Rethinking welfare-to-work programmes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from CalWORKs in the United States

Abstract

Social policy scholars have raised concerns about the effectiveness and responsiveness of welfare-to-work (WTW) programmes in addressing poverty and economic hardship in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This article investigates how California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by analysing how its rules and practices have evolved, the values or principles underpinning these changes, and the overall programme performance over time. Using a modified mixed-method research design with secondary data, we analyse up-to-date administrative data and documentations to study programme changes. Our findings highlight a contrasting programme dynamic: limited accessibility for potential clients but enhanced flexibility for current participants. Our findings also reveal a loosened welfare-work nexus in CalWORKs, demonstrated by a shift from a rigid work-first, compliance-oriented model to a more adaptive and responsive model to address diverse family needs. We argue that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated the challenges of the neoliberal, work-first-oriented WTW programmes, presenting a pivotal opportunity to reimagine and reform WTW programmes to enhance the well-being of low-income families in the post-pandemic era.

Introduction

Since the 1990s, welfare states have increasingly adopted welfare-to-work (WTW) programmes, also known as workfare or active labour market policies (ALMPs), that condition cash benefits on work-related obligations (Eleveld, Kampen, and Arts 2020; Crouch 2022). In the USA, the implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has been shaped by two intertwining ideologies—neoliberalism and racism—that uphold values of work ethic and personal responsibility for poverty. These ideologies particularly affect single mothers of colour (Schram, Fording, and Soss 2008). Scholars have demonstrated that such programmes often exclude the most disadvantaged families from the welfare system and push participants into precarious employment (Anderson et al. 2000; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011; Rubery et al. 2018). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified concerns among researchers about the responsiveness of WTW programmes in addressing the growing economic hardship of low-income families (Kantova and Arltova 2020; Lu 2020; Greve et al. 2021; Crouch 2022; Rotar 2022; Stambe and Marston 2023).

Many social welfare policies have been enacted in response to COVID-19 to mitigate its impact across welfare states. However, studies on WTW programmes or ALMPs have predominantly focused on fiscal expenditure (e.g. Eichhorst and Brunner 2022), caseload dynamics (e.g. Hembre 2023; Lee et al. 2022), temporarily lifted welfare conditionality (e.g. McGann, Murphy, and Whelan 2020; Greve et al. 2021), and employment outcomes at the national level (e.g. Rotar 2022). Whelan, Murphy, and McGann (2021) suggested ALMPs transitioning from a ‘work-first’ model to a ‘life-first’ approach, incorporating flexible arrangements to better support workers amid the pandemic. Despite these focuses, how state and local social service agencies have adapted to the crisis through changes to programme rules, practices, and associated performance remains underexplored. Addressing this gap, this article examines the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) programme, the largest TANF programme in the USA, analysing how its rules and practices have evolved, the values or principles underpinning these changes, and the overall programme performance in the wake of the pandemic.

Background

Welfare reform, the TANF programme, and social exclusion

Since the bipartisan welfare reform of 1996, TANF has conditioned cash assistance for low-income families with children in the USA on WTW activity participation. This federal reform reflected the increasing stigmatization of African American mothers receiving welfare in the 1980s (Abramovitz 2017). It also reflected neoliberal welfare ideology, which emphasizes small governments, personal responsibility for poverty, and market values of work performance. The two ideologies promoted WTW programmes to place welfare recipients in paid employment to reduce ‘welfare dependency’ and achieve ‘self-sufficiency’ (ACF 2022).

Three key policy mechanisms affect access to TANF cash and WTW provisions. The first mechanism is time-restricted benefit rules. Most TANF families cannot receive cash benefits for more than sixty months in their lifetime. Twelve states, however, impose an even shorter time limit (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2022a).

The second mechanism is mandatory WTW activity participation and its associated noncompliance and sanction treatments. TANF adult participants must agree to a WTW contract governed by state TANF rules through a local social service agency. Depending on state TANF rules, TANF participants can be exempt from WTW participation requirements for circumnutates such as pregnancy, disability, high school student status, or caregiving for an infant (Urban Institute 2020). Participants who are subject to WTW participation requirements but fail to comply with the WTW rules without good cause may face sanctions, resulting in reduced benefits or even case closure. State and local TANF agencies typically require proof or documentation to grant a WTW exemption or good cause for noncompliance status, imposing administrative burdens on TANF participants (Fox, Feng, and Reynolds 2023).

The third mechanism, a work-first approach, is reinforced by using the work participation rate (WPR) as a single performance measure, along with caseload reduction credits. States failing to meet their target WPRs face potential reductions in federal TANF funding. The 1996 welfare reform law introduced caseload reduction credits to incentivize states to curtail new TANF enrolments or expedite TANF exits. Under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005—the first TANF reauthorization bill, a state that has experienced a decrease in caseload since 2005 can lower its target WPRs. Furthermore, the DRA restricts activities such as education, training, or barrier-removal services to be counted in calculating the WPR (Lower-Basch and Burnside 2021). The work-first approach, the WPRs, and caseload reduction credits limit the WTW participants’ access to various services to meet their diverse needs.

The abovementioned TANF mechanisms have contributed to the social exclusion of economically marginalized families with children in the US labour market and welfare system. Since the welfare reform, the ratio of TANF caseload-to-poverty population has decreased from 68 percent in 1996 to 21 percent in 2020 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2022b). This decline indicates that at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, only one in five low-income families with children received TANF benefits.

Federal TANF policy responses to the COVID-19 economic crisis

State and local stay-at-home orders that began in March 2020 resulted in widespread business and school closures, leading to mass unemployment and economic hardship. The national unemployment rate increased from 4.1 percent in February 2020 to a peak of 16.1 percent in May 2020 and remained above 9 percent throughout 2020. The national poverty rate (without COVID relief) increased from 12.2 percent in March 2020 to approximately 20 percent in the second quarter of 2020 and remained at about 17 percent throughout the second half of 2020 (Center on Poverty and Social Policy 2021). Nationwide TANF caseload increased from March to July 2020 but then declined throughout the following fourteen months (Hembre 2023).

The pandemic disproportionately impacted WTW participants, especially women, people of colour, and low-wage workers, who were predominantly employed in the hard-hit service sector industries (Meyer and Pavetti 2021). Reduced job opportunities and unstable work hours made meeting work participation requirements challenging. Low-income single parents, often without external childcare support due to COVID-19 closures, struggled to engage in WTW activities (Spencer et al. 2022). Moreover, the pandemic also strained the capacity and effectiveness of WTW programmes, as it necessitated changes including discontinuation of in-person services, transition to remote work, alteration of eligibility processes, and reassignment of TANF staff to support unemployment benefit applications (Jen 2022).

To address challenges due to COVID-19, the federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a guidance emphasizing TANF’s flexibility. This guidance allowed states to adjust income eligibility criteria to assist families affected by COVID-19, workplace closures, or childcare issues. It encouraged states to utilize TANF flexibilities, such as online applications, increased cash benefits, virtual case management, online WTW services, and exemptions from work requirements due to caregiving responsibilities or site closures (DHHS 2020a). While ACF could not waive TANF work requirements or redefine activity categories, it did grant COVID-19-related exceptions for states to avoid penalties for not achieving the required WPRs in 2020 (DHHS 2020a).

States responded variably to the pandemic. A national survey found diverse approaches: thirty states excluded some unemployment benefits in determining TANF eligibility; forty-one states relaxed work requirements and sanctions; nineteen states resumed full TANF benefits for sanctioned clients; nine states stopped counting months towards state time limits; twelve states granted an extension for families who reached a state time limit (Shantz et al. 2022). Additional responses included waiving in-person interviews, adjusting child support cooperation requirements, and supporting TANF student parents with tech access for online learning (Schweitzer 2020). These variations highlight the need for a subnational analysis of state rules, practices, and administrative data to comprehensively understand WTW programme responses and their performance during the pandemic. This article addresses two questions: What were the COVID-19-related changes to WTW rules and practices, and their underlying values within a state’s TANF WTW programme? How did statewide WTW programme performance adapt to these changes?

