Study Details | Pathways to Work

3128.07-National Evaluation

Study quality: High

High

Intervention: Traditional Case Management

Population and employment barriers: Cash assistance recipients, Parents, Single parents

Services provided: Case management, Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Job search assistance

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study Design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

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 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 traditional case management and the comparison (no additional services) condition. Other studies examine the contrast of integrated case management and the comparison condition and integrated vesus traditional case management.

Time period of study:

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

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Housing, Child well-being

Study funded by:

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.

Results

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	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	2,914.00	3,099.00	185.00	1993 dollars	4,729
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	7,276.00	7,387.00	113.00	1997 dollars	4,729
Increase long-term earnings	Average weekly earnings	Year 2	High	94.60	101.70	7.10	1995 dollars	723
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	44.30	45.70	1.40	percentage points	4,729
Increase long-term employment	Current employment	24 months	High	41.10	43.90	2.80	percentage points	723
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 5	High	68.80	69.30	0.50	percentage points	4,729
Increase long-term employment	Employed in all four quarters	Year 5	High	39.40	40.40	1.00	percentage points	4,729
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	3,199.00	2,950.00	-249.00	1993 dollars	4,729
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	96.60	96.00	-0.60	percentage points	4,729
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of Food Stamps receipt, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	31.20	29.10	-2.10	months	4,729
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	9,005.00	7,899.00	-1106.00	1995 dollars	4,729
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–5	High	8,185.00	7,537.00	-648.00	1995 dollars	4,729
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	16.50	14.10	-2.40	percentage points	4,729
Increase education and training	Earned a license	Year 2	High	7.30	6.80	-0.50	percentage points	723
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Year 2	High	2.90	6.20	3.30	percentage points	723

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample Characteristics

The study only examined single parents. In the full sample, which includes those randomized 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 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.

Age

Mean age

32 years

Sex

Female	94%
Male	7%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	52%
White	47%

Family status

Parents	100%
Single parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	4%
Were eligible for cash assistance	100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	57%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	43%

Intervention Implementation

Implementing organization:

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.

Intervention services:

Case management focused on the development of clients’ (welfare recipients) skills as preparation for securing a job. Case managers who dealt with training and employment often encouraged clients to take higher-paying jobs once they began their job search. In this program, a separate income maintenance case manager handled clients’ 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. Traditional case managers provided less personalized attention and monitored participation less closely compared with the integrated case management approach. However, enforcement was still generally high, and case managers strongly enforced participation requirements by sanctioning clients who did not meet those requirements.

Mandatory services:

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.

Comparison services:

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.

Service receipt duration:

Not specified, but services ended when clients left AFDC.

Intervention funding:

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

Study Publications

Freedman, Stephen (2000). The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on employment stability and earnings growth, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_376.pdf.

Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies-evaluating-alternative-welfare-work-approaches-two-year-impacts-eleven-programs-executive-summary.

Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.

Scrivener, Susan, and Johanna Walter (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating two approaches to case management: Implementation, participation patterns, costs, and three-year impacts of the Columbus welfare-to-work program, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_95.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Study of Traditional Case Management