Abstract
California welfare to work Act, which was enacted in 1997, led to the creation of CYSA (comprehensive youth service act). CYSA was meant to provide “country’s probation departments (CPDs) with federal temporary assistance to the needy families’ (TANF) funds to be used to help in attaining overarching federal TANF goals by providing services to youths and their families” (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003, p. xi).
Therefore, CYSA/TANF program was a statutory program for increasing social welfare for its beneficiaries. This goal is explicitly expressed in the statement of goals of the program.
Turner, Davis, Steinberg, and Fain (2003) confirm that the main goal of the program was to “provide a continuum of family-focused and case-specific services in a community-based setting that address the full spectrum of child and family needs, including the services provided in county-operated residential care facilities” (p. xi). The paper presents the projects, which were implemented through the program.
It also highlights the services that were provided to the target social groups, the effects of the program from a system approach and individual gains, and the experiences of various counties with the implementation of the program. The aim is to evaluate the programs’ extent of achievement of its noble goals and objectives.
Background to CYSA/TANF Program
CYSA/TANF program was the creation of the CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids). The program was enacted in the financial years 1997/1998 (Worrall, 2004). The chief purpose of the program was to offer services to juveniles who were placed on probation.
This goal was to be achieved through putting in place measures that would ensure that youths were prevented from involving themselves in repeated crimes. It also put in strategies that would see youths who were placed on probation stop over relying on public aids besides creating avenues for the provision of help to the needy families through the federal temporary assistance program.
The aim of providing aid to the needy families was to ensure that the needy parents rely less on the benefits given by the government (Worrall, 2004). This object was to be realized via putting in place mechanisms of ensuring that such parents were prepared to engage in the work environment.
The program also endeavored to ensure that incidences of single parent families occurred in lesser magnitudes together with reduction of incidences of children siring while not engaged in marriage (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003).
The implementation process of the program was not fundamentally required by the state of California law to undergo an intensive evaluation process just as it happens normally for programs that are established to deliver public goods.
However, the state of California’s probation officer found it vital to conduct an analysis of the process of implementation of the program together with an evaluation of its outcomes (Calderwood, Kitzes & Ivanoff, 2012).
After considering and ensuring that the approaches of the bidding process followed the procuring and bidding procedures established within California, the contract to conduct analysis of the program was accorded to an organization referred to as RAND.
This organization was mandated to provide feedback on the implementation of the program within fixed time lines besides providing an assessment report on how the funding for the program was utilized by various probation departments in all the benefiting counties. It also provided a thorough assessment of the manner in which local interventions influenced the program.
RAND was also to provide recommendations on the plausible mechanisms through which the program would be improved in the future in terms of operation and program design. In this paper, the analysis and summary of the program is conducted in the context of the findings of RAND as discussed in its evaluation report referred to as Evaluation of the CYSA/TANF program in California: final report.
Projects implemented through the CYSA/TANF Program
Countries used CYSA/TANF program to allocate money to people in custody places. These places include jail halls for children and camps. The countries also used the program to arrange the CYSA/TANF money allocated to different programs in many groups ranging from taking preventive measures to ensuring that work is done properly in accordance with the legal rights of keeping and maintaining children.
This effort is done to give a set of things on a scale that concentrates on family by focusing on specific issues of the community besides dealing with a range of particular things to do with children and family requirements and services offered to people residing in countries that have access to health care facilities (Worrall, 2004). Earlier, CYSA/TANF aided counties to put up key programs, which concentrated on youth related issues.
In subsequent programs, countries usually arranged their CYSA/TANF funds that were allocated across most of the targeted population by involving the behaviors of pupils who skip from school without permission, youths living in specific areas, and people who are related to them (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003).
Information from programs within the 11 counties that took part in the detail action study highlighted the various ways that CPDS were used to ensure that CYSA/TANF goals were achieved.
For instance, programs varied from establishing prevention networks to offering services such as counseling, regular checking, medical attention services, and a variety of life lessons, skills, and gradual growth services given to youths in prisons.
Other counties decided to use CYSA/TANF money to fund programs in a set of scales. For instance, programs operating at the level of at-risk youths and their relatives offered services to a great multitude of customers in 2002.These programs helped about 6400 at-risk youths together with people who had relations with them (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003).
About 8500 youths in jail institutions were also served by the CYSA/TANF. Through CYSA/TANF, developments in the whole country were recognized. For example, different approaches were deployed for dealing with youth requirements and relations to work in a more collaborative way within county agencies.
To accomplish CYSA/TANF implementation, organizations changed a number of different things for instance employing new staff members who were obtained from either those who were kept pending to be employed or people from administrative personnel or training employees to concentrate CYSA/TANF.
Effort was also made to change the current rules and procedures to suit the focus on CYSA related goals, making slight changes to the way things are managed in the organization, and coming up with new demanding methods.
Planning earlier and ensuring that programs are accomplished were prevented by few major factors, which include problems related to the implementation of a many-service-outcome model and documentation procedure.
Services delivered through CYSA/TANF Program
CYSA/TANF Program was formulated to deliver a number of services as discussed in the background section. From the perspective of the program analysis, the goal of evaluation is to determine whether these services were indeed delivered as proposed. Prior to the introduction of the program, some counties in California already had operational programs to aid the needy families and juveniles (Worrall, 2004).
However, the program was instrumental in aiding to facilitate continuity of these programs since some were running out funds.
For instance, some counties deployed the funds allocated to them through the program to improve, modify, or even boost treatment services that had been formalized.
Indeed, with regard to Turner, Davis, Steinberg, and Fain (2003), “large counties were more likely to use CYSA/TANF funds to substantially modify or enhance existing formal treatment services, where else small counties, which had fewer services to begin with, were more likely to add new treatment services under CYSA/TANF” (p. xiii).
Therefore, the program was effective in delivering services to the needy families by virtue of the fact that the communities already identified such needs. The only challenges were funding limitations to fulfill the goals of the existing programs.
Through the CYSA/TANF program, coordination services were also provided. However, it does not mean that counties, which were allocated the CYSA/TANF funds, did not have the existing coordination services. Rather, such services were provided externally to the counties through case management.
More than 67 percent of the counties deployed the funds allocated to them via CYSA/TANF program to enhance case management service that was provided externally (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003). Half of the counties also spent an incredible amount in facilitation of referral together with information services relating to availing various community-essential resources.
The large counties possessed higher probabilities to utilize funds allocated to them to enhance their case management services while the small counties had the highest probability of utilizing their funds to initiate new referral services together with external case management services (Turner, Davis, Steinberg & Fain, 2003).
After-care-services comprised an incredible class of services that counties used the CYSA/TANF funds to enhance them. Tantamount to the other cases, many of the large counties utilized their funds to expand the existing services while smaller counties considered utilizing their funds to fund new services. A similar trend is also true for services dealing with skill developments within the counties.
Realization of the nature of services provided and their trend of provisions based on the size of counties concerns Turner, Davis, Steinberg and Fain (2003) who claim, “ we expected to find that the types of services and the intensity of services provided in a different setting along the continuum of options would vary” (p. xiii).
In fact, considering the nature of services rendered through CYSA/TANF, it is evident that counties belonging to higher continuum had higher probabilities to provide more services relative to those belonging to the lower continuum. One striking difference was that of the formal treatment services because many counties focused on their provision irrespective of the county continuum.
CYSA/TANF Program services delivered to juvenile halls
The program was targeted at assisting several groups of people who were convicted for juvenile crimes. This category included youths who were regarded as at-risk youths, WIC 601, WIC 602, WIC 777, wardship, and custody. Risky youths include all youths who fail academically in effect that they live in poverty, are disabled, and or they belong to segregated minority groups (Worrall, 2004, p.472).
WIC 601 involved all juveniles who are charged with offenses, which do not apply for adults, alternatively called status offenses. WIC 777 Juveniles are charged with felonies of misdemeanor.
Lastly, while juveniles belonging to the class of warship constitute “youths under court supervision who are placed at some, or at a relative’s house on probation, custody refers to all juveniles under court supervision who have been sentenced from 0-12 months in juvenile camp or ranch” (Calderwood, Kitzes & Ivanoff, 2012, p.16).
Considering the roles played by the CYSA/TANF program to ensure that all these groups of youths live better lives, and are able to coexist and contribute to societal development, it is evident that the program was effective in the realization of its goals and objectives.
Based on capacity, different counties offered services to different youths within their halls. In the largest counties, the halls offered services to youths in an excess of 1500. Beyond half of members of counties, which benefited from CYSA/TANF program funding to provide services to juveniles, put up juvenile halls with a capacity of holding 200 people and above in any period of time (Calderwood, Kitzes & Ivanoff, 2012).
The time of stay at the juvenile center ranged from five to twenty-seven days. Therefore, CYSA/TANF program was effective in ensuring that large numbers of people falling in any of described categories of juveniles acquired services across the state of California. However, it is important to note that, within California, juvenile services seeking to reform youths convicted for felony crimes did not exist prior to the creation of CYSA/TANF.
Indeed, Turner, Davis, Steinberg, and Fain (2003) found, “majority of counties provided between 6 and15 CYSA/TANF services in the juvenile halls, with minority providing more than 16 services” (p. xiii). Therefore, some counties found no need of creating news juvenile halls. Rather, CYSA/TANF funds were dedicated to improving the existing facilities and services offered at the halls.
Therefore, even though the funds in such situations did not go into the establishment of new juvenile hall, the funds sealed a gap that many prior established juvenile halls had been struggling to seal.
Impacts of CYSA/TANF Program
Services provided at the juvenile halls influenced youths in various ways. Through CYSA/TANF, many counties argued that they experienced observable changes with real impacts on the persons seeking services from the juvenile halls. In terms of collaboration, mental health program and drug abuse programs were implemented in various counties.
Such programs were instrumental in helping to provide mechanisms of reforming juveniles since substance abuse is one of the major drivers for youths to engage in felony (Grady, 2012: Randle, 2007).
CYSA/TANF program also provided funds that were deployed to enhance activities that were pivotal in the achievement of other goals of juvenile service as intended by CYSA/TANF legislation. The goals included investments of the CYSA/TANF funds in teaching at-risk youths concerning mechanisms of anger management, counseling, and even educational advocacy among others.
CYSA/TANF program possessed some particular outcomes that it anticipated to realize. The legislation hoped to ensure that more emphasis was placed on different counties on enhancing youth accountability besides providing services to families and various youth groups in direct ways (Worrall, 2004). At the heart of the program also rested the need to provide intervention coupled with prevention services to at-risk youths.
Persons who were charged with the implementation of CYSA/TANF program found the services offered as having the impact that was moderate in terms of achievement of the program outcomes.
Turner, Davis, Steinberg and Fain (2003) support this argument by arguing, “program officers felt that the impact of their CYSA/TANF program and/or services in their county was particularly important in the areas of public safety and increasing the range of options that probation officers had in serving the youths and families” (p. xvi).
CYSA/TANF also created an opportunity for departments within the juvenile rehabilitation institutions to increase the capacity of their staff to enhance better service delivery.
Through the custody programs developed in various counties, CYSA/TANF aided in enhancement of a myriad of services that are accorded to first-time felony offenders coupled with their families.
In fact, various chiefs in different departments, which offered custody services, argued that, in case CYSA/TANF was terminated, enormous changes would take place. Such changes would influence the current achievements of the program to suffer incredibly.
The impacts of the CYSA/TANF can also be discussed from the paradigms of evaluating the effectiveness of the legislation in achieving its intended aims. Arguing from this perspective, Turner, Davis, Steinberg, and Fain note, “CYSA/TANF filled an important gap in funding for juvenile probation services that had been lost when the title IV-A-EA program ended in December 1995” (2003, p.xvi).
Consequently, CYSA/TANF created a room for the emergence of services for benefiting youths and their families. This attempt was perhaps important in the effort to ensure that California continued with the role of ensuring that all its citizens remained productive people who can enhance the growth of the state.
CYSA/TANF also had impacts of making it possible for probation to emerge as a strategy that was viable within various counties in terms of addressing various children on issues that influenced their developments negatively such as engagement in felony.
CYSA/TANF provides a magnificent opportunity for various counties to collaborate with other counties and various service providers including local authorities within California in matters of probation.
From this dimension, CYSA/TANF is crucial in sealing paramount funding gaps by changing the approach of dealing with juvenile deliquescent from monitoring and suppression, and enforcement to more friendly approaches such as therapy and or rehabilitation. CYSA/TANF also raised efforts for system-wide mechanisms of planning on measures for dealing with recurrent challenges of at-risk youths together with their families.
Counties experiences with implementation of CYSA/TANF Program
CYSA/TANF is one of the best available mechanisms of funding custody services. This assertion is perhaps largely true by considering counties’ experiences with the reality of the fact that Title IV-E is not appropriate for utilization in the custody settings.
Some counties also had immense challenges in the evaluation of the effectiveness of their program that were funded by CYSA/TANF (Worrall, 2004, p.474). As argued before, in many counties, the CYSA/TANF allocated to them was utilized in improving the existing rehabilitations programs for at-risk youths among other services.
The funding environment also presented some challenges to various counties. For instance, according to Calderwood, Kitzes, and Ivanoff (2012), “about 1/3 of counties experienced fiscal pressure-withholding or re-appropriation of CYSA/TANF funds” (p.70). Nevertheless, some CPDS chiefs were inclined to the opinion that, in overall, the funding from CYSA/TANF was helpful.
While this position shows positive experience with CYSA/TANF, issues of program complication were also eminent. For instance, the program was set for implementation in 58 counties comprising 23 services, which were divided into four main broad categories.
In every county, there was the need to implement the program in similar ways to others for it to attain its overall goals, aims, and objectives that are replicated in all counties. This was perhaps not the case. Some counties, especially the poor ones, did not have adequate knowhow on the program implementation and evaluation theories.
Reference List
Calderwood, D., Kitzes, E., & Ivanoff, S. (2012). Summary report: evaluation of the CYSA/TANF program in California. Web.
Grady, S. (2012). Civil Death is Different: An Examination of A post-Graham Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement under the Eighth Amendment. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 441-470.
Randle, J. (2007). Review of Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Law and Society, 41(2), 500-503.
Turner, S., Davis, L., Steinberg P., & Fain, T. (2003). Evaluation of the CYSA/TANF program in California: final report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Worrall, J. (2004). Funding Collaborative Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs: Does It Make a Difference? Evaluation Review, 28(9), 471-501.