Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter 2

Implementation of the PASS Program

In order to interpret the impacts of the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) program in Riverside County, California, it is important to understand how the Post-Assistance Self-Sufficiency (PASS) program was designed and implemented and how it provided a different experience for participants than what the control group members experienced. Drawing on field research, case-file reviews, program tracking data, and a time study of program staff, this chapter focuses on how the five PASS service providers implemented the program and gives insights into the program’s structure, staffing, and management. It then describes the providers’ marketing and recruitment strategies, the types of services and activities that they offered prospective clients, the results from early assessments of the program, the field research assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of operations at each service provider, and how program staff spent their time.

Putting PASS into Place: The Selection of Service Providers

Postemployment services for current or former recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — the cash welfare program that mainly serves single mothers and their children — were virtually nonexistent before the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) implemented its PASS program as part of the ERA project. As of January 2001, only 25 clients in the entire county were engaged in postemployment services. Furthermore, all of these clients initiated such contact with their case managers; the DPSS case managers did not actively recruit prospective clients for the few services that the county offered, such as assistance with transportation and child care needs.

In designing the PASS program, administrators at DPSS decided to contract out its operations for several reasons. First, the program was targeted to TANF leavers — a population that has less contact with DPSS than clients in either Phase 1 (the mandatory welfare-to-work program for unemployed TANF recipients) or Phase 2 (the mandatory postemployment program for working TANF clients). Second, DPSS staff had little experience in contacting, recruiting, and serving TANF leavers. Third, DPSS administrators believed that local community-based organizations (CBOs) would know their neighborhoods and their resources better than DPSS staff. Finally, the administrators at both DPSS and the CBOs thought that having the community organizations operate PASS would make recruitment easier, since many prospective clients wanted nothing to do with DPSS after they had left the TANF rolls.

In early 2001, Riverside DPSS devised and refined the PASS program model (with some input from The Lewin Group and MDRC). In April 2001, DPSS issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to organizations to implement this model; proposals were reviewed during the summer of 2001, and, in September, DPSS selected three CBOs and one community college to operate PASS in specific catchment areas of the county.

The county subsequently amended its decision to have only non-DPSS organizations operate PASS. Interested in learning how well the department’s line staff could run the program, DPSS administrators decided to provide PASS services through the Rancho Mirage office, located in the desert area of the county and adjacent to the catchment area served by one of the CBOs.

The Framework: Structure, Staffing, and Management

Organizational Structure and Staffing

This section briefly describes the five PASS service providers, including the type of agency, the range of services, and the number of staff.

• The Center for Employment Training (CET). As part of the national CET network of CBOs, this provider served the PASS clientele in eastern Riverside County as well as in the enclaves of Desert Hot Springs and Temecula. Given the vastness of its catchment area, CET used three “mobile” case managers (who were equipped with laptop computers and cell phones) to recruit and serve clients. CET planned to provide much of the program’s remediation and vocational training services directly, but it referred clients to other education/training and social service providers as needed. In addition, CET job developers worked with employers in their communities to identify jobs that had career ladders — opportunities for training and advancement for entry-level workers.

• The Volunteer Center. The Volunteer Center is a CBO that served the outlying regions of metropolitan Riverside. Unique among the PASS providers, the Volunteer Center teamed up with two other CBOs — the Career Institute and the Hope Through Housing Foundation — to serve the PASS clients in its catchment area. The Volunteer Center provided the intake and overall case management services; the Career Institute offered career assessment, remediation, job search and development, and some vocational training activities; and the Hope Through Housing Foundation acted as a resource and referral agency for a spectrum of community-based services. In addition, the Volunteer Center held a number of life skills workshops to build enthusiasm for the PASS program. Staffing included two case managers and a recruitment specialist at the Volunteer Center, a career counselor at the Career Institute, and a case manager at the Hope Through Housing Foundation.

• Valley Restart. Valley Restart is a CBO that operates a homeless shelter serving the Hemet and Perris areas; it provided PASS services to clients in these two communities as well as in Anza, which is located in the southern part of the county. Valley Restart possessed linkages to the Hemet Adult School, Mt. San Jacinto Community College, and the Hemet Manufacturing Center, three sources to which the provider planned to refer PASS clients for remediation and vocational training courses. In addition, Valley Restart directly offered participants classes in office skills. This service provider had two case managers to contact and engage prospective PASS clients.

