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

06/01/2001

The report is divided into five chapters. After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 describes the implementation of the integrated and traditional programs in Columbus, focusing on issues such as the employment-preparation strategy used and various case management practices. Chapter 3 presents findings on integrated and traditional group members' involvement in employment-related activities as part of their respective programs. The chapter also compares the activity levels of integrated and traditional group members with those of their control group counterparts to determine the net effect of the two programs on participation. Chapter 4 provides estimates of the cost of employment-related services in each program, and Chapter 5 presents the programs' effects on employment, earnings, and cash assistance receipt.

Endnotes

1.  This study draws its sample and data from Franklin County, Ohio. For ease of reference, the name of the county's largest city, Columbus, will be used throughout this report.

2.  Child Trends, as a subcontractor, is conducting analyses of outcomes for young children in three of the sites. Columbus is not included in this substudy.

3.  This report draws on an earlier paper prepared as part of the NEWWS Evaluation (Brock and Harknett, 1998b); a revised version of this paper was published in Social Service Review (Brock and Harknett, 1998a). An earlier NEWWS report (Hamilton and Brock, 1994) discusses the early implementation of the Columbus programs and the other programs in the evaluation, and a recent report (Freedman et al., 2000) presents two-year impacts for all the programs.

4.  This section is slightly modified from Brock and Harknett, 1998a.

5.  Bell, 1983; Bane and Ellwood, 1994.

6.  Bell, 1983; Bane and Ellwood, 1994.

7.  Hamilton, 1962, p. 128.

8.  Bane and Ellwood, 1994.

9.  Nightingale and Burbridge, 1987.

10.  Bell, 1983; Bane and Ellwood, 1994.

11.  Rein, 1982; Mead, 1986.

12.  See, for example, Gueron and Pauly, 1991; Rein, 1982.

13.  Nightingale and Burbridge, 1987.

14.  Hagen and Lurie, 1994.

15.  American Public Welfare Association, 1992.

16. Bane and Ellwood, 1994, p. 7.

17.  Thirty-five percent of the individuals were assigned to the integrated group, 35 percent to the traditional group, and 30 percent to the control group.

18.  This sequence of staff contact differs from what normally occurs in a program using integrated case management. To accommodate the random assignment process in Columbus, all applicants and recipients first met with a worker at the IM office; integrated group members did not see an integrated case manager until a later date when they attended a JOBS orientation. Normally, in a program using integrated case management, the integrated case manager is the first and only person to see a recipient, which allows the staff member to immediately address employment issues.

19.  To allow a separate study of the deterrence effects of a participation mandate and of reasons for not attending program orientation sessions, random assignment in the Grand Rapids and Riverside sites occurred at two points: at the point of referral to JOBS and at JOBS orientation. See Knab et al., 2001, for more details.

20.  Some of the annual caseload counts differ somewhat from those presented in Freedman et al., 2000, because a different data source was used.

21.  Greenberg, 1992.

22.  Gallagher et al., 1998.

23.  The table presents characteristics for the entire Columbus sample: the integrated, traditional, and control groups.

24.  See Freedman et al., 2000, for baseline characteristics for the samples in the other six NEWWS Evaluation sites.

25.  The follow-up period covers different dates for each sample member, depending on the date she or he was randomly assigned. As noted above, random assignment occurred between September 1992 and July 1994. Thus, the inclusive dates for the two-year follow-up period are September 1992 to July 1996, and the dates for the three-year follow-up period are September 1992 to July 1997.