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

06/01/2001

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 3.2
Distribution of Sample Members by Descriptive - Not Causal - Activity Sequences Within a Two-Year Follow-Up Period,by Case Management Approach

Distribution of Sample Members by Descriptive - Not Causal - Activity Sequences Within a Two-Year Follow-Up Period,by Case Management Approach