Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. Monthly AFDC and JOBS Statuses and Program Coverage


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

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)

Figure 3.4
Proportion of JOBS-Mandatory Months in Various JOBS Statuses
Within a Two-Year Follow-Up Period

Proportion of JOBS-mandatory months in various JOBS statuses whithin a two-year follow-up period