Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs (Freedman et al. 2000)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Freedman, S., Friedlander, D., Hamilton, G., Rock, J., Mitchell, M., Nudelman, J., Schweder, A., & Storto, L. (2000). 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, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and U.S. Department of Education. [Columbus Integrated Case Management vs. Control]

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) on education, earnings, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the Columbus Integrated Case Management program. The authors investigated similar research questions for other contrasts and sites, the profiles of which can be found here.
  • The study was a randomized controlled trial at the Columbus, Ohio site. Using two-year participant surveys and administrative data, the authors conducted statistical tests to compare the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.
  • The study found that treatment group participants were significantly more likely to be employed, have higher earnings, and less likely to receive public benefits compared to control group participants.
  • The study receives a high evidence rating. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Columbus Integrated Case Management program and not to other factors.

Intervention Examined

Columbus Integrated Case Management

Features of the Intervention

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program was created by the Family Support Act of 1988, which required people who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to either seek and accept employment or engage in activities such as training, education, or unpaid work through the welfare department. The Columbus Integrated Case Management program operated under the JOBS program. The Columbus Integrated site used an education focused approach to encourage long term education and training activities. Case mangers assisted clients to increase their skills to enter the job market. Case managers sent strong messages about nonparticipation and swiftly imposed financial sanctions. The Columbus Integrated site targeted AFDC applicants and recipients with their youngest child being at least three years old.

Features of the Study

The study was part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies that examined the effectiveness of 11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs in seven sites across the United States. This profile focuses on the Integrated Case Management program vs. no-treatment control analysis for the Columbus site.  

The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of the Columbus program on earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt outcomes. Applicants who enrolled in the study between September 1992 and July 1994 were randomized to one of two treatment groups (Integrated Case Management or Traditional Case Management) or a control group. The authors assigned 2,513 applicants to the Integrated Case Management treatment group to receive program services, which included employment and training services. The treatment group was required to participate in program activities or risk a reduction in monthly AFDC dollars. The authors assigned 2,159 applicants to the control group that did not have access to program services but could independently pursue similar services in the community. The Columbus sample was primarily female (94%), 25-34 years of age (56%), black (52%), never married (50%), had at least one child (40%), and had at least a high school diploma or GED (44%). The data sources were a two-year participant survey and three types of administrative data: state unemployment insurance data, AFDC data, and food stamp data. Using statistical tests, the authors compared the outcomes of the Integrated Case Management program participants with those of the no-treatment control participants, examining multiple measures of earnings, education, employment, and public benefits receipt.

Findings

Earnings and wages

  • The study found that treatment participants earned $673 more than control participants across the two study years and $592 more than control participants in year two. These differences were significant.
  • The study also found that treatment participants earned $179 more than control participants in the last quarter of year two. This difference was also significant.
  • The study found that treatment participants earned $21 more than control participants in average weekly pay at the end of year two, which was a significant difference.

Education and skills gains

  • The study did not find a significant difference in education outcomes between the treatment and control groups.  

Employment

  • The study found that significantly more treatment participants than control participants were employed in all four quarters of year two (32% vs. 28%).
  • The study also found that significantly more treatment participants than control participants were employed in the last quarter of year two (52% vs. 47%).
  • The study did not find a significant difference between the groups on any employment in year two.

Public benefits receipt

  • The study found that treatment participants received AFDC for fewer months over the study period than control participants, and that treatment participants received $694 less in AFDC benefits over the study period. These differences were significant.
  • The study found that significantly fewer treatment participants than control participants were receiving AFDC in the last quarter of year two (47% vs. 54%).
  • The study found that control participants received $432 more than treatment participants in food stamps over the study period. This difference was statistically significant.
  • The study also found that the control participants were more likely than the treatment participants to receive food stamps in the last quarter of year two (64% vs. 58%), a statistically significant finding.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to earnings and wages, employment, and public benefits. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings in these domains is likely to be overstated. Additionally, the study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high because it was based on a well implemented randomized controlled trail. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Columbus Integrated Case Management program, and not to other factors.

Reviewed by CLEAR

June 2022

Topic Area