Study Details for:
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. [Columbus-Integrated Case Management]

Study URL: http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies (Link not working?)

Evaluation: National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)

Program Studied: Columbus (Integrated Case Management)
See Study Characteristics tab below for more information about this program.

Strength of Evidence: 1-High High (3 of 3)

Populations Targeted Parents, Single parents, Welfare population
Setting Urban only
Services Provided Case management, Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Unpaid work experience, Work experience, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term employment, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term earnings, Education and training, Favorable Impacts FoundLong-term benefit receipt

Findings

Toggle Long-term employmentLong-term employment
Outcome Treatment Group Comparison Group Impact Findings Strength of Evidence Study Sample Sample Size Data Source and Timing

Employed in last quarter of year 2, %
Adjusted mean = 51.7 Adjusted mean = 46.7 5 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 UI wage records, year 2

Employed in all 4 quarters of year 2, %
Adjusted mean = 32.2 Adjusted mean = 27.9 4.2 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 UI wage records, year 2

Employed at the end of year 2, %
Adjusted mean = 48.6 Adjusted mean = 41.1 7.5 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 728 Two-year survey
Toggle Long-term earningsLong-term earnings
Outcome Treatment Group Comparison Group Impact Findings Strength of Evidence Study Sample Sample Size Data Source and Timing

Total earnings, year 2, $
Adjusted mean = 4,571 Adjusted mean = 3,978 592 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 UI wage records, year 2

Weekly pay, $
Adjusted mean = 115.5 Adjusted mean = 94.6 20.9 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 728 Two-year survey
Toggle Education and trainingEducation and training
Outcome Treatment Group Comparison Group Impact Findings Strength of Evidence Study Sample Sample Size Data Source and Timing

Received a high school diploma or GED, %
Adjusted mean = 5.1 Adjusted mean = 2.9 2.1 No Effect 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 728 Two-year survey

Received a trade license, %
Adjusted mean = 4.6 Adjusted mean = 7.3 -2.6 No Effect 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 728 Two-year survey
Toggle Long-term benefit receiptLong-term benefit receipt
Outcome Treatment Group Comparison Group Impact Findings Strength of Evidence Study Sample Sample Size Data Source and Timing
1 Negative impact is favorable.

Received AFDC payments in final quarter of year 2, %1
Adjusted mean = 47.1 Adjusted mean = 53.8 -6.8 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 AFDC records, year 2

Total AFDC payments received, years 1-2, $1
Adjusted mean = 4,775 Adjusted mean = 5,469 -694 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 AFDC records, years 1-2

Ever received Food Stamps in last quarter of year 2, %1
Adjusted mean = 57.9 Adjusted mean = 64.0 -6 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 Food Stamps records, year 2

Total Food Stamps amount, years 1-2, $1
Adjusted mean = 4,278 Adjusted mean = 4,710 -432 Favorable 1-High High (3 of 3) Columbus Integrated versus control 4,672 Food Stamps records, years 1-2

Study Characteristics

Toggle Participants & Program Details Participants & Program Details
Participant Detail The study only examined single parents. In the full sample, which includes those randomized to both the integrated and traditional program groups as well as to the control group, more than 90 percent were female (93.5) with an average age of approximately 32 and an average of two children. A slight majority were black (52 percent), while the remainder were primarily white (46.5 percent). When the study began, less than half of sample members, 42.5 percent, had ever worked full-time for an employer for six months or more, and a comparable proportion (42.3 percent) had earned no educational credential at or above a high school diploma/ GED level. Roughly 45 percent of sample members had received AFDC for five or more years.
Program Services 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 GED 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.
Program Duration Not specified, but services ended when clients left AFDC.
Comparison Services People in the control group could not receive any program services but were also 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.
Toggle Study Design Study Design
Strength of Evidence Description High
Group Formation Program administrators randomly assigned single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) applicants and recipients whose youngest child was at least age 3 to one of three conditions: traditional case management, integrated case management , and a control condition. Randomization took place 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 control group than from the traditional and integrated case management groups.

This review focuses on the comparison between integrated case management and a control (no additional services) condition.
Effect Calculation The effects reported by the authors and displayed on this site are the raw mean differences between the groups, adjusted for baseline demographics.
Notes on Reported Outcomes The authors reported employment and earnings outcomes for time points and variable definitions that are not the focus of this review.
Subgroups Studied Level of disadvantage; educational attainment; employment in year before random assignment; benefit receipt in year before random assignment
Other Domains Examined Housing; Child wellbeing
Toggle Study Setting Study Setting
Setting Details The program took place in Columbus, Ohio.
Timing of Study Random assignment took place between September 1992 and August 1994. This study examines impacts two years after randomization.
Study Funding The 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.
Study URL http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies