[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
This chapter presents findings on the integrated and traditional group members' involvement in employment-related activities in the JOBS program. These findings help describe the "treatment" that people in the two programs received. The chapter also compares the activity levels of the integrated and traditional group members with those of their control group counterparts to determine the net effect of the two programs on participation.
[Go To Contents]
The integrated and traditional programs were both education-focused, with more people participating in education than in other activities. For those who entered the programs without a high school diploma or GED (nongraduates), the Columbus programs produced large increases in participation in basic education. For high school graduates, the programs substantially increased participation in post-secondary education (primarily classes at a two-year college), job search activities, and unpaid work experience. The traditional program increased the proportion of nongraduate sample members who received a high school diploma or GED during the two years after entering the evaluation.
As expected, the integrated program was more successful in getting people to attend a JOBS orientation, the gateway to program activities, and engaging them in program activities, than the traditional program. These differences probably reflect integrated case managers' closer monitoring of participation and quicker follow-up regarding attendance problems (as reported in Chapter 2). Integrated group members may also have taken the threat of financial sanction for program noncompliance more seriously than traditional group members because integrated case managers could impose sanctions themselves, rather than relying on another staff member to do so. The orientation attendance rate may also have been higher because integrated case managers called people in to orientation (and followed up) more quickly than traditional case managers.
Sanctioning rates were similar in the two programs and very high. The rate of initiating a sanction, however, was higher in the traditional program than in the integrated program; thus, a smaller proportion of those for whom a sanction was initiated were actually sanctioned in the traditional program. This probably resulted from the traditional program's split in duties: Traditional JOBS case managers could request that a person be sanctioned (sanction initiated), but had to rely on an income maintenance (IM) worker to impose the sanction. In addition, because they did not deal with the eligibility aspects of recipients' cases, they probably initiated a sanction for some people who had not attended a program activity because they were no longer receiving cash assistance or were no longer mandatory for JOBS.
[Go To Contents]
Two data sources were used for the analyses presented in this chapter:
The two data sources do not yield identical results. Most important, the case file data show substantially higher participation rates in the integrated program than in the traditional program, whereas the survey data show only a small difference. This discrepancy may be partly explained by the fact that the two data sources cover different cohorts of the Columbus evaluation sample: Case files were reviewed for sample members randomly assigned between October 1992 and March 1993, and the survey was administered to sample members randomly assigned between January and December 1993. Analysis for the early cohort of the survey sample (those assigned from January through March 1993) revealed larger differences in participation levels between the integrated and traditional programs than were found for the full survey sample. This, along with field research evidence that the traditional program strengthened its participation monitoring and enforcement procedures over time, suggests that there were larger participation differences between the two programs earlier in the follow-up period. Therefore, the results presented in this chapter based on case file data may somewhat overestimate the differences between the two programs.
The researchers are confident, however, that the general finding from the case file data — that the integrated program generated more participation than the traditional one — is valid. This confidence is based on three factors. First, case file data are considered the best source for participation in activities within a program. Second, the difference between participation levels in the two programs indicated by the case file data is very substantial; even if the traditional program succeeded in generating more participation over time, it is almost impossible that the difference between the programs was erased. Third, a higher participation rate in the integrated program is in line with some of the key results from the implementation analysis, namely, that the integrated case managers tracked participants more closely and provided more personalized attention.
It is not known why the survey does not show a larger difference between participation levels of the integrated and traditional groups. Various possible explanations were explored, but none proved to be true. Survey data are used in this chapter to measure whether the two programs increased participation above that of the control group level; as the last section of the chapter shows, the magnitude of the impacts is substantial enough that the precision of the program groups' participation level is not crucial.