• Riverside Community College (RCC). RCC is a very large community college with its main campus in downtown Riverside and a satellite campus in neighboring Moreno Valley. Housed in the Workforce Preparation Department of RCC, the PASS program staff consisted of one vocational counselor, one case manager, one recruitment specialist, and a part-time clerk. Not surprisingly, this PASS program emphasized educational activities at RCC’s campuses. In particular, clients received a Board of Governors waiver to pay for tuition, regardless of their coursework. Finally, RCC permitted PASS clients to use its Job Resource Center, which contains office equipment as well as job search tools and leads.

• Rancho Mirage DPSS Office. This DPSS office served the PASS clientele in the western part of the desert community. Given the small number of PASS-eligible clients in this area, DPSS designated only one Phase 1 Employment Services Counselor (ESC) to recruit and work with these individuals. The counselor had access to all DPSS staff and services, such as job developers, job search and life skills workshops, resource rooms, and linkages to social services programs.

Program Management and Funding

This section describes how DPSS managed and funded the program operations of the five PASS service providers.

• DPSS Oversight. A DPSS staff person from the Community and Government Relations Unit provided overall management of the PASS program. This person acted as a liaison between DPSS and the service providers, handling such program operations needs as staff training, “P3” program tracking system modifications and management reports, and budget requests. In addition, the DPSS staffer facilitated interagency communications by sponsoring a bimonthly PASS roundtable at which provider staff could share best practices for recruiting and serving clients.

• The P3 Program Tracking System. DPSS developed an automated program tracking system, called “P3,” for both PASS and DPSS control group case managers to record and track their clients’ program status, contact information, component activities, supportive service payments, and other data. In addition, DPSS staff generated monthly management reports from the P3 records for each service provider.

• Funding. Each of the PASS service providers signed a one-year contract with DPSS in the fall of 2001, and these contracts were renewed the following year, again for one year. DPSS allocated state TANF funds for PASS program operations to each of the four contracted service providers, and it directly paid for the DPSS Rancho Mirage program. Each provider received an initial pool of $100,000, with a lifetime cap of $250,000. As a provider paid for program services, staff salaries, computers, and so forth, DPSS replenished the pool, up to the $100,000 limit. In this manner, DPSS structured the contracts to give the providers maximum flexibility in allocating program dollars to pay for a variety of services.

• Performance Standards. Balancing this flexibility in PASS service providers’ budgeting were a number of performance standards that DPSS established. First, the providers had to attempt to contact all referred customers — by telephone, letter, or in person. Second, the providers had to serve all clients who had defined program needs (that is, who wanted specific PASS services). Third, each provider’s staff had to record all service activities in the P3 program tracking system. However, DPSS did not penalize service providers if they did not meet these standards. Instead, the county provided feedback to providers (and technical assistance, if possible) in order to improve their performance.

The Flow, Messages, and Services of the PASS Program

This section describes the client outreach and recruitment strategies that PASS service providers devised, the types of program services and activities (noting differences in the range and emphasis of services among the providers), and the findings from the pilot test and six month assessments of early program operations. (Chapter 3 builds on these findings by presenting participation outcomes based on the P3 database and child care payment records.)

Client Engagement, Intake, and Assessment

This section presents the recruitment approaches and tools that the PASS service providers developed to find, engage, and enroll sample members into the program.

The staff of PASS service providers received new clients’ referrals records, which contained contact information (addresses, phone numbers, and so on) as well as demographic and other data. All five PASS providers attempted to contact their assigned sample members through a number of methods but primarily used some combination of letters, flyers, brochures, and phone calls. In addition, many of the providers crafted customized recruiting approaches, as follows:

• Both CET and DPSS Rancho Mirage routinely made unsolicited home visits to contact and recruit sample members into PASS. Case managers at both providers stated that these visits helped prospective participants see the usefulness of program services in their daily lives. (Valley Restart and the Volunteer Center used scheduled home visits on a limited, case-by-case basis.)

• RCC used a family-based approach by offering services and activities to the children of potential participants, in coordination with its Parent and Wellness Education Program. RCC case managers reported that the most effective recruiting approach emphasized those services that were most likely to keep people off TANF, such as job search assistance and supportive services. Mentioning college in the upfront sales pitch turned some prospective clients off, especially if they had had bad experiences in elementary or secondary school. Once staff built relationships with their clients, then they could begin discussing the educational opportunities that PASS and RCC offered. After clients become comfortable with reentering the world of school, RCC case managers attempted to blend into the mix of program services some self-paced coursework in skills training (such as workplace competencies, life skills, computer fundamentals, and remediation).

• Valley Restart staff used such “freebies” as car repair, vision care, movie passes, and diapers to get people through the door. Valley Restart administrators stressed that offering potential clients such tangible benefits made a big difference in bringing them into the program.

• Blending the recruitment approaches of Valley Restart and RCC, the family-based technique of CET utilized flyers and follow-up phone calls to schedule prospective clients for a “Family Day.” Held on Saturdays, these events attempted to encourage enrollment in PASS by providing goods and services to potential clients’ families.

It was challenging for all the PASS service providers to locate sample members — especially at the outset of program operations. During those early months, provider staff (especially at CET) said that the contact information they had initially received was often incomplete or out of date. In response, DPSS modified the client referral system to improve the completeness and accuracy of contact information during the random assignment period.1

Once provider staff did contact sample members, they faced several recruitment challenges. Since sample members were no longer receiving TANF, their participation in the PASS program was voluntary, and so provider staff had no hold over them, no way to compel them to enroll. In addition, some clients were no longer interested in PASS after they had found a job, and staff were unsure of how to sell the program to these individuals.

Yet provider staff noted that the majority of sample members who were contacted did see the value of PASS services. According to case managers, most clients wanted both immediate, concrete services, such as help with transportation costs, and longer-term services, such as training. This dichotomy reflected the challenge in the two major roles of postemployment case managers: the “caseworker,” who helps remove barriers to participation and employment, versus the “career counselor,” who assists the client in developing and following a plan to blend work-based and training activities in order to advance in the labor market.

Following the recruitment and enrollment of individuals into PASS, the providers conducted an initial assessment of their clients. Each agency developed its own approach. For example, RCC put clients through an extensive appraisal of their needs via the telephone, as a precursor to establishing a career development plan; the vocational counselor would then schedule an office visit to discuss each client’s options for career exploration and job development. Clients at the Volunteer Center participated in an assessment that culminated in a gradual, multistep career development plan that identified a series of realizable goals for them to attain. Finally, the DPSS Rancho Mirage counselor contacted PASS-eligible clients by letter, followed by a phone call to schedule a home visit; during the visit, the counselor assessed the client’s needs and made referrals to appropriate program services.

Types of Program Services and Activities

PASS service providers offered clients the array of services listed in Table 2.1. The most commonly used services are outlined below:

• Case Management, Counseling, and Mentoring. All five PASS agencies provided case management as well as counseling and mentoring services — especially advice on education and career development. These activities were pervasive throughout the PASS program flow.

• Job Preparation and Placement Services. Although PASS sample members were employed as of random assignment, many subsequently left their initial jobs by the time PASS staff first contacted them to enroll in the program. The type of job preparation and placement services that sample members encountered varied by provider but could include one-on-one job search assistance, help with creating or updating a résumé, and providing job leads. Of particular note is that the Volunteer Center case managers said that the most effective components of PASS dealt with supervised job search and career exploration, as offered by the Career Institute, one of its service provider partners. As noted above, RCC could access the Job Resource Center located just down the hall from its PASS offices. This center offered resources similar to those of the Career Institute, such as a full-time job search specialist, résumé assistance, and online job listings. While most of these job search services were focused on reconnecting out-of-work clients with employment, some working clients used the services to upgrade to jobs with better pay, hours, or career opportunities.

• Life Skills Workshops. The Volunteer Center offered clients workshops on credit repair and money management. None of the other providers utilized life skills workshops to a significant degree.

• Supportive Service Assistance and Payments. All the PASS agencies provided a variety of supportive service assistance to their clients. According to service provider staff, assistance payments (such as for rent and utilities) and, in particular, transportation services (such as gasoline vouchers and car repair) ranked among the most tangible and valued aspects of PASS, as perceived by prospective and actual clients. Other types of supportive services and assistance were made available as well. These included assessments of child care needs and referrals to specialized county workers to approve and process child care payments; food assistance (both referrals to local food banks and the distribution of bags of groceries); purchasing or donating clothing suitable for job interviews; making referrals to legal services; and paying for books, other school supplies, and college parking fees (this assistance was most prevalent at RCC, the community college).

• Referrals to Education and Training Programs. PASS providers referred clients to education and training services either in-house or at partner agencies. Most referrals were made at a client’s request, but some were included as part of a career development plan that had been mutually agreed upon by the provider and the participant.

• Referrals to Social Services. PASS providers referred clients to social service agencies to address issues of domestic violence, emotional and mental health, and substance abuse — but only if clients disclosed such problems to staff.

