the following sections, some groups make up larger proportions of the 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT General Notes on Data Used for This Report and Potential Data Limitations Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity and Primary Language. Throughout the following sections, where disaggregated data are available, we use the racial and ethnic groupings currently employed by the U.S. Census and in state data sources, namely: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, white, and other race or multiracial. We note that some groups may prefer different terminology to refer to racial and ethnic groupings. However, this report uses these categorizations because they reflect available state and national data. We also use the following primary language groupings: English; Spanish; Chinese, Mandarin, or Cantonese; Vietnamese; Filipino or Tagalog; Korean; and other languages. According to the California Health and Human Services Agency, these non-English languages are the top five languages spoken by Californians with limited English proficiency. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) is required to provide translations of all program materials—including California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program materials—in these languages. Data on Demographic Characteristics of CalWORKs Participants Drawn From Application Inputs. Data and findings in the following sections are based on characteristics of CalWORKs heads of household. Generally, the family member who completes the CalWORKs application or is responsible for the care of the assisted children is considered the head of household for data collection purposes. Counties report the demographic characteristics of applicants to the state based on demographic questions asked during the the application process, including on applications and during participant intake interviews. Participant response rates generally vary by question, with certain demographic questions, such as the question on gender identity, having far lower response rates than other questions (such as questions on race/ethnicity or primary language). At this time, the drivers of differing response rates by question are unclear. Information on CalWORKs participants and all Californians (including those in poverty) are based on most recently available data from CDSS for CalWORKs participants (2022) and the American Community Survey for the broader California population (2023). Data Limited on Other Family Members. As mentioned, demographic data are generally collected on the CalWORKs applicant. However, an applicant is generally not asked to provide demographic information on other members of his or her family, even if the characteristics of other family members differ from those of the applicant. Therefore, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the demographic profile of all CalWORKs participants. Throughout the following sections, we have noted where our findings may be most affected by this limitation. Race/Ethnicity Certain Race/Ethnicity Groups Were Overrepresented in CalWORKs Compared Most CalWORKs Heads of Household Were to General Population. About 51 percent of Hispanic, White, or Black. As shown in Figure 12 CalWORKs heads of household were Hispanic on the next page, about half of CalWORKs heads of in 2022, while about 43 percent of heads of household were Hispanic in 2022. About 22 percent household across California (including those were white and 20 percent were Black. (As noted not in CalWORKs) were Hispanic in 2023. About in the nearby box, race/ethnicity data are only 20 percent of CalWORKs heads of household were collected and reported for CalWORKs heads of Black, compared to about 5 percent of all heads household and, as a result, data are not available on of household. the racial breakdown of all CalWORKs participants.) www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 12 Black and Hispanic Heads of Household Overrepresented in CalWORKs Compared to General Population Share of Heads of Household in CalWORKs, Statewide, and in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2022 and 2023 50% CalWORKs Heads of Household 40 All Heads of Household in Poverty All Californian Heads of Household 30 20 10 American Asian or Pacific Black Hispanic White Other Indian or Alaska Nativeª Islander Race or Multiracial ª Data on American Indian or Alaska Native individuals are limited due to small sample sizes. Note: Households in poverty are those with income below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. All California heads of household and all heads of household in poverty include only families with children under age 18. Data from California Department of Social Services (2022) and American Community Survey (2023). Some Groups Made up Disproportionate Black Californians—experience poverty at Shares of CalWORKs Participants Compared disproportionate rates. Therefore, it is not surprising to Californians in Poverty. As shown in Figure 12, that these groups made up larger shares of the certain race/ethnicity groups made up much larger CalWORKs caseload than of the general population. or smaller shares of CalWORKs heads of household However, Drivers of Other Variation Across than of heads of household in poverty. Specifically, Groups Less Clear. As described earlier, certain while about 20 percent of CalWORKs heads of race/ethnicity groups—in particular, Black and white household were Black, about 9 percent of heads of individuals—made up larger shares of CalWORKs household in poverty were Black. Similarly, about heads of household than these groups’ shares of 22 percent of CalWORKs heads of household were heads of household in poverty. Other groups—in white, while 18 percent of heads of household particular, Asian or Pacific Islander individuals and, in poverty were white. In contrast, Asian/Pacific to a smaller extent, Hispanic