Methods

A case study on CalWORKs

Our research design used a ‘case study framework’ (Fetters, Curry, and Creswell 2013) to comprehensively understand the TANF WTW programme responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We selected CalWORKs for our case study for both theoretical and practical reasons. California’s economy—the fifth-largest globally (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom 2022a)—provides a unique context for welfare analysis, especially given its representative of the generous welfare regime in the USA (Meyers et al. 2001). CalWORKs, the largest TANF programme in the USA, served 1,126,792 recipients as of February 2020 (including the state’s Maintenance of Effort)—representing 42 percent of all TANF recipients nationwide (DHHS 2020b), indicating its significance. California’s high uptake of TANF, with 71 percent of families in poverty participating compared to a 21 percent national average, further emphasizes its distinction (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2022b). Finally, the transparency of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in releasing data and documents to the public enabled reliable access to information crucial for our analysis.

Modified mixed-methods convergent design with secondary data

We employed a modified mixed-methods convergent design with secondary data, where existing quantitative and qualitative administrative data were collected and analysed simultaneously (Watkins 2022). This offers deeper insight into the holistic picture of CalWORKs’ responses to the pandemic than either method would alone. The qualitative analysis offers information about the context the COVID-19 rules and practices, while the quantitative analysis provides a complementary perspective on the quantified performance. We defined our study period as July 2019 to June 2023, covering the four state fiscal years that coincided with California’s COVID-19 emergency from March 2020 to February 2023. Following the suggested practices of Fetters, Curry, and Creswell (2013), we employed a mixed methods case study framework using a concurrent design and adopted an ‘interactive approach’ to conducting data collection and analysis. Data collection occurred in parallel, with Authors 2 and 3 primarily responsible for the quantitative and qualitative data collection, respectively. The first author supervised the process and developed quantitative measures and qualitative coding schemes for the second and the third authors to conduct data analysis simultaneously. Figure 1 outlines the data collection and analytical procedures.

The qualitative component involved analysing seventy-seven administrative documents from CDSS (see the list of documents in Supplementary Table S1), using MAXQDA 2022 software for coding and thematic exploration. These documents include All County Information Notices (ACINs), All County Letters (ACLs), and All County Welfare Director Letters (ACWDL) that offer guidance, policy updates, and operational procedures to county welfare departments (CWDs). Seventy-seven letters were selected through this process: the first author reviewed 980 letters between March 2020 and June 2023. From these, 211 letters mentioning ‘CalWORKs’ or ‘WTW’ in the subject were selected. After reviewing the content, seventy-three letters related to COVID-19 responses were chosen, along with four additional letters regarding COVID-19 statewide rules affecting CalWORKs/WTW programme. Starting with deducted codes based on CalWORKs’ process from application to programme exit (see Fig. 2), we categorized codes into three groups: affected populations, programme rules/provisions, and guiding values or principles, each with specific subcodes. Inductive coding was applied to incorporate new, emerging insights. Key themes were then identified by using MAXQDA’s matrix construction and ‘Questions—Themes—Theories’ tool.

The quantitative component involved trend analysis of CalWORKs caseload and twelve CalWORKs WTW performance indicators (see Supplementary Table S2) from July 2019 to June 2023. We collected data from CA 237 CalWORKs Cash Grant Caseload Movement Report, WTW25(A) CalWORKs WTW monthly activity report, and CW115(A) Child Care monthly report. We generated WTW indicators following Chang, Lanfranconi, and Clark (2020) and suggestions from state administrators.

In the final phase, we integrated quantitative data with qualitative insights to understand the relationship between CalWORKs caseload trends, performance metrics, and the documented changes and their underpinning values or principles. The first author organized the process, and all team members reviewed preliminary analyses and discussed the findings in weekly meetings. Quantitative and qualitative findings and memos were jointly displayed in team working documents to identify shared themes and generate new insights. One of our authors, a CalWORKs participant, offered unique perspectives on their WTW experience and insights gained from interactions with other participants, enriching our analysis with lived experience.