One of the major reasons for conducting the test of integrated and traditional case management was to determine whether one approach was more effective in maximizing participation in welfare-to-work activities and in enforcing the "social contract" idea that people who receive welfare should be engaged in employment-focused services. The evaluation designers hypothesized that the integrated program would lead to a higher show-up rate to JOBS orientation and subsequently to a higher participation rate in JOBS activities, and thus would more effectively enforce the social contract. This hypothesis was based primarily on the belief that welfare recipients would take the threat of financial sanction more seriously when it came from a case manager who could impose the sanction herself. In fact, as reported in Chapter 2, traditional JOBS case managers told MDRC staff that it was sometimes difficult to persuade recipients to comply with program requirements because they could not impose sanctions themselves. In addition, the evaluation designers thought that recipients might have more difficulty avoiding participation requirements if they had to deal with one worker who knew their whole situation rather than two workers who each had limited information about their JOBS and AFDC statuses.
[Go To Contents]
As in many welfare-to-work programs, a program orientation session was the gateway to program services in Columbus; a person had to attend a JOBS orientation in order to be assigned to and participate in program activities. As expected, the integrated program was more successful than the traditional program at getting people to attend an orientation session. Table 3.1 shows that among sample members whose case file was reviewed, 86 percent in the integrated program and 63 percent in the traditional program attended orientation in the two years following random assignment, a statistically significant difference.(3) (For this report, differences are considered statistically significant if there is less than a 10 percent probability that they occurred by chance.) In the integrated program, people attended an orientation session an average of 11 weeks after random assignment; in the traditional program, this lag was 16 weeks (not shown in the table).
| Measure | Integrated Group(%) | Traditional Group(%) |
|---|---|---|
| For all sample members for whom case files were revieweda | ||
Attended JOBS orientation |
85.8 | 62.8*** |
| Participated in: | ||
Any activity |
52.9 | 33.5*** |
Job search |
14.7 | 8.3** |
Any education or training |
33.8 | 24.3** |
Basic education |
24.4 | 15.1** |
Post-secondary educaionb |
5.8 | 6.0 |
Vocational training |
7.6 | 5.1 |
Life skills workshops |
9.8 | 0.9*** |
Work experience |
11.6 | 5.1** |
Sample size |
225 | 218 |
| For all sample members who attended a JOBS orientationc | ||
| Participated in: | ||
Any activity |
63.6 | 53.5 |
Job search |
16.2 | 14.0 |
Any education or training |
40.9 | 41.9 |
Basic education |
29.2 | 25.6 |
Post-secondary educationb |
7.1 | 9.3 |
Vocational training |
10.4 | 9.3 |
Life skills workshops |
13.0 | 0.0 |
Work experience |
16.2 | 9.3 |
Sample size |
154 | 86 |
| Sources: MDRC calculations based
on MDRC-collected JOBS case file data. Notes: aFor this sample, the follow-up period began on the day the individual was randomly assigned. Tests of statistical significance were calculated for differences between the integrated and traditional groups. Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *=10 percent; **=5 percent; and ***=1 percent. b Courses for college credit at a two-year or four-year college. cFor this sample, the follow-up period began on the day of JOBS orientation. Only orientation attenders for whom there are two full years of post-orientation data are included. Differences between the integrated and traditional group outcomes, shown in italics, are not true experimental comparisons; statistical significance tests were not calculated. |
||
As mentioned in Chapter 1, at the point of random assignment, staff in the income maintenance office told all integrated and traditional group members that they had to participate in the JOBS program. Then it was up to the integrated case managers and traditional JOBS case managers to send a letter to each person scheduling her for a specific orientation session. A few factors help explain why the integrated program was more successful in getting people to attend orientation.
First, integrated case managers scheduled orientation sessions more quickly than traditional JOBS case managers.(4) Delays in contacting people can reduce orientation attendance rates because some people leave welfare or become exempt from the program prior to being contacted. Delays also dilute the mandatory program message. Second, integrated staff followed up more quickly and more often on those who missed a scheduled orientation session than traditional staff.(5) These two factors probably reflect the fact that integrated case managers had smaller caseloads and thus fewer individuals to call in and monitor at one time.
Third, as suggested earlier, people may have given greater attention to a call-in notice sent from someone who had direct control over their welfare benefits than from someone who only indirectly influenced their benefits.
