Participants receiving Traditional Case Management worked with one income maintenance worker who oversaw public assistance benefits provided by the welfare department and a separate traditional JOBS case manager who oversaw employment and training activities. The lack of a single, integrated case manager was the defining feature of the intervention. Participants interacted with different JOBS case managers depending on whether they participated in an education and vocational training activity or a job search activity.
Income maintenance workers’ duties included handling all public assistance benefits, authorizing payments for JOBS-related expenses, imposing sanctions for noncompliance, and working with recipients’ entire households.
JOBS case managers’ duties included conducting JOBS orientation and assessment, assigning recipients to JOBS activities, monitoring JOBS attendance and progress, and initiating sanctions for noncompliance.
All other features of Traditional Case Management were identical to the Integrated Case Management, including the various activities and supportive services offered. Participants in the Traditional Case Management group were also required to participate in the JOBS program or face a reduction in their cash assistance, but JOBS case managers could not impose sanctions, whereas integrated case managers had authority to impose sanctions.
The total cost per person for the Integrated Case Management approach was $3,018 ($1,361 by the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services department and $1,657 by non-welfare agencies) in 1994 dollars, compared to $2,589 ($962 by the welfare department and $1,627 by non-welfare agencies) per person for the Traditional Case Management approach. Additionally, those in Integrated Case Management received $263 less in AFDC payments over the three-year period than those in Traditional Case Management. The Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services’ operating expenses and costs of supportive services, in addition to expenses from non-welfare agencies (community colleges, vocational training institute, and local adult education providers), made up the total program costs.
The study did not discuss a comparison of costs and benefits.
A total of 7,242 JOBS-mandatory, single-parent welfare applicants were randomly assigned to study group from September 1992 to July 1994. A survey was administered two years after assignment in the study to a subset of participants randomly assigned from January to December 1993.
Random assignment occurred at the income maintenance office by program administrators before recipients entered program orientation. Both the integrated and traditional programs were identical aside from the differences in case management.
- Personalized case management. Participants receiving integrated case management worked with one staff member—an integrated case manager—who supported both (1) their employment and training and (2) their welfare eligibility determination, including public assistance benefits. The single, integrated case manager was the defining feature of the intervention. Participants worked with the same integrated case manager regardless of the employment or educational activities pursued. Integrated case managers were assigned to all welfare recipients at the same address and could refer any eligible household member to JOBS. Duties of the integrated case manager included handling all public assistance benefits, authorizing payments for JOBS-related expenses, conducting JOBS orientations and assessment, assigning recipients to JOBS activities, monitoring JOBS attendance and progress, imposing sanctions for noncompliance, and working with recipients’ entire households. Caseloads for integrated case managers averaged 140 and were higher than planned. Still, integrated case managers provided personalized attention and encouragement of participants throughout the program, according to integrated case managers and their recipients. Integrated case managers closely monitored participation, were quick to follow up on attendance problems, and had authority to issue sanctions.
- Education and training. Integrated Case Management prioritized skills building for participants and encouraged participants to obtain a GED certificate before entering the labor market. Participants without a high school diploma or GED were usually referred to basic education classes, whereas participants with basic education credentials were assigned to vocational training, postsecondary education, or unpaid work experience before seeking employment. Case managers usually only referred their most employable participants (those with basic education credentials, some work experience, and no serious problems that would interfere with working) to job search services.
- JOBS program activities. Administrators prioritized JOBS program activities. Participants receiving Integrated Case Management were required to participate in the integrated JOBS program or face a reduction in their cash assistance, enforceable by their case manager. Participants who received Integrated Case Management had access to JOBS program activities such as:
- Job search (job clubs): In partnership with Goodwill, the Columbus JOBS center combined classroom instruction on how to search for a job with actual job search. Some participants were required to search for jobs on their own with check-ins by their case manager.
- Basic education, postsecondary education, vocational training, and work experience (unpaid positions)
- Life skills workshops: The local community college offered career exploration, self-esteem–building activities, and advice on time management and study skills through a pre-education retention program.
- Supportive services were also offered, including child care and work allowances (transportation and other incidental costs). Child care was provided on-site at the Columbus JOBS center for children 2.5 to 5 years old, and the JOBS program also paid child care costs associated with participation in the program. Some participants were eligible to be reimbursed for child care expenses incurred due to employment, despite no longer receiving cash assistance.
The JOBS program operated in a recently renovated facility located in a physically separate space from the welfare office. It included an on-site classroom and child care facility. Case managers received high levels of administrative support, including an automated case record information system.
The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.
JOBS was created by the 1998 Family Support Act, which required states to provide education, employment, and supportive services to AFDC recipients.
The intervention occurred in Columbus, Ohio. In the mid-1990s, Columbus was a growing metropolitan area, marked by low unemployment levels and employment growth. The welfare caseload in Columbus decreased by nearly one-third over the study’s follow-up period.
The Ohio Department of Human Services and the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services (previously the Department of Human Services) implemented the intervention.
The Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services contracted with several institutions as part of its JOBS program. The public school system offered basic education classes at the JOBS center. Public vocational schools offered vocational training, and the local community college conducted life skills workshops.
Participants included single-parent AFDC applicants and recipients whose youngest child was at least age 3 and who did not meet federal exemption criteria for the JOBS program. Of those randomly assigned, the mean age was 32, 94 percent were female, and approximately half were Black and half were White. All participants were eligible for cash assistance, 4 percent were employed at time of random assignment, and 43 percent did not have a high school diploma or GED.
Unless participants met an exemption, participation in the JOBS program was mandatory. Participants were referred to JOBS at the welfare office.
During the two-year follow-up period, participants receiving Integrated Case Management participated in program activities for an average of 3.3 months, compared to an average of 1.9 months for participants receiving Traditional Case Management.
Participants worked with one integrated case manager. On average, integrated case managers were employed with the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services for five years, 73 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the racial composition of staff reflected that of study participants. Newly hired integrated case managers received four weeks of training.