AB 1324 revises the statutory framework that governs CalWORKs welfare‑to‑work plans. The bill redraws the menu of permitted activities caseworkers may include in participant plans, clarifies how certain on‑the‑job and grant‑diversion arrangements must be documented, and creates procedural authority for the Department of Social Services to issue interim written guidance prior to formal regulations.
The changes matter to counties that operate CalWORKs programs, community colleges and service providers that deliver training and barrier‑removal services, employers that hire participants under subsidized arrangements, and state operations teams responsible for automating new eligibility and payment calculations. The text shifts program levers that affect participant income, benefit treatment, and administrative practices at the county and state levels.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill enumerates allowable welfare‑to‑work activities across education, employment, and barrier‑removal services and clarifies mechanics for grant‑based on‑the‑job training, including required voluntary participant agreements. It caps unpaid work experience at 12 months unless both county and recipient agree to extend, treats diverted grant amounts as countable income under specified rules, and permits the department to use all‑county letters as interim implementation guidance before adopting formal regulations.
Who It Affects
County human services agencies that design and operate welfare‑to‑work plans, community colleges and adult education providers that receive referrals, employers and intermediary providers who host subsidized or grant‑diversion positions, and the Statewide Automated Welfare System team that must support new income and payment calculations.
Why It Matters
By specifying program activities and how grant diversion interacts with income rules, the bill alters incentives for employers and counties and can change the effective cash assistance families receive. The authorization to rely on all‑county letters accelerates operational change but reduces the immediate transparency and procedural protections that come with formal rulemaking.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1324 revises the statutory list of activities that can appear in a CalWORKs welfare‑to‑work plan, grouping them into educational activities, work activities, and barrier‑removal services. Educational options explicitly include postsecondary and technical training, adult basic education and ESL, and referrals to programs run by school districts or county offices of education under existing Education Code contracts.
Work activities cover the usual spectrum—unsubsidized and subsidized employment, supported work, on‑the‑job training and self‑employment—with specific rules layered onto certain models of subsidized employment.
A central focus of the bill is grant‑based on‑the‑job training, where a participant’s cash grant (or the savings in state aid when a person earns) can be diverted to an employer or intermediary as a wage subsidy. The statute requires a voluntary agreement between the county and participant before assigning someone to that model; the agreement must explain protections if a job ends, information on claiming potential tax credits and increased CalFresh, and how earned income affects future Social Security.
The bill also makes clear that any wage portion funded by diverted grants or grant savings will be treated under state income‑calculation rules (i.e., it is not exempt under Section 11451.5 for purposes of determining aid), which affects ongoing eligibility and benefit levels.The bill limits unpaid work experience to a 12‑month default maximum, although counties and participants can extend by amending the plan. It lists barrier removal services that counties are encouraged to offer when available—mental health and substance abuse treatment, parenting and home‑visiting services, legal and housing stability activities, financial literacy, and help with child‑related appointments—linking workforce participation to family well‑being supports.On process, the Department of Social Services can issue all‑county letters or similar written instructions that have the force of regulation until formal regulations are adopted; that authority overrides the Administrative Procedure Act's notice‑and‑comment requirement for the near term.
Finally, the bill will become operative July 1, 2026, or later if the department requires additional time to modify the Statewide Automated Welfare System to support the new rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Unpaid work experience is limited to 12 months by default; counties may extend that limit only through an amended welfare‑to‑work plan agreed with the recipient.
A county cannot place a participant in grant‑based on‑the‑job training without a written voluntary agreement that explains grant protections, tax credit information, and effects on future Social Security income.
Any wages funded by diversion of a participant’s cash grant or by grant savings are not exempt from income calculation under Section 11451.5 for determining aid under Section 11450(a).
The department may implement this section via all‑county letters or similar written instructions that carry the force of regulation until formal regulations are adopted.
The statute is operative July 1, 2026, or later if the Statewide Automated Welfare System needs additional automation to implement the changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded list of educational activities
This subsection enumerates permitted educational activities: postsecondary degree or certificate programs (in person or online), high school diplomas, technical and vocational training, career‑specific education, job skills training, and adult basic education including ESL. Practically, counties must be ready to refer participants to a wider range of institutional providers, including community colleges and regional occupational centers, and to link referrals to existing Education Code contracting authority rather than invent new referral mechanisms.
Work activities: unpaid experience cap and grant‑based training rules
The bill imposes a 12‑month cap on unpaid work experience unless the county and recipient mutually agree to extend via a plan amendment; counties must periodically review assignments to ensure continued relevance to the participant’s employment goals. For grant‑based on‑the‑job training, the provision defines the model, requires a voluntary written agreement, lists required disclosures (job termination protections, tax credit and benefit implications, future Social Security considerations), and clarifies that diverted grant amounts count for income‑calculation purposes. These mechanics affect how counties prepare forms, how caseworkers counsel participants, and how employers structure subsidized positions.
Self‑employment and supported work
The statute explicitly recognizes self‑employment and supported or transitional employment as eligible work activities. Supported work is treated as a form of grant‑based training where grants or grant savings can subsidize an intermediary service provider. That wording formalizes pathways for intermediary models (social enterprises, job coaches) and signals to counties that these alternative employment placements are on‑ramp options rather than exceptions.
Barrier‑removal services, departmental discretion, interim guidance, and operative date
The bill lists barrier removal services—mental health and substance use treatment, CalWORKs home visiting, domestic violence services, financial literacy, child‑well‑being supports, housing search, and legal aid—making them explicit components of welfare‑to‑work plans. It grants the department discretion to add activities, authorizes all‑county letters or similar instructions to carry the force of regulation until formal regulations are adopted, and ties the law’s operative date to the Statewide Automated Welfare System’s readiness. Together, these parts create an implementation pathway that depends on department guidance and IT readiness rather than only on administrative rulemaking.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- CalWORKs participants seeking education: The explicit inclusion of postsecondary, technical, adult basic education and ESL widens formal referral pathways to community colleges and adult education programs that can be listed in welfare‑to‑work plans.
- Intermediary service providers and community‑based organizations: Supported work and grant‑based training models create clearer statutory footing for intermediaries to receive diverted grant funds or wage subsidies to place participants in transitional jobs.
- Counties looking for program flexibility: The statutory permission to rely on interim all‑county letters lets counties begin operating under the new approaches more quickly than waiting for formal regulations.
Who Bears the Cost
- County human services agencies: Counties must draft voluntary agreement forms, update welfare‑to‑work plan templates, monitor unpaid work assignments, and adapt casework practices—requiring staff time and likely new training.
- Department of Social Services and IT teams: The Statewide Automated Welfare System must be updated to support new income‑calculation rules and tracking of diverted grants, creating implementation costs and testing burdens for the department.
- Households receiving CalWORKs: Families placed in grant‑diversion arrangements risk reduced current cash if not counseled properly, and the treatment of diverted amounts as countable income can change future benefit levels and eligibility.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding flexible pathways into employment (including subsidized and transitional models that use grant diversion) and protecting the cash‑assistance safety net: the same mechanisms that encourage employer participation through wage subsidies risk eroding participant cash support and complicating eligibility, and faster administrative flexibilities (all‑county letters) accelerate change while reducing formal procedural safeguards.
The bill walks a fine line between expanding workforce pathways and embedding mechanisms that can reduce a family’s cash assistance. Allowing diversion of grant funds to subsidize wages creates an operationally attractive subsidy for employers and intermediaries, but when the statute simultaneously says those diverted amounts count in income calculations, families could see mixed effects: a short‑term wage subsidy to the employer or intermediary may translate into reduced benefits or altered eligibility.
That outcome depends heavily on how counties implement the voluntary agreements and how the Statewide Automated Welfare System applies income calculations in practice.
Giving the department authority to use all‑county letters as interim regulations accelerates program changes but raises questions about transparency, stakeholder input, and legal predictability. All‑county letters can move faster than formal rulemaking, which is useful for implementation, yet they bypass public comment and structured review—shifting a great deal of rule detail into administrative communication.
Finally, the bill conditions full operation on the SAWS automation timeline. If automation is delayed, counties may operate under partial guidance or inconsistent interpretations, producing uneven participant experiences and complicating county budgeting and case management.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.