National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies

Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management:
Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program

Chapter 2:
Implementation of the Integrated and Traditional Programs

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Contents

1. Summary of Program Implementation
2. Analysis Issues
3. Program Resources and Facilities
4. Employment Preparation Strategy
5. Case Management
   1. Staff Duties
   2. Caseload Sizes
   3. Staff Characteristics and Attitudes Toward the Case Management Approaches
   4. Partnership Between Income Maintenance and JOBS
   5. Staff Training, Evaluation, and Job Satisfaction
6. Case Manager and Recipient Interactions
   1. Personalized Attention and Encouragement
   2. Program Mandatoriness
7. Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

Endnotes

This chapter describes how the integrated and traditional programs were implemented in Columbus, with a particular focus on comparisons between the programs. The data for this chapter are primarily from the staff and client surveys, MDRC field research completed in 1993 and 1994, and numerous other site visits and discussions with program staff. (See the text box in Chapter 1 for more detail about the data sources.)

I. Summary of Program Implementation

The integrated and traditional programs both emphasized skills-building prior to entry into the labor market. The programs especially stressed the importance of recipients getting a GED certificate, and they placed only the most employable in job search activities.

Recipient-to-staff ratios were similar in the two programs. Although caseloads for the integrated staff were larger than had been planned — limiting the amount of time that staff members could spend with each recipient and generating low morale — they were not so large that they prevented integrated case managers from successfully performing both their income maintenance and employment and training duties. This was facilitated, in part, by the extensive administrative support available to staff. Integrated case managers provided more personalized attention than traditional case managers and more closely monitored participation in program activities. Both programs strongly enforced the participation mandate.

[Go To Contents]

II. Analysis Issues

Some facets of the integrated and traditional programs, such as the resources, facilities, and strategy used to prepare recipients for employment, were not expected to vary by program approach. The designers of the Columbus evaluation, however, expected that the two case management approaches would differ along one important dimension: service delivery. Specifically, as mentioned in Chapter 1, they hypothesized that the integrated structure would allow case managers to more efficiently and effectively deliver program services and monitor welfare recipients' situations than the traditional structure.

The evaluation designers assumed that integrated case management would operate more efficiently than traditional because each recipient would work with only one staff member. This would reduce time spent on communication among staff, as well as reduce delays between case events. Efficiency is difficult to gauge and was not directly measured in this evaluation.

They also thought that integrated staff would have closer relationships with the recipients they worked with and would know more about them. Because integrated case managers handle both eligibility and employment services, they would see recipients more often and would have a more complete picture of their situation. This chapter explores this assumption by discussing the level of personalized attention in the programs and the degree that staff monitored participation in program activities.

[Go To Contents]

III. Program Resources and Facilities

The administrators of the Columbus welfare program placed a high priority on the JOBS program; they considered it the centerpiece of an agency-wide mission to make welfare temporary and employment-focused. During the first few years of the evaluation, program administrators focused on increasing the JOBS program's capacity, with the goal of never turning someone away for lack of appropriate services. They largely succeeded: Unavailability of services was rarely, if ever, a problem.

Field researchers rated the Columbus JOBS facilities as "outstanding" compared with those of other welfare-to-work programs.The JOBS center, physically separate from the welfare office, housed the employment and training staff for the integrated and traditional programs. The center, which was extensively renovated prior to the evaluation, also provided spacious classrooms for basic education and job search instruction; offices for state employment services staff, and county alcohol, substance abuse, and mental health workers; and a child care facility for children between ages 2 1/2 and 5.

The programs also benefited from an unusual level of administrative support. Columbus had a child care unit that connected parents with child care providers and a resource unit that collected JOBS activity attendance information and provided it to case managers. Columbus used an automated case record information system, called CRIS-E, which contained information on individuals' past public assistance benefits, JOBS activity assignments, and sanctions for noncompliance. The system guided staff through the welfare eligibility determination process and the JOBS assessment. Although some staff complained about using CRIS-E, it was a powerful system that enabled case management to be fully automated.

[Go To Contents]

IV. Employment Preparation Strategy

Welfare-to-work programs have used different strategies to foster recipients' economic self-sufficiency. Employment-focused, or labor force attachment (LFA), programs have aimed to quickly move people into jobs by requiring and helping them to look for work, reflecting the belief that people can most effectively build employability through work experience. Education-focused, or human capital development (HCD), programs, in contrast, have emphasized building skills through education and training as a precursor to employment, reflecting the belief that an initial investment in the skills levels of welfare recipients will allow them to eventually obtain higher-paying and more secure jobs.

The integrated and traditional programs in Columbus were both education-focused (and were not designed or expected to differ in terms of this program dimension). The programs did not have a specific prescribed activity sequence, but staff strongly encouraged people who did not have a high school diploma or GED certificate to earn one by attending basic education classes. They encouraged many of those who already had a diploma or GED to attend vocational training or post-secondary education classes or to participate in work experience before actively seeking a job. (The accompanying text box describes the various activities offered in Columbus.) The following remarks made by an integrated case manager typify the comments made by many Columbus staff members during field research:

My opinion is that clients should get an education. They should work toward a job that will get them off welfare. If they take a job flipping hamburgers, they will end up right back on welfare.

Staff referred only the most employable recipients to job search services — typically those who had at least a high school diploma or GED, some work experience, and no serious problems, such as substance abuse, that might interfere with working. In fact, program participants were sometimes given the impression that a GED was "mandatory" for employment, and staff operating the job clubs and other placement activities preferred that people have a diploma or GED before starting these activities.

Field researchers observed that many Columbus staff members perceived their purpose to be helping recipients overcome barriers, not finding specific job openings for them; one case manager said that, "this is not an employment agency." Also, although the programs had full-time job developers, information on job leads was not communicated effectively to case managers or to recipients, at least early in the follow-up period. During the evaluation, Columbus developed a placement specialist position to connect job developers with case managers; staff disagreed about whether this improved the situation.

Scales created from a survey of staff in all of the NEWWS Evaluation programs confirm that Columbus staff strongly favored the human capital development approach. The first set of bars in Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of integrated and traditional JOBS case managers who leaned toward either the labor force attachment or the human capital development approach as the better way to move recipients into jobs and off welfare.⁽¹⁾ Over 65 percent of Columbus staff leaned toward the HCD approach, and only 5 percent leaned toward the LFA approach. Staff who did not express a strong preference were not placed in either group. The percentage in Columbus favoring HCD is among the highest of the NEWWS Evaluation programs. (See the accompanying text box for a brief description of the other programs in the evaluation.)

According to field research, many Columbus staff members encouraged recipients to look for and take jobs that paid more than minimum wage. Survey responses indicate that this varied somewhat by case management approach. As the second set of bars in Figure 2.1 shows, 32 percent of traditional staff — the highest percentage of any program — and 14 percent of integrated staff said that they encouraged recipients to be selective in taking a job. Program participants corroborated this difference: As the third set of bars shows, more recipients in the integrated program than the traditional program said on a survey that they felt pushed by their case manager to take a job before they were ready or before a good job came along (43 percent compared with 29 percent). This difference probably also reflects the fact that because the integrated structure facilitated more frequent contact between recipients and case managers, integrated case managers had more opportunities to reinforce the employment message.

Figure 2.1:
Employment preparation strategy

[Go To Contents]

V. Case Management

A. Staff Duties

Table 2.1 summarizes the primary duties of income maintenance (IM) workers, traditional JOBS case managers, and integrated case managers in Columbus. In the traditional program, IM workers determined eligibility for and authorized public assistance benefits provided by the welfare department, including cash assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. They reevaluated recipients' eligibility for benefits every six months (or sooner if they became aware of a change in a recipient's status), changed benefit amounts as family composition changed or recipients found work, and imposed sanctions (AFDC grant reductions) at the request of JOBS case managers. Traditional JOBS case managers were responsible for the employment and training aspects of cases. They conducted JOBS orientation sessions, assessed recipients' skills and support service needs, assigned them to program activities, monitored their attendance and progress, and initiated sanctions for those who were noncompliant with program requirements. In the integrated program, integrated case managers performed all these duties.

The manner in which welfare cases were defined in Ohio affected the work of IM workers and integrated case managers. Welfare case numbers were assigned according to address. As a result, everyone receiving welfare at an address had the same case number and either the same IM worker or the same integrated case manager; thus, the staff member knew how expenses in that dwelling were covered. In addition, integrated case managers knew whether other public assistance recipients living at the address had jobs, participated in JOBS activities, or posed a barrier to a client's employment. Integrated staff could refer any welfare recipient at the address to JOBS. In the traditional program, JOBS case managers, in contrast, did not have access to this information and confined their intervention to individual clients.

Traditional JOBS case managers worked in one of two units: one that worked with people in education and vocational training activities and one that worked with people in job search and work experience activities (the "job-ready unit"). Staff reported that this division sometimes led to delays when someone who moved from an education or training activity to a job search activity had to wait until a case manager in the job-ready unit had time to meet with her. In contrast, integrated case managers worked with all types of people, who remained with the same case manager regardless of the activity they were involved in.

B. Caseload Sizes

Overall recipient-to-staff ratios were approximately the same in the two programs. As Table 2.1 shows, in the traditional program caseloads averaged about 260 for both IM workers and JOBS case managers; in the integrated program caseloads averaged 140. In other words, on average every two staff members in the traditional program worked with about 260 recipients and every two staff members in the integrated program worked with 280 recipients.

Columbus caseloads were at the high end of the range of those in other welfare-to-work programs.⁽²⁾ However, caseloads were defined differently in different places. In Columbus, caseload tallies for JOBS and integrated case managers included some people who were not participating in JOBS. Also, as mentioned earlier, the Columbus JOBS program provided substantial support to help staff manage their large caseloads; in fact, the level of automated and administrative support for Columbus staff was among the highest of the programs in the NEWWS Evaluation.

Caseloads for integrated case managers (140) were larger than planned.⁽³⁾ When designing the program, welfare administrators and MDRC researchers intended that integrated staff work with about 100 clients, including about 65 active JOBS participants.⁽⁴⁾ Integrated caseloads were not so large, however, that they prevented staff from successfully performing their duties.

Evidence from Oklahoma City, another site in the NEWWS Evaluation, showed that when caseloads in an integrated approach are too large, the income maintenance role may overshadow the employment and training function, particularly if management emphasizes the income maintenance role. In Oklahoma City, large caseloads, coupled with the administrators' focus on income maintenance, limited the time that staff spent on employment and training.⁽⁵⁾ In contrast, the Columbus program emphasized the importance of the employment and training aspects of cases. Thus, although caseloads were larger than planned and larger than may be ideal, integrated staff still spent a substantial amount of time focused on JOBS duties. On the staff survey, Columbus integrated staff indicated that they spent, on average, about one-third of their day on JOBS-related duties and two-thirds on income maintenance-related duties. In contrast, integrated staff in Oklahoma City said they spent only about one-fifth of their day on JOBS-related tasks and four-fifths on income maintenance tasks.

When surveyed, half of the integrated case managers in Columbus reported that they felt equally like IM workers and JOBS workers, and most of the rest felt more like IM workers. Almost all integrated staff in Oklahoma City, in contrast, said that they felt like IM workers. In Portland, Oregon, the third site in the NEWWS Evaluation using an integrated approach, most integrated staff viewed themselves primarily as JOBS workers or as both equally, and they said their workday was evenly split between JOBS and income maintenance duties. Average caseloads for integrated case managers in Portland were relatively small (95), and program administrators strongly emphasized the importance of the employment and training duties.⁽⁶⁾

C. Staff Characteristics and Attitudes Toward the Case Management Approaches

Before the evaluation began, the Columbus JOBS program used a traditional case management approach. The creation of the integrated model coincided with an expansion of the JOBS program and thus with an increase in staffing. IM workers and traditional JOBS case managers were invited to apply for the integrated positions, and new employees were recruited.

Table 2.2 shows that staff members who were hired for the integrated case management positions had somewhat less experience working for the Columbus welfare agency than traditional JOBS case managers and had less prior experience in an employment-related field. More integrated case managers, however, had at least a bachelor's degree. Integrated case managers, on average, were somewhat younger than other staff. All three types of staff were somewhat older, on average, than the recipients; the average ages of staff ranged from 34 to 42, whereas the average age of sample members was 32. The majority of staff were women, but the proportion of men in the staff was higher than the proportion of men in the study sample. The staff's racial-ethnic make-up was similar to that of the sample members, roughly half white and half black.

In general, staff members were committed to their program's case management approach but acknowledged its limitations. Most traditional JOBS case managers said that they preferred to spend all of their time working with recipients on employment-related issues and were not interested in learning income maintenance procedures. They noted, though, that because they could not impose sanctions themselves, it was sometimes difficult to persuade recipients to comply with program participation requirements.

