Submitted by user on Thu, 12/12/2019 - 19:59
Study Name
Integrated Case Management—Columbus, OH
Study Sharepoint ID
3128.08
Evaluation name
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)
Percent female
93.50
Percent Male
6.50
Percent No high school diploma or GED
42.60
Percent With a high school diploma or GED
57.40
Percent Parents
100.00
Percent Single Parents
100.00
Percent Employed
4.00
Percent welfare population
100.00
Percent Black or African American
52.00
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
0.40
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native
0.10
Percent White
46.50
Percent unknown race
1.00
Mean age
31.80
Group formation formatted

Program administrators randomly assigned single-parent AFDC applicants and recipients whose youngest child was at least age 3 to one of three conditions: traditional case management, integrated case management, or a comparison condition. Random assignment took place from September 1992 to July 1994 at the income maintenance office before recipients had undergone program orientation. Evaluators administered a survey two years after random assignment to a simple random sample of participants randomly assigned between January 1993 and December 1993, and they sampled a slightly higher proportion of cases from the comparison group than from the traditional and integrated case management groups. This study focuses on the comparison between integrated case management and a comparison (no additional services) condition. Other studies examine the contrast of traditional case management and the comparison condition and integrated vesus traditional case management.

Study timing formatted

Random assignment took place between September 1992 and July 1994. Individuals were followed for five years after random assignment.

Secondary domains examined
Housing, Child well-being
Study funding formatted

The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) evaluation was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation), and by the U.S. Department of Education.

Sample Characteristics

The study only examined single parents. In the full sample, which includes those randomly assigned to the integrated and traditional program groups as well as to the comparison group, more than 90 percent were female (94) with an average age of about 32 and an average of two children. A slight majority of participants were Black (52 percent), and the remainder were primarily White (47 percent). When the study began, fewer than half of sample members, 43 percent, had ever worked full time for an employer for six months or more, and a comparable proportion (42 percent) had earned no educational credential at or above a high school diploma or GED level. Roughly 45 percent of sample members had received AFDC for five or more years.

Implementing organization formatted

Ohio Department of Human Services and the Franklin County Department of Human Services

Program history

Program administrators developed both intervention arms—the traditional and integrated case management conditions—for this demonstration.

Treatment condition formatted

Case management focused on the development of clients’ (welfare recipients) skills as preparation for securing a job. Case managers often encouraged clients to take higher-paying jobs once they began their job search. Integrated case managers not only supported clients’ training and employment but also handled their welfare eligibility determination and payment issuance. Case managers usually assigned clients without a high school diploma or general education diploma to basic education classes. Clients who had basic education credentials were assigned to vocational training, postsecondary education, or work experience. The program also offered a life skills workshop to prepare clients for employment. After staff decided that clients were employable, they referred them to job searching (supported by a job club). The program paid for child care costs, offered an on-site child care center, and covered transportation and other incidental work costs. Integrated case managers provided personalized attention and monitored participation closely; they strongly enforced participation requirements by sanctioning clients who did not meet those requirements.

Comparison condition formatted

People in the comparison group could not receive any program services and were not subject to participation requirements (and therefore the risk of nonparticipation sanctions) for program services or employment. These clients could, however, participate in employment-related activities available in their communities.

Mandatory services formatted

During the study period, all welfare recipients in Columbus, OH, were required to participate in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training welfare-to-work program unless they met one of several exclusion criteria. Participants who did not meet participation requirements were sanctioned.

Timing of study formatted

Not specified, but services ended when clients left AFDC.

Program funding formatted

State of Ohio;  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Setting details formatted

The study took place in Columbus, OH.

Delivered by public or private entity?
Public
Earliest publication year
2001
Most recent publication year
2000
Check edits flag
No