The pattern of activities that people are initially assigned to after attending orientation helps illustrate a program's employment-preparation strategy. Assignment patterns in Columbus confirm that the programs were education-focused: As Figure 3.1 shows, the most common first assignment in both programs was basic education.
More people in the traditional program than in the integrated program were never assigned to an activity in the two-year follow-up period (one-half in the traditional program compared with just under one-third in the integrated program). This difference, however, merely reflects the difference in orientation attendance rates: In both programs 20 percent of those who attended orientation were never assigned to an activity (not shown in Figure 3.1). Both programs had a formal upfront deferral policy at the time of orientation in which they temporarily excused from the program people with possible barriers to participation. It is likely that some of those not assigned to an activity were formally deferred, while others "fell through the cracks."
The integrated program engaged a higher proportion of people in program activities. As Table 3.1 shows, just over one-half of the integrated group members participated in a JOBS activity for at least one day during the follow-up period compared with about one-third of the traditional group. This statistically significant difference is partly explained by the higher attendance rate at program orientation, the gateway to program activities, in the integrated program.
If only those who attended orientation are considered — a nonexperimental comparison because orientation attenders in the integrated program may have different characteristics than attenders in the traditional program — the participation rate is higher in the integrated program than in the traditional program (64 percent compared with 54 percent, shown in the lower panel of the table).(6) As noted, the same proportion of orientation attenders in each program were assigned to an activity; however, a smaller proportion of those assigned actually attended an activity in the traditional program. In other words, integrated case managers were more successful than traditional JOBS case managers in impelling people to attend activities. This probably reflects the integrated case managers' closer monitoring of participation and quicker follow-up regarding attendance problems, as reported in Chapter 2. Integrated group members may also have taken the sanction threat more seriously than traditional group members. The two-year participation rates for orientation attenders in the Columbus programs are in the range of previously studied programs.(7)
Participation patterns confirm that the Columbus programs were education-focused. In both programs people most commonly took part in education activities. Some people in each program participated in job search activities, unpaid work experience, and life skills workshops. Not surprisingly, for people who entered the programs without a high school diploma or GED (nongraduates), basic education was by far the most common activity. (See Appendix Table B.1.) Participation among graduates was more varied, but education and training — including basic education, post-secondary education (primarily courses for college credit at a two-year college), and vocational training — were more common than job search or other activities.
Integrated group members participated in program activities for more time during the two year follow-up period than traditional group members (3.3 months compared with 1.9 months; see Table 3.2). If only those who participated in a program activity are considered, however, average length of participation was roughly similar (6.5 months in the integrated program and 5.9 months in the traditional program). The length of stay for participants in Columbus falls between the averages for the NEWWS Evaluation labor force attachment (LFA) and human capital development (HCD) programs.(8) For nongraduates, as was found for the full sample, length of stay in program activities was longer in the integrated program than in the traditional program. (See Appendix Table B.2.) For graduates, however, length of stay was similar in the two programs.
| Measure | Integrated Group | Traditional Group |
|---|---|---|
| For all sample members for whom case files were revieweda | ||
Average number of months receiving AFDC |
16.9 | 17.6 |
Average number of months in which individuals were JOBS-mandatory |
14.4 | 15.1 |
Average number of months in which individuals participated in a JOBS activity |
3.3 | 19*** |
Sample size |
225 | 218 |
| For participants onlyb | ||
Average number of months in which individuals participated in a JOBS activity |
6.5 | 5.9 |
| Number of months in which there was participation(%) | ||
1 |
13.8 | 11.3 |
2 |
20.7 | 22.5 |
3 |
12.9 | 8.5 |
4-6 |
12.9 | 22.5 |
7-12 |
24.1 | 23.9 |
13-18 |
11.2 | 4.2 |
19 or more |
4.3 | 7.0 |
In any activity at the end of the follow-up period(%) |
12.9 | 11.3 |
Sample size |
116 | 71 |
Sources: MDRC calculations from MDRC-collected JOBS case file
data and Ohio AFDC records. |
||
Both Columbus programs freely used financial sanctions as a response to individuals' noncompliance with program requirements. (A sanction in Columbus removed the JOBS-mandatory adult from the AFDC grant.)(9) As shown in Table 3.3, roughly one-third of those in each program were sanctioned at some point during the two years following random assignment.(10)
| Measure | Integrated Group | Traditional Group |
|---|---|---|
| For all sample members for whom case files were revieweda | ||
Sanction initiatedb(%) |
45.3 | 61.5*** |
Sanction imposed(%) |
36.4 | 34.9 |
In sanction at the end of follow-up period(%) |
4.4 | 6.0 |
Sample size |
225 | 218 |
| For sanctioned individuals onlyc | ||
Average number of months in which sanction was in effect |
4.0 | 5.0 |
| Number of months in sanction(%) | ||
1 |
26.8 | 19.7 |
2 |
19.5 | 9.2 |
3 |
12.2 | 21.1 |
4-6 |
20.7 | 26.3 |
7-12 |
15.9 | 17.1 |
13-18 |
4.9 | 4.0 |
19 or more |
0.0 | 2.6 |
In sanction at the end of the follow-up period(%) |
12.2 | 17.1 |
Sample size |
82 | 76 |
Sources: MDRC calculations from MDRC-collected JOBS case file
data . |
||
Importantly, although the sanctioning rates in the two programs were similar, a larger proportion of the sample in the traditional program had a sanction initiated: 62 percent, compared with 45 percent in the integrated program. ("Sanction initiated" indicates that the integrated case manager or traditional JOBS case manager decided that a sanction should be imposed.) This means that a smaller proportion of those who had a sanction initiated were actually sanctioned in the traditional program than in the integrated program. This probably resulted from the traditional program's split in duties. Traditional JOBS case managers could request that a person be sanctioned, but had to rely on an IM worker to impose the sanction. As noted in Chapter 2, communication between the traditional JOBS case managers and IM workers was poor; during interviews both types of staff in the traditional program said that sanctioning was a particularly problematic area. Also, since traditional case managers did not deal with the income maintenance aspects of their clients' cases, they initiated sanctions for some people who had not attended a program activity because they were no longer receiving AFDC or were no longer mandatory (and thus should not and could not be sanctioned). In both programs, some people for whom sanctions were initiated demonstrated good cause for their nonparticipation and thus were not sanctioned.
Sanctions were somewhat longer for those in the traditional program than in the integrated program (5 months compared with 4 months), probably because the integrated case manager coordinated the interaction between the JOBS program and the AFDC grant — in other words, she could end the sanction herself as soon as the person complied with JOBS program requirements. Sanction length may also reflect the fact that people in the integrated program, on average, received welfare for less time than people in the traditional program (see Chapter 5).
The sanctioning patterns that were found for the full sample were also found for high school graduate and nongraduate subgroups: For each subgroup, sanctioning rates were similar in the two programs, but more people had a sanction initiated in the traditional program than in the integrated program. (See Appendix Table B.3.) In both programs, a higher percentage of nongraduates than graduates had a sanction initiated and were sanctioned, a pattern found in most of the other NEWWS Evaluation programs.
[Go To Contents]
Figure 3.2 depicts various "paths" that people took through the Columbus programs. Reflecting the differences in participation rates presented earlier, a higher proportion of people in the integrated program than in the traditional program followed Paths A or B through the program (participated and exited from AFDC or participated and did not exit from AFDC). The most common path in both programs was Path C (did not participate and exited from AFDC). As noted earlier, a substantial number of people did not attend JOBS orientation and thus had no chance to participate in a program activity. The traditional program had more people in Path D: did not participate and did not exit from AFDC. This suggests that at least some of the people who were never oriented to the traditional program remained on welfare for the entire follow-up period.
Figure 3.3 shows the proportion of sample members in each program who were in various statuses during selected months of follow-up.(11) Most notably, the proportion of people in the "JOBS mandatory, other" status is larger in the traditional program than in the integrated program. This status includes people who were receiving welfare and were officially required to participate in the program, but were not participating, employed, or sanctioned. In other words, this status indicates that the program was not "covering" a sample member. This reflects both the lower orientation attendance rate and the lower participation rate for orientation attenders in the traditional program.