Following Watkins’ (2022) suggestion, we examined convergent and divergent results. In instances where results did not align, we used triangulation by consulting state administrators and county frontline workers from our past and current research partnerships to enhance our interpretations. We further refined our interpretation by incorporating feedback from 2023 CalWORKs Conference attendees and discussions with CDSS officials and the County Welfare Directors Association of California.

Ethics statement

This study used publicly accessible administrative data and documentation from the CDSS website. The research activities and analyses detailed in this article are part of an extensive CalWORKs research project, which has been approved by California’s Institutional Review Board to ensure ethical rigour throughout the project.

Results

This section presents four overarching themes on CalWORKs WTW responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, organized by overall caseload trend and related macroeconomic and policy changes, and the generic process for a WTW participant, from application to service utilization (see Fig. 2). We adopted a ‘weaving approach’ (Fetters, Curry, and Creswell 2013), presenting qualitative and quantitative findings together to comprehensively present the case study.

Weak caseload responses to the pandemic-triggered economic crises

CalWORKs eligibility relies on a deprivation rule requiring a child to lack financial support from one or both parents, with parental unemployment being a key criterion [ACL, 05/22/2020] (We use the citation format [document type, issue date (mm/dd/yyyy)] to reference the documents utilized in the analysis, see the reference documents in Supplementary Table S1). Figure 3 presents the percent changes in CalWORKs caseload and the state unemployment rate from July 2019 to June 2023, with the reference month in February 2020—the month before the declaration of the COVID-19 emergency. The solid line shows a nearly 300 percent increase in the unemployment rate from 4.1 percent in February to a peak of 16.1 percent in May 2020. Since then, the unemployment rate had remained higher than its reference level until the end of 2021. In contrast, the two dotted lines show overall decreasing trends for the total CalWORKs caseload and the caseload with adult participants during the first two pandemic years, except for the temporary increase from March to May 2020. The document analysis provided insights into the reasons behind this temporary increase and the subsequent changed patterns.

Changes to time limit and re-determination rules for existing clients

The mild caseload increase at the beginning of the pandemic could be driven by the retention of existing clients by executive order N-29–20, which provided authority for the CDSS to ‘suspend redeterminations of eligibility and exempt months from the CalWORKs 48-month time clock’ occurred during March to June 2020 [ACWDL, 03/27/2020].

Intensifying COVID-19 surge and permanent change to lifetime limit

The early 2022 caseload rebound may correspond with the surge of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in January 2022, alongside California’s historical peak COVID-19 positive rate of 19.1 percent (California Department of Public Health 2022). This rise in COVID-19 induced a greater need for cash assistance as work hours and earnings were reduced. Additionally, Assembly Bill 79 permanently extended the CalWORKs lifetime limit from forty-eight to sixty months, which could account for the accelerated increase in two-parent and single-parent caseloads observed after May 2022, exceeding pre-pandemic levels [ACL, 10/28/2020; 08/12/2021].

The overall declining trend of CalWORKs caseload during the first two pandemic years indicated weak caseload responses to the pandemic-triggered economic crisis. Given that the caseload consists of new, returning, and existing participants, we further analysed CalWORKs WTW rules, provisions, and their inclusionary or exclusionary mechanisms that shape the clients’ experiences from application to programme exit throughout the pandemic.

Application and (re)determination: interplay of approval and denial dynamics with county flexibility, capacity, and unemployment benefits

To become a WTW participant, a client completes a CalWORKs application and undergoes an eligibility determination process (see Fig. 2). Pre-pandemic, clients would visit their local CWDs to verify personal identities, sign documents, and undergo an interview with an eligibility worker. A family must undergo a re-determination process every six months to continue their eligibility. CWDs can deny aid to recipients who fail to report changes in family circumstances (CDSS 2022).

