Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies.

Autor/inn/en	Scrivener, Susan; Walter, Johanna
Institution	Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., New York, NY.
Titel	Evaluating Two Approaches to Case Management: Implementation, Participation Patterns, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of the Columbus Welfare-to-Work Program. National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies.
Quelle	(2001), (129 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Adult Education; Employment Programs; Employment Services; Management Systems; One Parent Family; Program Costs; Program Design; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Program Implementation; Sanctions; Unskilled Workers; Welfare Recipients; Welfare Services; Ohio (Columbus) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Adult; Adults; Education; Adult basic education; Adult training; Erwachsenenbildung; Employment program; Employment programme; Employment programmes; Beschäftigungsprogramm; Employment service; Arbeitsvermittlung; Single parent family; Ein-Eltern-Familie; Programme design; Programmaufbau; Programmplanung; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Sanction; Sanktion; Unskilled worker; Hilfsarbeiter; Sozialhilfeempfänger; Sozialhilfeempfängerin; Fürsorgeeinrichtung
Abstract	A random assignment study evaluated two welfare program case management approaches, traditional and integrated, and was conducted as part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Strategies, an evaluation of 11 welfare-to-work programs in 7 sites nationwide. More that 7,000 single parent welfare applicants and recipients deemed mandatory for Columbus, Ohio, WTW programs were randomly assigned to a control group or one of two programs that differed only in their case management approach during 1992-94. Some key findings were as follows: (1) integrated case managers provided more personalized attention and more closely monitored participation program activities; (2) the integrated program engaged more people in WTW activities than the traditional program; (3) sanctioning rates in the programs were similar and very high, with the rate of "initiating" sanctions higher in the traditional program; (4) the integrated program had higher two-year costs for employment-related services; (5) both programs increased recipient's earnings by 10 percent over the control group's; (6) the integrated program reduced payments more than the traditional; (7) both programs reduced welfare receipts and payments, with the integrated program reducing them more; (8) neither program increased recipients' average combined monthly incomes from earnings, cash assistance, and food stamps. (Appendixes include supplemental tables and 22 references.) (CLM)
Anmerkungen	Human Services Policy, Room 404E, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 200 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Fax: 202-690-6562. For full text: http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/columbus01/index.htm.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC