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

06/01/2001

Table 4.5 presents gross and net costs of employment-related services for sample members with and without a high school diploma or GED at random assignment. For both programs, gross costs were higher for the subgroup with a high school diploma or GED (graduates) than for those without a credential (nongraduates). Graduates had higher gross costs than nongraduates primarily because they were more likely to participate in higher-cost activities, such as post-secondary education and vocational training. In addition, although graduates and nongraduates received similar participation allowances, graduates received substantially more child care support (both JOBS and non-JOBS). These same patterns in participation and costs are seen for graduates and nongraduates in the control group. Thus, net costs for employment-related services were also higher for graduates than for nongraduates.

Table 4-5
Estimated Total Gross Costs and Net Costs for Employment-Related Services
Within a Two-Year Follow-Up Period, by Program and High School Diploma/GED Status
(in 1993 Dollars)
Program and Activity or Service Total Gross Cost per Program Group Member ($) Total Gross Cost per Control Group Member ($) Net Cost per Program Group Member ($)
For those with a high school diploma or GED:
Integrated program

Orientation and appraisal

15 0 15

Job searcha

83 10 73

Basic education

110 14 96

Post-secondary educationb

1,455 365 1,090

Vocational training

688 296 391

Work experience

61 2 60

Subtotal (operating)

2,412 687 1,725

Child care

615 448 167

Child care administrationc

19 14 6

Participation allowance

194 12 182

Total

3,240 1,161 2,079
Traditional Program

Orientation and appraisal

7 0 7

Job searcha

117 10 107

Basic education

95 14 81

Post-secondary educationb

1,568 365 1,203

Vocational training

336 296 39

Work experience

57 2 55

Subtotal (operating)

2,180 687 1,493

Child care

643 448 195

Child care administrationc

20 14 6

Participation allowance

134 12 122

Total

2,977 1,161 1,816
For those without a high school diploma or GED:
Integrated program

Orientation and appraisal

14 0 14

Job searcha

40 1 40

Basic education

1,070 189 881

Post-secondary educationb

364 80 284

Vocational training

420 86 335

Work experience

50 13 37

Subtotal (operating)

1,958 368 1,590

Child care

372 128 244

Child care administrationc

11 4 7

Participation allowance

209 5 204

Total

2,551 505 2,046
Traditional Program

Orientation and appraisal

9 0 9

Job searcha

48 1 47

Basic education

1,364 189 1,175

Post-secondary educationb

164 80 84

Vocational training

177 86 91

Work experience

29 13 17

Subtotal (operating)

1,791 368 1,423

Child care

299 128 171

Child care administrationc

9 4 5

Participation allowance

133 5 129

Total

2,232 505 1,727
Sources: MDRC calculations based on fiscal and participation data from the following: Franklin County Department of Human Services; Ohio Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education; Ohio Board of Regents; National Center for Education Statistics; and information from MDRC-collected case file data and the Two-Year Client Survey. Child care and other support service calculations are based on Ohio Department of Human Services payment data
Notes: Rounding may cause slight discrepancies in calculating sums and differences. aFor program group members, this measure includes participation in life skills workshops. bCourses for college credit at a two-year or four-year college. cAdministrative costs for determining child care needs and issuing payments were estimated as a percentage of the value of payments, i.e., by dividing total administrative costs by total payments. Child care administrative costs were 3 percent of total payments.

Endnotes

1.  Only clients who were mandatory for the AFDC JOBS program were eligible to be assigned to integrated case management, so integrated case managers would have had fewer clients in the other work programs. Because integrated case managers were responsible for all members of a household, they would have worked with any GA or Food Stamps-only recipients who were part of the sample member's household. In addition, sample members who stopped receiving AFDC, but received Food Stamps or GA, would have continued on the integrated case manager's caseload.

2.  As noted in Chapter 2, for every two integrated case managers, there were about 280 cases, compared with caseloads of about 260 for every pair of traditional JOBS case managers and IM workers.

3.  These activities are described in Chapter 2.

4.  For example, in calculating a cost per month of participation, the participation measure is "participant-months," which is obtained by summing the monthly total number of participants in the activity across all months in the steady-state period.

5.  A more detailed explanation of general cost methodology can be found in Hamilton et al., 1997, pp. 165-69.

6.  Until mid 1993 there were two integrated units with six case managers each. During the second half of the year, there were three integrated units with seven case managers each. During the same period, there were five traditional units with an average of six case managers each.

7.  For both programs, an additional $10 per program group member was spent in administering these payments.

8.  This analysis assumes that education and training services provided by non-welfare agencies were financed by non-welfare agencies (including the U.S. Department of Education, if program group members received Pell Grants or other financial aid) and not by sample members themselves. To the extent that sample members actually financed their own education and training, this analysis overstates the true costs to non-welfare agencies per sample member. This has distributional implications, but does not overstate the total cost of services. The GAIN evaluation of seven counties in California found that fewer than 10 percent of sample members may have spent their own or their family's resources on education and training. See Riccio, Friedlander, and Freedman, 1994, for details.

9.  The average cost per participant in post-secondary education was $4,939 in Columbus and $4,697 in the other NEWWS programs. The average cost per participant in vocational training was $4,292 in Columbus and $3,994 in the other programs. Because of data limitations, Portland and Detroit costs are not included in these averages.