Encourage flexibility, simplification, and county discretion

In response to the pandemic, state policymakers made several rule changes to encourage ‘flexibility’, ‘simplification’, and ‘county discretion’ in the application and (re)determination processes, including (1) allowing alternative telephonic/electronic signatures and interviews, (2) simplifying documentation and verification rules and practices, and (3) suspending eligibility-redetermination for existing clients [ACWDL, 03/13/2020; 03/27/2020; 3/30/2020; 05/04/2020; 06/29/2020; 07/16/2020; 07/29/2021; ACL, 05/22/2020; 03/04/2021; 11/09/2021; ACIN, 08/10/2020; 03/04/2022].

Decreased approval rate and increased denial rate after COVID-19 onset

Figure 4 shows a 40 percent drop in the monthly average approved cases, from 12,595 before the pandemic (Jan 2019 to Feb 2020) to 7,566 during the initial year and a half of the pandemic. Concurrently, the average monthly approval rate decreased from 24 percent to 15.3 percent, while the denial rate rose above pre-pandemic levels. These statistics indicate reduced accessibility for potential clients during this period.

Document analysis suggests CWDs might have had limited capacity to implement the COVID-19-related rule changes as they reduced in-person services while experiencing a sharp increase in applications (from 46,433 in February 2020 to a peak of 66,666 in April 2020). While state policy had long allowed counties to provide telephonic or electronic signatures for their application documents, not all counties provided these options in 2020. It was not until January 2023 that they were required to implement these provisions [ACWDL, 07/29/2021]. Besides, the constantly evolving state rules regarding application and eligibility determination throughout the pandemic may have confused caseworkers and applicants, thus challenging the capacity of local CWDs to meet the heightened demand for CalWORKs assistance efficiently. For example, regular unemployment insurance benefits and federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits have consistently been classified as unearned income when determining CalWORKs eligibility. However, California has exempted federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC) from being counted as income during the review of ongoing eligibility for current cases. This exemption for PUC, however, was not extended to new applicants until March 2021 [ACWDL, 05/05/2020; 06/05/2020; ACIN, 02/16/2021; ACL, 02/26/2021]. This policy gap likely contributed to an increase in denials due to unemployment benefits received early in the pandemic. As shown in Fig. 4, the peak denial rate reached 34.5% in March 2021, steadily declining through September 2021.

The interplay between CalWORKs and the pandemic unemployment benefits

The temporary federal pandemic unemployment benefits affected unemployed families applying for CalWORKs. At the 2023 CalWORKs conference, a WTW service provider noted that many families preferred unemployment benefits due to higher payouts and lesser administrative burden. To illustrate, in March 2020, a single-parent family in California could receive a maximum of $696 monthly from CalWORKs (CDSS, 2021a). However, federal pandemic unemployment benefits provided $600 weekly, totalling $2,400 monthly, which exceeds the CalWORKs income eligibility threshold of $1,172 and $1,114 for high and low-cost areas, respectively (CDSS, 2021b). The reversed patterns of approval and denial rates post-September 2021, as shown in Fig. 4, corresponded with the surge in applications following the end of federal pandemic unemployment benefits in September 2021.

Adoption of a good-cause-for-noncompliance logic and a sanction-curing approach during the COVID-19 pandemic

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, CDSS and CWDs modified their WTW exemption, good cause, and sanction rules and practices.

Case-by-case determination versus county-wide blanket procedures

At the beginning of the pandemic, CDSS issued a guideline indicating that ‘counties have the flexibility to implement county-wide policy and procedures for the provision of blanket good cause/exemptions’ [ACWDL, 03/13/2020]. This was in addition to the regular practice of issuing good cause or exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Counties were provided relief from any potential pass-on of financial penalties for not meeting target WPR performance [ACWDL, 03/30/2020].

Implementing sanction cure plans and preventing new sanctions

CDSS encouraged CWDs to engage with sanctioned clients to develop cure plans to resolve their sanction if WTW activity participation was ‘not available or appropriate due to the COVID-19 emergency’. Before sanctioning non-compliant clients, CWDs should apply good cause on a case-by-case basis or under a blanket good cause policy [ACWDL, 03/30/2020; 07/24/2020; 09/01/2020; 09/10/2020; 07/29/2021; 03/30/2022].