individuals—made up Islander individuals made up only about 3 percent smaller shares of the CalWORKs caseload than of of CalWORKs heads of household, but about the population in poverty. These disproportionalities 10 percent of heads of household in poverty were in CalWORKs across race/ethnicity groups (as Asian/Pacific Islander. compared to the broader population of Californians in poverty) mean there may be characteristics of Key Participant Race/Ethnicity Findings certain race/ethnicity groups that result in higher Overrepresentation of Certain Race/Ethnicity (or lower) CalWORKs participation. We pose some Groups in CalWORKs Compared to General questions on why this may be the case in the Population Largely Reflects Disproportionate “Issues for Legislative Consideration” section. Rates of Poverty. As mentioned, certain race/ ethnicity groups—in particular, Hispanic and 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Primary Language Key Primary Language Findings English Was Primary Language in Most Citizenship and Residency Eligibility CalWORKs Households. As shown in Figure 13, Requirements Likely Partially Contributed to in 2022, three-quarters of CalWORKs heads Underrepresentation of Non-English Speakers of households spoke English as their primary in CalWORKs. As mentioned, undocumented language. The second most common primary immigrants and most immigrants with legal status language was Spanish (which was spoken by about who have lived in the United States for fewer than 21 percent of CalWORKs heads of household). five years are ineligible for CalWORKs. While About 4 percent of CalWORKs heads of household there are data limitations, according to 2023 primarily spoke another language (with “Other Census data, over 20 percent of Californians who Non-English” selected most frequently). speak a primary language other than English Disproportionate Share of CalWORKs are noncitizens. Some of these individuals Participants Were English Speakers. While about may be ineligible for CalWORKs based on three-quarters of CalWORKs heads of household citizenship status. spoke English as their primary language, about half Limited Insight Into Other Languages Spoken of all Californian heads of household and less than by CalWORKs Families. As mentioned, Figure 13 half of heads of household in poverty spoke English shows the primary languages of CalWORKs heads as their primary language in 2023. Spanish and of household. Data are not available on other other non-English languages were spoken more languages spoken in CalWORKs households (as frequently by all Californians and those in poverty secondary languages or as primary languages than by CalWORKs heads of household. of other family members). While counties are required to provide CalWORKs applications and participation materials in various languages other Figure 13 English, Followed by Spanish, Were Two Most Frequently Spoken Languages Among CalWORKs Families Share of CalWORKs Heads of Household, All Californian Heads of Household, and Heads of Household in Poverty by Primary Language, 2022 and 2023 English Spanish Chinese, Mandarin, CalWORKs Heads of Household Cantonese All Heads of Household in Poverty Vietnamese All Californian Heads of Household Filipino, Tagalog Korean Other Languages* 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80% ª Other Languages category includes languages not listed above and "other." For CalWORKs participants, most frequently selected language in this category was "Other Non-English." Note: Californians in poverty are those with income below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. Non-English languages broken out above are the top five languages spoken by Californians with limited English proficiency according to the California Health and Human Services Agency. California Department of Social Services is required to provide translations of all program materials in these languages. All California heads of household and all heads of household in poverty include only families with children under age 18. Data from California Department of Social Services (2022) and American Community Survey (2023). www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full AN LAO REPORT than English and Spanish (including some options However, since women made up an overwhelming for interpreters), how aware potential applicants and share of individuals who did supply their gender participants may be of these options or how easily identity in their CalWORKs application (based available translation services may be is unknown. on 2022 data), this pattern may extend to the full CalWORKs population, but the extent to which Gender of Head of Household is unknown. Disproportionate Share of CalWORKs High Rate of Single-Parent Families in Families Had Female Heads of Household. CalWORKs May Contribute to Disproportionate As shown in Figure 14, almost 90 percent of Share of CalWORKs Families With Female CalWORKs heads of household were women in Heads of Household. As previously mentioned, 2022. Among cases with two eligible parents, a data availability limits the conclusions that can smaller proportion of heads of household were be drawn about CalWORKs family makeup, women (73 percent), as compared to all cases. including the prevalence of single-parent families By comparison, about half of California families in CalWORKs. However, of CalWORKs cases with children and about 63 percent of families in with eligible adults, about three-quarters include poverty (with children) were headed by women only one eligible adult. (This is likely due in part to in 2023, making female heads of household increased eligibility and participation requirements disproportionately represented in CalWORKs. for two-parent cases as compared to one-parent cases. We will explore these requirements and Key Gender Findings potential impacts further in part two of this Limited Gender Reporting. As mentioned, series). Many one-parent CalWORKs cases are most demographic questions in the CalWORKs likely single-parent families (however, this is not application—including on the applicant’s gender— true for all one-parent cases, as some families are optional. The rate at which applicants selected participating in CalWORKs include adults who are “prefer not to say” in response to the application’s ineligible for reasons such as immigration status gender question was particularly high (as compared or time limits). Of all single-parent families with to responses on other demographic questions). children in California in 2023, almost 80 percent Therefore, gender identity is only known for about had female heads of household. As such, the 10 percent of CalWORKs heads of household. overrepresentation of female heads of household in CalWORKs may be partially explained by the likely Figure 14 high rate of single-parent families in the program and differing program requirements for one-parent Most CalWORKs Families Had cases as compared to two-parent cases. We pose Female Heads of Household some questions on this possibility in the “Issues for Share of Cases by Head of Legislative Consideration” section. Household Gender, 2022 Adult Participants’ Education Level Disproportionate Share of Adult CalWORKs Male Participants Had Not Completed High School Upon Entry Into Program. As shown in Figure 15, in 2022, about 60 percent of adults entering CalWORKs had not completed high school. By comparison, in 2023, about 10 percent of all heads Female of household in California and 25 percent of heads of household in poverty did not hold high school diplomas, meaning those without high school Note: Individuals who selected gender options other than male/female or did not provide gender information (about 90 percent of CalWORKs participants) were excluded diplomas made up a disproportionate share of from the figure due to data limitations. those entering CalWORKs. Data from California Department of Social Services. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT Figure 15 Most CalWORKs Adult Participants Did Not Have High School Diploma Upon Entry Share of CalWORKs Adult Recipients (Upon Entry to Program), All Californian Heads of Household, and Heads of Household in Poverty by Education Level, 2022 and 2023 CalWORKs Adults All Heads of Household in Poverty All Californian Heads of Household 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% No High School Diploma High School Diploma Beyond High School Note: Californians in poverty are those with income below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. All California heads of household and all heads of household in poverty include only families with children under age 18. Individuals in the “beyond high school” category generally held high school diplomas or equivalent (and were excluded from the "high school diploma" category for display purposes). Data from California Department of Social Services (2022) and American Community Survey (2023). Key Education Findings However, Other Drivers of Lower Educational Attainment Among Adults Disproportionate Share of Adults Without Entering CalWORKs Are Unclear. As described High School Diplomas Entering CalWORKs earlier, a disproportionate share of adults Likely Partially Reflects Disproportionate entering CalWORKs had not completed high Rates of Poverty. As shown in Figure 15, heads school (as compared to adults in poverty). of household in poverty are less likely than the This disproportionality suggests there may be general population to have completed high school. characteristics of adults without high school Therefore, it is not surprising that those entering diplomas that result in higher CalWORKs CalWORKs are also less likely than the general participation. Alternatively, there may be population to have completed high school. components of the CalWORKs program that are particularly beneficial to low-income adults who have not completed high school. We pose some questions on these possibilities in the “Issues for Legislative Consideration” section. ISSUES FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION In this section, we highlight data limitations potentially impacting CalWORKs participation that impact insights into CalWORKs participant and caseload in recent years, such as program characteristics and pose some questions on why awareness, benefits, and requirements. certain groups might participate in CalWORKs at Data Limitations Impact Insights Into higher (or lower) rates. In part two of this series, CalWORKs Participant Characteristics. As Trends in CalWORKs: Participant Experiences, previously mentioned, data limitations make we will provide additional insight into some of drawing some conclusions about the characteristics these questions and further explore other factors of CalWORKs families and individuals difficult. www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full AN LAO REPORT For example, most demographic information is to apply for or participate in CalWORKs. We explore self-reported and, in certain categories, available some of these potential factors further below, as well datasets include high rates of nonresponses or as in part two of this series. missing data (such as in the gender category). Disproportionalities Raise Key Questions. Additionally, as mentioned, data on ineligible The Legislature might consider various questions family members and non-heads of household are on disproportionalities highlighted in this report, limited. For fuller insights into the characteristics including those outlined below. Part two of the series, of participants and families, the Legislature might Trends in CalWORKs: Participant Experiences, will consider the costs and potential benefits of provide further insight into some of these questions. requesting more detailed demographic information • Geography. Certain counties make up on CalWORKs participants and families—including disproportionate shares of the CalWORKs non-eligible family members and non-heads of caseload when compared to Californians in household—at the time of application. However, poverty. Are there certain local programmatic doing so may have trade-offs, such as increased differences—such as variation in outreach or administrative burden on applicants and county services offered—that help explain some of staff. Additionally, some families may be dissuaded these disproportionalities? Are there certain from applying for CalWORKs by additional requests differences in county characteristics— or requirements for more detailed demographic such as population density or presence information (for example, families with mixed of community-based organizations—that immigration status), although the extent to which may factor into these disproportionalities? this might occur is unknown. Are additional county-level data points Certain Demographic Differences needed to assess these programmatic or Between CalWORKs Participants and the county-level differences? General Population Likely Largely Due to • CalWORKs Family Composition. Children Disproportionate Rates of Poverty Across make up the vast majority of CalWORKs Groups. As mentioned, CalWORKs is designed participants, largely as a result of the program’s to assist low-income families. Therefore, it is not eligibility and participation requirements (most surprising that many common characteristics among of which, as described earlier, are determined Californians in poverty are also common among at the state and federal level). Do requirements CalWORKs participants. For example, as described determined at the state level, such as how the throughout this report, CalWORKs participants state defines a family’s need for assistance or and Californians in poverty are more likely than the WTW participation requirements, still align with general population to be female, Black or Hispanic, the Legislature’s goals for the program? and without a high school diploma. • Race/Ethnicity and Language. Certain However, Certain Groups Make Up race/ethnicity groups make up disproportionate Disproportionate Shares of CalWORKs shares of the CalWORKs caseload as Participants as Compared to Californians in compared to Californians in poverty, while other Poverty. As described throughout this report, groups are underrepresented. Additionally, few certain groups (for example, female heads of participants speak primary languages other household and adults without high school diplomas) than English or Spanish (indicating a potential make up disproportionate shares of CalWORKs connection between language, race/ethnicity, participants as compared to Californians in poverty. and CalWORKs participation). How might Various factors—including characteristics of certain awareness or perception of the program differ demographic groups or elements of the CalWORKs by race/ethnicity group or across Californians program, including eligibility rules, languages used speaking different languages? What barriers in program materials, participation requirements, might families speaking other languages face in outreach strategies, or service offerings—may play applying for and participating in CalWORKs? a role in making certain groups more (or less) likely 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full AN LAO REPORT • Gender. Families with female heads of equivalent) than all adult Californians in poverty. household make up a disproportionate share Are there elements of the CalWORKs program of the CalWORKs caseload when compared to that are particularly beneficial to Californians California families in poverty. Are there barriers who have not completed high school, such as low-income families without female heads assistance in earning high school diplomas of household, including both single-parent (or equivalent)? Are services offered through and two-parent families, face in accessing CalWORKs effectively meeting the needs of CalWORKs? What program elements might be these participants? Are there other program particularly beneficial to families with female elements or participant characteristics that heads of household? make CalWORKs participants less likely than • Education. CalWORKs adult participants are other Californians—including those in poverty— far less likely to have completed high school (or to hold high school diplomas? CONCLUSION Better understanding the common characteristics information about CalWORKs participants than is of CalWORKs participants, which California already required would likely have tradeoffs, such as communities and families are disproportionately increased administrative burden on county staff and overrepresented or underrepresented in participants. Therefore, if the Legislature is interested CalWORKs, and the possible reasons for these in increasing the information the state requests or disproportionalities can help the Legislature better requires of participants, it should likely weigh these understand who CalWORKs serves and determine tradeoffs and potential effects. Additionally, other how the program could be designed to better reach factors outside of participant characteristics—such all eligible families. The Legislature could consider as program awareness, benefits, and requirements— using some of the questions described in this report likely impact CalWORKs caseload and participation as a guide in increasing the information the state across groups. In part two of this series, Trends in requests or requires from CalWORKs participants. CalWORKs: Participant Experiences, we will further However, as described earlier, efforts to gather more explore some of these other factors. www.lao.ca.gov 23 analysis full AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Sonia Schrager Russo, and reviewed by Ginni Bella Navarre and Carolyn Chu. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE