Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. Appendix A: Supplementary Tables to Chapter 2

06/01/2001

Table A.1
Selected JOBS and Integrated Staff Survey Measures
Measure Atlanta HCDa Atlanta LFAa Grand Rapidsa,b Riverside HCDa Riverside LFAa Columbus Integrated Columbus Traditional Detroita Oklahoma City Portland
Employment preparation strategy
Percent who lean toward labor force attachment 0.0 27.3 30.4 46.7 83.0 4.6 5.3 0.0 3.0 18.9
Percent who lean toward human capital development 87.5 54.6 43.5 26.7 8.5 68.2 65.8 72.2 87.9 37.7
Percent who encourage clients to take any job 50.0 81.8 73.9 100.0 95.8 57.1 34.2 55.6 44.9 54.0
Percent who encourage clients to be selective in taking a job 25.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 2.1 14.3 31.6 5.6 23.7 16.0
Stuff supervision, evaluation, and training
Percent who say they received helpful trainig on how to be an effective case manager 81.3 45.5 21.7 60.0 51.1 31.8 38.5 38.9 34.3 48.1
Percent who say that supervisors pay close attention to case manager performance 93.8 90.9 78.3 87.5 93.0 95.5 82.1 72.2 53.0 92.6
Percent who report good communication with program administrators 43.8 18.2 13.0 31.3 43.8 36.4 53.9 76.5 34.5 35.3
Percent who say that good performance is recognized 37.5 36.4 47.8 56.3 53.2 50.0 30.8 22.2 26.9 40.7
Percent who report high job satisfaction 12.5 9.1 26.1 25.0 27.7 4.6 28.2 5.6 9.5 22.2
Personalized attention and encouragement
Percent who try to learn in depth about clients' needs, interests, and backgrounds during program intake 93.8 50.0 21.7 75.0 47.8 63.6 46.0 16.7 39.3 61.5
Percent who try to identify and remove barriers to client participation 100.0 90.9 87.0 100.0 100.0 81.8 82.1 44.4 80.0 90.7
Percent who encourage and provide positive reinforcement to clients 31.3 36.4 27.3 62.5 50.0 52.4 38.5 22.2 23.0 39.6
Participation monitoring
Percent who reoport receiving a lot of informaiton on client progress from sevice providers 31.3 27.3 27.3 46.7 40.0 13.6 21.6 11.8 24.7 35.4
Average number of weeks before contacting clients about their attendance from service providers 3.4 2.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.5 3.1 3.7 2.7 1.9
Average number of weeks before contacting clients about their attendance problems 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.9 2.5 2.2 1.5
Rule enforcement and sanctioning
Percent who strongly emphasize penalties for noncompliance to new clients 68.8 81.8 82.6 68.8 51.1 86.4 70.6 83.3 58.6 59.1
Percent who never delay requesting sanctions for noncompliant clientsc 50.0 45.5 91.3 93.3 88.4 n/a 38.5 16.7 63.6 91.7
Perceptions of the effectiveness of JOBS
Percent who think JOBS will help clients become self-supporting 81.3 90.9 82.6 93.8 89.6 81.8 74.4 38.9 62.0 98.2
Sample sized 16 11 23 16 48 22 39 18 202 54
Sources: Integrated and JOBS Staff Activities and Attitudes Surveys.
Notes: aThese sites do not have integrated staff; the Integrated Staff Survey was not administered. bThe same Grand Rapids staff worked with both LFA and HCD sample members. cThis scale indicates reponses of JOBS staff only. dSample sizes may vary because some survey items were not applicable to all satff.

 

Table A.2
Selected Income Maintenance and Integrated Staff Survey Measures
Measure Atlantaa Grand Rapidsa Riversidea Columbus Detroita Oklahoma Cityb Portland
Rule enforcement and sanctioning
Percent who never delay imposing sanctions on noncompliant clients 84.8 98.0 87.2 70.9 87.0 28.5 51.6
Perceptions of effectiveness of JOBS
Percent who think JOBS will help cilents become self-supportingc 33.9 33.3 59.1 67.3 43.1 n/a 74.0
Sample sized 113 120 105 136 114 180 110
Soures: Income Maintenance and integrated Staff Activities and Attitudes Surveys.
Notes: N/a = not applicable aThese sites do not have integrated staff; the Integrated Staff Survey was not administered. bAll staff in Oklahoma City are integrated; the Income Maintenance Staff Survey was not administered. cThis measure indicates responses of income maintenance staff only. dSample sizes may vary because some survey items were not applicable to all satff.

 

Table A.3
Selected Clients Survey Measures
Measure Atlanta HCD Atlanta LFA Grand Rapids HCD Grand Rapids LFA Riverside HCD Riverside LFA Columbus Integrated Columbus Traditional Detroit Oklahoma City Portland
Employment preparation strategy
Percent who felt pushed to take a job 29.1 39.7 38.7 47.4 46.2 56.2 43.2 28.8 32.2 24.3 44.6
Personalized attention and encouragement
Percent who felt their JOBS case manager knew a lot about them and their family 42.5 44.1 27.7 25.9 39.6 35.7 53.5 38.0 32.1 43.0 35.5
Percent who believed JOBS staff would help them resolve problems that affected their participation in JOBS 43.8 46.5 26.3 25.0 44.0 45.5 54.8 38.6 32.2 35.3 40.9
Rule enforcement and sanctioning
Percent who said they were informed about penalties for noncompliance 68.8 67.9 82.4 80.9 71.9 69.5 68.2 69.1 58.1 44.8 67.6
Percent who felt the JOBS staff just wanted to enforce the rules 52.0 57.4 63.8 71.8 64.9 61.8 64.0 59.6 58.7 49.8 58.8
Perceptions of the effectiveness of JOBS
Percent who thought the program improved their long-run chances of getting or keeping a job 39.3 39.4 28.0 30.5 34.9 32.1 42.3 37.5 43.3 32.0 42.2
Sample size 1,113 804 574 574 621 564 371 366 210 259 297
Source: MDRC calculations from the Two-Year Client Survey.
Notes: Eligible sample members in Columbus, Detoit, and Oklahoma City had an equal chance of being chosen to be interviewed. In contrast, sample members in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside had a greater or lesser chance, depending on their background characteristics or month of random assignment. To compensate for these differences, survey respondents in these four sites were weighted by the inverse of their probability of selection.