Figure 5 presents changes in WTW exemption, good cause, noncompliance, and sanction rates from July 2019 to June 2023. The good cause rate notably increased from 6.5 percent in February 2020, peaking at 43.8 percent in April and June 2021. In contrast, sanction rates dropped from 25.7 percent in February to the lowest level of 9.2 percent during March to June 2022, and noncompliance rates fell from 8.5 percent in February 2020 to a low of nearly 0 percent in May 2021, and then gradually increased to 4 percent at the end of the study period. The reopening of the state economy in mid-June 2021 reversed trends for WTW good cause and noncompliance, possibly as case workers expected clients to resume compliance with WTW participation requirements.

Granting an exemption or good cause status is a strategy to avoid or cure a WTW sanction. Despite counties having flexibility to implement blanket WTW good cause/exemptions [ACWDL, 03/13/2020], the exemption rate unexpectedly decreased from 25.3 percent in February 2020 to about 16 percent by mid-2022, contrary to the increasing good cause rate. This suggests CWDs may favour implementing blanket WTW good cause over exemption. A major difference between these two provisions is that a WTW exemption status releases a client from WTW activity participation and may stop the client’s cash aid time clock, while a WTW good cause status temporarily suspends the participation requirement but typically does not stop the cash aid time clock. The blanket good cause policy expired sixty days after the federal COVID-19 public health emergency was lifted on May 11, 2023 [CL, 12/30/2022; ACIN, 05/17/2023]. Consequently, CWDs are expected to revert to determining good cause on a case-by-case basis and to reengage with those previously under blanket good cause through WTW activities or services. Subsequently, as shown in Fig. 5, the good cause rates decreased to around 20 percent in June 2023 as related practices returned to pre-pandemic norms.

(Dis)continuities in WTW service utilization: COVID-19 catalysed a shift from a rigid work-first model to a flexible family-centred model

CalWORKs provides a range of WTW activities and services through CWDs and local partners, including employment, training, education, supportive services, and subsidized childcare. These services reflect different WTW approaches. Employment activities emphasize a work-first approach, education and training activities aim to build human capital, and supportive services along with childcare address employment barriers (Chang, Lanfranconi, and Clark 2020).

WTW service continuity, discontinuity, and modifications

To maintain service continuity during the pandemic, state policymakers and administrators made several adjustments to the WTW programme. CDSS granted counties discretion to continue subsidized employment and work-study even when worksite closures or reduced hours [ACWDL, 03/30/2020; 06/29/2020; 09/01/2020; 07/29/2021]. CDSS partnered with Cell-Ed, a distance learning programme, to offer customizable learning activities for WTW participants, meeting the demand for online education and training services during the pandemic [ACIN, 07/01/2020; 11/16/2020; ACWDL, 09/01/2020; 10/19/2020; 12/30/2022]. Legislation streamlined support for WTW participants enrolled in multiple publicly funded postsecondary institutions by simplifying hourly participation requirement calculations and standardizing ancillary service payments for school-related costs starting Fall 2021 [ACL, 06/23/202; 11/29/2021; 12/03/2021]. AB 131 (Chapter 116, Statues of 2021) extended childcare benefits, providing reimbursement based on enrolment rather than attendance and additional paid nonoperational days for COVID-19-related closures from July 2021 through June 2022 [ACWDL, 03/23/2021]. To promote flexibility and safety, CDSS allowed home visiting contractors to use telehealth platforms during the pandemic, a model that continues today [ACWDL, 04/07/2020; 11/16/20; ACL, 03/25/2021] (California Department of Social Services 2022).

Figure 6 depicts changes in WTW service utilization during the study period. While efforts were made to maintain service continuity, the employment, supportive, education, and training service utilization rates declined after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. The supportive service (including transportation and ancillary services/payments) utilization rate began to recover as restrictions eased and businesses reopened. Contrastingly, childcare and human services (including mental health and domestic violence assistance) maintained a steady utilization rate, highlighting their critical support in mitigating the negative impacts on participating families.

Implementation of new WTW participation requirements amid the pandemic

A significant change to the WTW programme was the new CalWORKs hourly participation requirements implemented in May 2022, which eases restrictions on required hours for employment activities and expanded access to alternative activities and necessary supportive services based on family needs [ACL, 11/13/2020; 4/26/2021; 6/15/2021; ACIN, 4/5/2022]. CWDs were instructed to use the language to inform clients, stating, ‘The new CalWORKs Hourly Participation Requirements give you more activities to choose from’. [ACIN, 4/5/2022].

Notably, increases in supportive and education service utilization rates were observed, likely attributed to the new CalWORKs hourly participation requirements implemented in May 2022. These new rules introduced greater flexibility in WTW activities, moving beyond the traditional employment-focused, work-first approach. After the end of the state’s COVID-19 emergency in February 2023 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom 2022b) and growing efforts to re-engage participants who had good cause for noncompliance, there was a general increase in most service utilization rates, with the notable exception of employment service utilization. This trend suggests that the pandemic and subsequent programme responses may have catalysed a shift in CalWORKs from a rigid work-first model to a more flexible family-centred model.

Limitations

This study, although comprehensive in several ways, has limitations that need addressing. First, there was notable variation in how counties implemented particular practices or provisions within the state’s general guidelines. Our analysis at the state level was unable to uncover this variation. Furthermore, participants’ experiences with the WTW system likely varied significantly based on their interactions with county caseworkers. Our study design does not allow for a systematic analysis of these individual experiences. Finally, focusing solely on CalWORKs’ responses within its specific COVID-19 emergency timeframe restricts our ability to generalize findings to different geographic locations and their COVID-19 conditions.

Discussion and implications

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, social policy scholars across welfare states have urged a rethinking of WTW programmes/ALMPs and reimagining welfare states in the post-COVID-19, post-productivist era (Lu 2020; Dukelow and Murphy 2022; Murphy and McGann 2022; Stambe and Marston 2023). Contributing to this critical dialogue, this study examines the responses of the WTW programme to the pandemic in California in the USA. Our mixed-method case study revealed weak CalWORKs caseload responses to the pandemic-triggered economic crisis, even as the programme emphasizes flexibility, accessibility, and service continuity during this challenging period. We discuss key findings along with their lessons and policy implications in three aspects.

First, in discussing the WTW programme process, we note that while CalWORKs increased flexibility for current clients, access for potential clients was more restricted. Specifically, higher denial rates and lower approval rates since the pandemic began suggest challenges in timely processing new applicants on a case-by-case basis. Inconsistencies also emerged in how federal pandemic unemployment compensation was assessed, initially treating it as income for new applicants but not for existing clients. Additionally, existing clients benefited from temporarily suspended re-determinations, extending their eligibility by six months. County-level adaptations, such as blanket good cause rules and virtual WTW service options, further reduced administrative burdens (Herd and Moynihan 2019). These measures not only maintained service access and continuity but also led to permanent changes like extended lifetime limits and new virtual service options for existing clients. WTW administrators and frontline social workers need to continue and enhance their innovative approaches to technology and flexible social service delivery methods, such as online/phone interviews, and remote education and training, in the post-pandemic era.

Second, the welfare-work nexus was loosened through a good-cause-for-noncompliance logic and a sanction-curing approach during the three-year COVID-19 emergency status in California. This was reflected in a substantial increase in the good cause rate and remarkable decreases in the noncompliance and sanction rates, which align well with the state rules that encouraged counties to implement blanket good cause and resolve WTW sanctions during the pandemic. Despite the state agency also encouraging counties to grant WTW exemptions, the data shows no increase in exemption rate, suggesting CalWORKs temporarily suspended rather than completely relieved participation requirements during the pandemic. Temporary suspension of welfare conditionality was a common response globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, Denmark suspended activation requirements for the unemployed until late May 2020 (Greve et al. 2021). Similarly, countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, and the UK temporarily lifted job-search conditionality and benefit sanctions during initial lockdowns, raising questions about potential longer-term changes to WTW/ALMPs post-pandemic (McGann, Murphy, and Whelan 2020).

Finally, this study highlights a significant shift in California’s approach to WTW programme, transitioning from a rigid, compliance-focused model to a more adaptive, family-centred framework. It provides empirical support for the conceptual shift identified by Whelan, Murphy, and McGann (2021), who argue for a move away from a ‘work-first’ towards a ‘life-first’ model, which aims to better support workers during crises. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated the challenges of the work-first-oriented WTW programmes, particularly affecting low-income single mothers who already face numerous barriers to stable employment due to health and caregiving barriers (Strassberger 2022). Prior to the pandemic, initiatives like CalWORKs 2.0 and the CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (Cal-OAR) began to promote practices moving away from a strict work-first approach (Chang, Lanfranconi, and Clark 2020). The challenges brought forth by the pandemic accelerated this reform direction, as demonstrated by establishing the new CalWORKs hourly requirements under the pandemic legislation AB79 (CDSS 2022). These changes have steered CalWORKs from a rigid, work-first, compliance-oriented model to a more adaptive and responsive family-centred one. Frontline social workers are advised to thoroughly assess family needs and advocate for expanded services that prioritize the holistic well-being of families over a work-first approach.

Nationwide, the pandemic has prompted states to explore new WTW models and innovative service delivery practices (McCay and Bart 2021), despite the fact that US history has revealed a consistent political focus on work requirements in safety nets during economic recovery (Piven and Cloward 2012; Chang, Romich, and Ybarra 2021). Such focus is rooted in a neoliberal ideology emphasizing individual work ethic and personal responsibility, recently manifested in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023, which introduces additional outcome-based work reporting requirements and revises the baseline year caseload reduction credits (Congressional Research Services 2023; United States Congress, 2023). Critics highlight potential restrictions on state support for vulnerable families and increasing racial disparities in welfare noncompliance and sanctions (Pavetti et al. 2023). Nonetheless, the FRA’s innovative five-state pilot replacing WPR with negotiated outcomes offers a promising policy change, mirroring California’s recent reforms to the WTW participation requirements. With tools like the Cal-OAR data dashboard, California is at the forefront of innovation. This dashboard offers a comprehensive performance metrics breakdown by race, ethnicity, and demographic characteristics. Its’ data-driven insights help administrators and social workers understand the impacts of the local WTW system on marginalized groups, guiding anti-oppressive service delivery and setting an example for other states.

Our case study contributes to ongoing policy debates on WTW programmes and practices across welfare states. Reinventing WTW programmes by acknowledging both productive and reproductive activities could be a transformative step for welfare states in the post-pandemic era. For example, some social policy scholars advocate for the idea of participation income, which recognizes reproductive activities such as human and ecological care as work participation, making it more politically feasible than unconditional cash benefits for post-productivist welfare states (McGann and Murphy 2023). Cross-country comparison studies on WTW responses to COVID-19 are warranted to inform future transformations. Given the varied economic and social conditions that shaped countries’ responses to the pandemic, future research could examine how different welfare regimes and WTW programmes navigated the crisis, focusing on identifying both temporary and permanent changes and their interactions with unemployment benefits amid the pandemic. Such research would foster policy discussion, informing current WTW programmes and service providers, including social workers, to adapt effectively to the new social risks posed by public health crises, labour automation, and climate change.

Conclusion

This study offers insights through a comprehensive case study on how social service agencies adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic by temporarily and permanently modifying WTW programme rules and practices in California, USA. It reveals a weakened welfare-work nexus, shifting from a strict work-first model to a more adaptive, family-centred approach. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated the challenges of neoliberal WTW programmes, offering a key opportunity for social workers and policy advocates to reform these systems for better support of low-income families post-pandemic.

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff and administrators from the California Department of Social Services, the County Welfare Directors Association of California, and the participants from the 2023 CalWORKs Conference for their insights regarding the use of administrative data and the interpretation of our findings.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at British Journal of Social Work online.

Conflicts of interest. None declared.

Funding

This work was supported by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services under the 2020–2025 Family Self-Sufficiency and Stability Research Scholar Network Grant to Y.-L.C. (Grant Number: 90PE0041). Its contents are solely the authors’ responsibility and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding and partner agencies.

References