Integrated case managers thought that consolidating income maintenance and JOBS functions was a more efficient approach; they particularly appreciated that they did not need to coordinate with an IM worker to impose or remove sanctions. On the down side, integrated staff noted that completing all of their duties was very demanding. They often had to have separate meetings with recipients to review income maintenance issues and to review JOBS progress because there was too much to cover in one sitting. Many integrated staff members said they wished that they could spend more time on each case.

D. Partnership Between Income Maintenance and JOBS

Overall, the partnership between income maintenance and JOBS was strong in the integrated program and more limited in the traditional program. Both integrated and JOBS case managers complained about the JOBS referral process (recall from Chapter 1 that recipients in both the integrated and traditional programs were initially referred to the JOBS program at the welfare office). They felt that IM workers inappropriately referred some people who were clearly exempt from JOBS — for example, people who were eligible for Supplementary Security Income (SSI) benefits — and that they did not refer all of the people who should have been referred.

After the initial referral, there was by definition a full partnership between income maintenance and JOBS in the integrated program, since one worker performed both duties. In the traditional program, the relationship was more complicated. JOBS case managers felt some lack of control over the sanctioning process, and both JOBS case managers and IM workers thought communication between the two departments was poor. IM workers also expressed a desire to learn more about JOBS. During the follow-up period, Columbus management responded to this concern by providing additional training on the JOBS program for IM staff. Some staff members thought that the relationship improved throughout the follow-up period.

E. Staff Training, Evaluation, and Job Satisfaction

Before starting work, newly hired integrated case managers received four weeks of training on income maintenance procedures and the automated case management system, CRIS-E, and one week of training on JOBS procedures; newly hired JOBS case managers also received one week of JOBS training. As Figure 2.2 illustrates, however, the percentage of JOBS and integrated staff who reported that they received helpful training on how to be an effective JOBS case manager is lower than the median for the NEWWS Evaluation programs.⁽⁷⁾ The staff survey was administered in Columbus at the end of 1993; over time, as part of an agency-wide effort to improve staff performance, training was provided on topics ranging from automated case management procedures to recognizing and confronting substance abuse.

Almost all integrated case managers said that their supervisors paid close attention to case manager performance, compared with about four-fifths of traditional JOBS case managers. In addition, more integrated case managers said that good performance in general was recognized. Columbus did not use performance standards to evaluate individual staff members.

As Figure 2.2 shows, very few integrated staff reported high job satisfaction. When speaking with researchers, their main complaint was that their large caseloads limited the amount of "social work" they could do with recipients. Field researchers observed that the integrated case managers did perform more social work than most JOBS workers in other programs and concluded that their dissatisfaction was largely a product of their and the program administrators' high expectations for the integrated case management approach. Some traditional staff members also complained about large caseloads and noted their concern about the limited relationship between JOBS and income maintenance. Compared with staff in the other NEWWS Evaluation programs, however, the traditional JOBS case managers ranked as relatively satisfied with their jobs.

Figure 2.2
Stuff training, supervision, and evaluation

[Go To Contents]

VI. Case Manager and Recipient Interactions

A. Personalized Attention and Encouragement

Data from the staff and client surveys and field research indicate that overall, as expected, the integrated program provided more personalized attention and encouragement to recipients than the traditional program. Administrators and researchers designed the integrated program to facilitate close interaction between case managers and recipients, and they communicated this intention to staff. As noted, integrated caseloads were larger than planned. Integrated staff felt they could not spend as much time as they wanted getting to know recipients, exploring their situation, and helping them, but field researchers concluded that, despite staff frustration, the integrated staff did provide more personalized attention than many welfare-to-work program case managers.

Figure 2.3 shows that although the percentage of staff who tried to identify and remove barriers to participation was similar in the two programs, a higher percentage of integrated staff than traditional staff tried to learn in depth about recipients during program intake and provided positive reinforcement to them. Recipients' survey responses corroborated this difference: More recipients in the integrated program than in the traditional program said they felt their case manager knew a lot about them and their family, and more said they believed program staff would help them resolve problems that affected their participation in activities.

Figure 2.3
Personalized attention and encouragement

B. Program Mandatoriness

The degree to which a welfare-to-work program is "mandatory" can be considered a product of three factors: (1) how wide a cross section of the eligible caseload is enrolled in the program, (2) how closely the program monitors participation, and (3) how swiftly and consistently the program imposes sanctions (AFDC grant reductions).⁽⁸⁾ Accordingly, both programs in Columbus were strongly mandatory, but the integrated program was a bit more so.

As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, the integrated program enrolled a wider cross section of the eligible caseload than the traditional program. As expected, the integrated program also provided closer monitoring of recipients' progress through the program. Integrated staff reported receiving attendance information from service providers and contacting participants about attendance problems more quickly than traditional staff (see Figure 2.4). Fewer integrated staff members reported receiving a lot of information on participants' progress from service providers, but field research indicated they may have received a bit more information than traditional staff. The survey responses may reflect integrated staff's high expectations about monitoring and their frustration based on their higher than anticipated caseloads. In addition, integrated case managers typically saw their clients more often because they were responsible for income maintenance functions as well.

Figure 2.4
Participation monitoring

Staff in both programs believed that those who receive welfare should be obligated to take part in JOBS activities, and they strongly emphasized the program participation mandate. According to survey responses (presented in Figure 2.5), a higher proportion of integrated case managers (86 percent) than traditional JOBS case managers (71 percent) strongly emphasized penalties for noncompliance to new clients. Field research uncovered no evidence that the traditional program communicated a less mandatory message, and client survey responses (illustrated in the figure) indicate that the integrated and traditional group members heard similar messages about penalties for noncompliance. Perhaps traditional staff felt less compelled to communicate the possible penalties since all the recipients they met with had seen an orientation video that stressed the mandatory nature of the program (the integrated program did not use the video).

Figure 2.5
Rule Enforcement and Sanctioning

Although staff in both programs said that they usually gave recipients a few chances before sanctioning them for program noncompliance, they did not tolerate persistent attendance problems. Thirty-eight percent of traditional JOBS case managers reported never delaying sanction requests, a relatively small percentage compared with most of the other programs in the NEWWS Evaluation. Seventy-one percent of IM workers and integrated staff said that they never delayed imposing sanctions, also toward the low end in relation to the other programs. The field research offers some evidence that the IM staff sometimes did not immediately impose sanctions because they prioritized other duties, especially processing welfare benefits, ahead of sanctioning.

[Go To Contents]

VII. Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

Figure 2.6 shows that most Columbus staff thought that the JOBS program would help welfare recipients become self-supporting, but slightly more integrated case managers than traditional JOBS case managers expressed confidence in the program. A slightly smaller proportion of recipients in the traditional program than in the integrated program said they thought that the program improved their chances of getting or keeping a job.

Figure 2.6
Perceptions of the Effectiveness of JOBS

During field visits, researchers heard contradictory opinions about the effectiveness of the JOBS program: Some staff believed that they were making a real impact, whereas others were doubtful or felt that the effects would take many years to show up. Staff in both programs thought that although caseloads were higher than ideal, integrated case management was more effective than the traditional model. Some staff thought that requiring a high school diploma or GED for entry into job search activities unnecessarily restricted the number of people who were helped to find employment.

[Go To Contents]

Endnotes

1.  See Scrivener et al., 1998, Appendix B, for a description of this scale and the others used in this chapter.

2.  See Hamilton and Brock, 1994, for caseload sizes in all the NEWWS Evaluation programs.

3.  This average of 140 is from the staff survey administered in October 1993. Caseloads fluctuated over the evaluation period but generally were larger than planned.

4.  Many variables influence caseload sizes in a welfare-to-work program, including factors outside the program, such as the availability of jobs in the community, making caseload predictions difficult.

5.  The average caseload was 175 in Oklahoma City in the middle of the follow-up period covered in the report (see Storto et al., 2000).

6.  See Scrivener et al., 1998.

7.  In this figure, as in others in the chapter, Columbus staff survey responses are depicted along with the range of responses of staff in other NEWWS Evaluation programs, indicated by the low, median, and high points. For example, the "low" point on the first item in Figure 2.2 refers to the NEWWS program with the lowest percentage of staff who said that they received helpful training on how to be an effective JOBS case manager. The "med" point refers to the program with the median percentage among all programs, and the "high" point refers to the program with the highest percentage of staff who said they received helpful training. These ranges include the Columbus staff in the calculation. See Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 for each program's value on the survey scales presented in this chapter. (Some later figures also show survey responses of Columbus sample members, depicted along with the range of responses of other sample members in the evaluation. Appendix Table A.3 shows each program's value on the client survey question used in the figures.)

8.  Freedman et al., 2000.

Where to?

Top of Page
Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)