Integrated Case Management provided personalized case management to single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) applicants and recipients to help them improve educational and vocational skills in preparation for securing a job.

Integrated Case Management provided personalized case management to single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) applicants and recipients to help them improve educational and vocational skills in preparation for securing a job. 

Participants worked with a single case manager to improve their educational and vocational skills and determine their welfare eligibility and payment issuance. Participants who did not have a high school diploma or general education diploma were assigned to basic education; participants with basic education credentials were assigned to vocational training, postsecondary education, or work experience.

Case managers provided job search assistance after they determined that participants were employable. Integrated Case Management also covered child care, transportation, and other incidental work costs, and had an on-site child care center. Case managers closely monitored and enforced program participation, and participants who did not meet the program participation requirements were sanctioned with a reduction in their monthly welfare payments. Services ended when clients exited AFDC.

Participants in Integrated Case Management were single-parent AFDC applicants and recipients whose youngest child was at least 3 years old. The intervention was implemented in Columbus, OH, and was mandatory for all participants as part of the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training welfare-to-work program, unless they met one of several exclusion criteria.

The demonstration also included a Traditional Case Management program and a comparison of the Traditional and Integrated Case Management programs. Integrated Case Management case managers worked with fewer cases than case managers in the Traditional Case Management program did and were therefore able to provide more intensive services. Case managers in the Traditional Case Management program had larger caseloads and did not monitor participation as closely. 

Year evaluation began: 1992
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Single parents, Cash assistance recipients
Intervention services: Case management, Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Job search assistance
Setting(s): Tested in multiple settings

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $335 per year 0.02 4672
Long-term Supported favorable $1,987 per year 0.10 4672
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.04 4672
Long-term Supported favorable 3% (in percentage points) 0.06 4672
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Supported favorable $-338 per year -0.12 4672
Long-term Supported favorable $-465 per year -0.17 4672
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support unfavorable 0% (in percentage points) 0.00 728

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1