Figure 3.3
AFDC and JOBS Statuses Within a Two-Year Follow-Up Period, by Follow-Up
Month
This lower degree of program coverage in the traditional program is also illustrated in Figure 3.4, which depicts the length of time that people were participating in a program activity, employed, or sanctioned as a proportion of the time they were considered to be mandatory for the program (required to participate). As the figure shows, both programs left a large proportion of mandatory time "uncovered," but the proportion of time that was uncovered was larger in the traditional program. Program coverage in Columbus was among the lowest of NEWWS Evaluation programs.(12)
[Go To Contents]
Many welfare recipients take part in education or training activities without the intervention of a welfare-to-work program. For a program to make a difference, it must engage more people than would have volunteered to participate in activities available in the community. In this evaluation, the participation level of the control group represents what happened in the absence of the mandatory welfare-to-work programs. As noted earlier, the participation findings presented in previous sections of this chapter were based on data collected from case files of integrated and traditional group members. This section presents estimates of participation levels based on data collected using a survey that was administered to integrated, traditional, and control group members.
The survey data show that many people participated in employment-related activities on their own, without the intervention of the welfare-to-work programs, but the integrated and traditional programs substantially increased participation levels. As Table 3.4 shows, 11 percent of the control group in Columbus participated in basic education, 10 percent in post-secondary education, and 10 percent in vocational training, all without prompting from a welfare-to-work program.(13) The table also shows the participation levels for the integrated and traditional group members, and the difference in participation between these two groups and the control group. Overall, the table shows that both the integrated and traditional programs increased participation in job search, basic education, post-secondary education, and work experience or on-the-job training. The programs also increased the number of hours spent in activities.
| Outcome | Integrated Group | Traditional Group | Control Group | Integrated-Control Difference (Impact) | Traditional-Control Difference (Impact) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participated in (%): | |||||
Job searcha |
17.3 | 16.6 | 3.7 | 13.6 | 12.9 |
Basic education |
28.7 | 27.2 | 10.7 | 17.9 | 16.5 |
Post-secondary educationb |
21.8 | 18.5 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 8.3 |
Vocational training |
10.9 | 9.8 | 9.5 | 1.3 | 0.3 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
14.1 | 13.1 | 2.2 | 12.0 | 10.9 |
| Hours of participation in: | |||||
Job searcha |
16.1 | 26.3 | 3.1 | 13.0 | 23.2 |
Basic education |
104.9 | 140.9 | 19.5 | 85.4 | 121.4 |
Post-secondary educationb |
131.9 | 153.4 | 42.4 | 89.5 | 111.0 |
Vocational training |
55.3 | 79.9 | 32.9 | 22.4 | 47.0 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Hours of participation among participants in : | |||||
Job searcha |
93.0 | 158.7 | 83.6 | 9.4 | 75.0 |
Basic education |
365.9 | 517.7 | 181.4 | 184.5 | 336.3 |
Post-secondary educationb |
603.7 | 830.5 | 417.4 | 186.3 | 413.2 |
Vocational training |
508.9 | 814.1 | 345.9 | 163.0 | 468.2 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Simple sizec |
371 | 366 | 357 | ||
Source: MDRC calculations from the Two-Year Client Survey ,
ajusted using MDRC-collected case file data. |
|||||
Table 3.5 presents the programs' effects on participation for high school graduates and nongraduates. As the table shows, both programs substantially increased participation for graduates in job search, post-secondary education, and work experience. The increases in post-secondary education — primarily courses for college credit at a two-year college — are large compared with increases for other programs.(14) For nongraduates, the Columbus programs produced large increases in participation in basic education(15) and small increases in the use of job search services.
| Outcome | Integrated Group | Traditional Group | Control Group | Integrated-Control Difference (Impact) | Traditional-Control Difference (Impact) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For those with a high school diploma or GED: | |||||
| Participated in (%): | |||||
| Job searcha | 19.9 | 22.5 | 6.0 | 13.8 | 16.5 |
Basic education |
7.9 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.0 |
Post-secondary educationb |
30.5 | 27.4 | 14.4 | 16.1 | 13.0 |
Vocational training |
12.1 | 11.4 | 13.9 | -1.8 | -2.4 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
19.6 | 17.8 | 1.5 | 18.0 | 16.3 |
| Hours of participation in: | |||||
Job searcha |
17.3 | 36.2 | 4.6 | 12.8 | 31.6 |
Basic education |
22.9 | 24.3 | 3.9 | 19.0 | 20.4 |
Post-secondary educationb |
181.0 | 255.4 | 63.3 | 117.7 | 192.1 |
Vocational training |
52.6 | 120.8 | 53.0 | -0.4 | 67.8 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Hours of participation among participants in : | |||||
Job searcha |
87.1 | 160.4 | 75.7 | 11.5 | 84.7 |
Basic education |
288.9 | 458.7 | 119.8 | 169.1 | 338.9 |
Post-secondary educationb |
594.0 | 933.3 | 440.1 | 153.9 | 493.2 |
Vocational training |
434.6 | 1056.4 | 381.9 | 52.8 | 674.5 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Simple sizec |
214 | 219 | 211 | ||
| For those without a high school diploma or GED: | |||||
| Participated in (%): | |||||
Job searcha |
9.5 | 7.7 | 0.4 | 9.2 | 7.3 |
Basic education |
64.6 | 63.0 | 22.7 | 41.9 | 40.2 |
Post-secondary educationb |
6.7 | 6.4 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 2.0 |
Vocational training |
7.1 | 6.4 | 4.0 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
15.2 | 6.2 | 3.8 | 11.4 | 2.4 |
| Hours of participation in: | |||||
Job searcha |
10.2 | 11.8 | 0.3 | 9.9 | 11.5 |
Basic education |
245.4 | 339.4 | 27.2 | 218.1 | 312.2 |
Post-secondary educationb |
51.5 | 26.9 | 19.4 | 32.1 | 7.5 |
Vocational training |
50.8 | 28.2 | 15.4 | 35.4 | 12.8 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Hours of participation among participants in : | |||||
Job searcha |
106.4 | 153.6 | 75.7 | 30.7 | 77.9 |
Basic education |
379.7 | 539.1 | 119.8 | 259.9 | 419.3 |
Post-secondary educationb |
766.1 | 419.0 | 440.1 | 326.0 | -21.1 |
Vocational training |
713.0 | 437.1 | 381.9 | 331.1 | 55.3 |
Work experience or on-the-job training |
n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Simple sizec |
155 | 146 | 146 | ||
| Sources: MDRC calculations from
the Two-Year Client Survey , ajusted using MDRC-collected case file
data. Noes: Tests of statistical significance were not performed. Estimates are regression-adjusted using ordinary least squares, controlling for pre-random assignment characteristics of sample members. Numbers may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. N/a= not available or not applicable. Italics are used to signal average outcomes and differences that were calculated only for participants. Sample sizes for these measures vary. aFor integrated and traditional group members, this measure includes participation in life skills workshops. bCourses for college credit at a two-year or four-year college. cSample sizes for individual measures vary because of missing values. In addition, three individuals in the full sample did not indicate whether they had a high school diploma or GED at random assignment. These individuas are excluded from the subgroup analysis. |
|||||
The survey asked sample members whether they had received any education credentials during the two years since they entered the evaluation. (Results for this question are not presented in a table.) About 4 percent of control group members without a high school diploma or GED certificate at study entry reported that they had received a diploma or GED during the two years; 13 percent of the traditional group nongraduates reported that they received a diploma or GED after entering the evaluation. (Nine percent of integrated group nongraduates reported receiving such a credential, but the 5 percentage-point impact was not statistically significant.)(16) Like most welfare-to-work programs studied, neither program in Columbus increased receipt of a trade certificate, an associate's degree, or a bachelor's degree.
The client survey may not capture the full effect of the programs on receipt of educational credentials. Some sample members may not have received a credential until the third year following random assignment or later. These later effects will not be measured in the evaluation.
[Go To Contents]
1. Case files were reviewed for 225 integrated group members and 218 traditional group members. Initially, 225 traditional cases were randomly selected for review but seven cases had to be dropped because of missing documentation or because they had become employed by the county and their files were marked confidential.
2. The survey sample includes 1,094 sample members (371 integrated group members, 366 traditional group members, and 357 control group members).
3. In the integrated program, 81 percent attended orientation within six months of random assignment; in the traditional program, 50 percent attended within six months. Six-month orientation attendance rates in other programs that MDRC has studied range from 63 to 71 percent. (Some of the participation numbers presented in this chapter differ slightly from those presented in Brock and Harknett, 1998a and 1998b, owing to small differences in data analysis decisions.)
4. Sample members in the integrated program were sent an orientation scheduling letter an average of 24 days after being referred from the income maintenance office compared with an average of 64 days in the traditional program.
5. Integrated case managers contacted those who missed an orientation session, on average, 1.4 weeks after the session compared with 2.2 weeks for traditional JOBS case managers. Integrated staff contacted people who did not attend orientation within six months of the initial referral an average of three times compared with two times for traditional staff. Moreover, 16 percent of traditional JOBS case managers reported that they would never follow up with a client who had not attended an orientation session compared with only 5 percent of integrated case managers.
6. The two panels of Table 3.1 present findings for different samples and follow-up periods. The upper panel presents findings for the full case file sample in each program and tracks activity for two years following random assignment. The lower panel presents findings for a subgroup of the full case file sample: those who attended orientation for whom at least two years of data following orientation were available. The lower panel represents 80 percent of the orientation attenders in the integrated program and 63 percent of the orientation attenders in the traditional program.
7. For example, two-year participation rates in the other NEWWS Evaluation programs range from 44 to 74 percent. (The participation rate in the Oklahoma City program is not included in this range because the sample is not comparable.) See the following reports for findings based on case file data for the other NEWWS programs: Hamilton et al., 1997; Scrivener et al., 1998; Storto et al., 2000.
8. The average length of stay was 4.6 months in the LFA programs and 7.8 months in the HCD programs (see Hamilton et al., 1997).
9. For example, for a family of three, a sanction resulted in a $62, or 18 percent, reduction in a monthly grant of $341. The first time someone was noncompliant, the sanction would remain in effect until she participated as required; the second time, for a minimum of three months; and the third time, for a minimum of six months.
10. The rates include sanctions imposed for failure to attend JOBS orientation and for failure to attend post-orientation activities; thus, they are not directly comparable to rates that capture only sanctions imposed for failure to attend post-orientation activities.
11. Since month 1 represents the month of random assignment and thus a partial JOBS month, the figure starts with month 2.
12. The integrated program left 70 percent of mandatory time uncovered, and the traditional program left 78 percent uncovered. The other programs in the evaluation left between 32 and 71 percent of sample members' mandatory months uncovered.
13. Some statistical adjustments were made in Table 3.4 (and Table 3.5), based on information found in the JOBS case files, to take into account recall error in the client survey data. Similar analyses were conducted for the other NEWWS programs (see Hamilton et al., 1997; Scrivener et al., 1998; Storto et al., 2000). Appendix Table B.4 presents the differences between the integrated, traditional, and control group participation levels using survey data without adjusting for recall error. Some numbers in Appendix Table B.4 differ slightly from those presented in Freedman et al., 2000, because the present analysis considers only sample members for whom the length of participation could be calculated (survey respondents were excluded from the present analysis if they reported an activity end date that preceded the reported activity start date).
14. The integrated program increased participation in post-secondary education by 16 percentage points, and the traditional program by 13 percentage points; the largest increase in post-secondary education participation for high school graduates in the other NEWWS Evaluation programs was only 8 percentage points.
15. Increases in participation in basic education for nongraduates in the three HCD programs studied in the NEWWS Evaluation ranged from 43 to 57 percentage points.
16. For more detail on the programs' impacts on educational attainment, see Chapter 4 in Freedman et al., 2000.
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)