• Career Development Activities. Beyond career development advice, RCC staff provided career development services — such as educational and financial aid counseling — in order to devise long-term job advancement plans for their clients. In addition, Volunteer Center staff worked with their sample members to create career development plans that contained a set of realizable goals for clients. Other service providers attempted to provide similar services, but their staff lacked the same level of career development skills and experience. RCC attempted to share its expertise with the other providers through a seminar on career development approaches, including the use of diagnostic tools, at one of the monthly PASS roundtable meetings in 2002.

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Table 2.1
Comparison of Program Services Offered by Riverside PASS Providers

Program Service		CET	Volunteer Center	Valley Restart	RCC	DPSS Rancho Mirage
Case management, mentoring, and counseling		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Job preparation and placement services		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Life skills workshops	Money management	No	Yes	No	No	No
	Credit repair	No	Yes	No	No	No
Supportive service assistance	Child care	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Transportation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Food	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Clothing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Work and school supplies	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Referrals to education and training programs		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Referrals to social services		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Career development activities		No	Yes	No	Yes	No

Early Program Operations and Assessments

The PASS service providers launched program operations in November and December 2001. Because the providers were inexperienced at running postemployment programs for TANF leavers, DPSS and MDRC agreed to let them get “up to speed” during a pilot-testing period that lasted several months, before starting full random assignment operations. To ensure that the service providers had fully implemented the PASS program model, DPSS administrators (with input from MDRC and The Lewin Group) set several benchmarks pertaining to client contact and engagement rates for the testing period. Data collected as of June 2002 indicated that the PASS providers were ready to move beyond the pilot test. Service provider staff had attempted to contact all the clients who were referred to their agency. Staff had successfully contacted about half the people referred, with a “successful contact” being defined as either a face-to-face meeting between a prospective client and a PASS staff person or a phone conversation in which the individual was actually reached. Finally, PASS case managers had identified service needs — that is, ways in which the program could help participants keep jobs or find better jobs — for approximately 60 percent of the sample members who were contacted.

Random assignment consequently began in July 2002. Six months later, MDRC and Lewin staff conducted an assessment of program operations. In terms of attempted contacts, the PASS service providers continued to attempt to contact all the sample members who were randomly assigned to them. Overall, 61 percent had been successfully contacted, but this rate varied significantly across the providers, ranging from a low of 48 percent at CET to a high of 92 percent at DPSS Rancho Mirage. In addition, only about 39 percent of the PASS sample members had been “active” since random assignment, meaning that they had participated in PASS activities consistent with their program service plans; had worked with staff to identify and resolve barriers to their participation, employment retention, or career advancement; or had had multiple, ongoing contacts with staff. Further, among those clients who had been active in PASS, program participation generally took place during the first four months after their initial referral. Although contact and activity rates were lower than expected, PASS program group members were much more likely to receive postemployment services than their control group counterparts. Only 9 percent of control group members had contacted their DPSS case managers to request postemployment services.

Field Researchers’ Assessments of PASS Service Providers

Representatives from MDRC and The Lewin Group continued their field research activities through November 2003. This section summarizes field researchers’ impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of PASS program operations at each of the five providers.2

• CET. This provider successfully contacted 67 percent of all the sample members who were randomly assigned to it. CET achieved this contact rate not just because of the perseverance of its staff but also because of its flexibility in modifying outreach and recruitment activities. Unlike the other service providers, CET initially did not offer transportation assistance to its clientele, but the other providers’ experiences led CET to do so as well. Nevertheless, its staff reported that relatively few clients received services beyond providing general information about the program, providing job leads to unemployed sample members upon their initial contact with staff, or arranging supportive services (usually gasoline vouchers). Few of CET’s sample members were in formal component activities — such as basic education, life skills workshops, and vocational training programs — which ostensibly would make them more competitive in the labor market. Client-staff contact mainly revolved around arranging supportive service payments for the participant, after which staff tended to lose contact with their clients. Moreover, when staff were confronted by individuals who did not have either the time or the willingness to enroll in PASS, they did not sell the program effectively. In conversations with CET workers, it appeared to field researchers that staff were more responsive to the reemployment needs of prospective clients but less proactive in pursuing longer-term retention and advancement issues. In summary, the field researchers concluded that the CET program was fairly weak in terms of the range and duration of its activities.

• The Volunteer Center. The best overall performer in terms of contact rates and the frequency and variety of services that clients accessed was the Volunteer Center. Like CET, this provider contacted about two-thirds of its sample members, and it demonstrated its adaptability in client outreach methods by adding transportation assistance to its outreach message and its mix of ongoing services. Unlike at CET, a substantial portion of the total sample at the Volunteer Center received services beyond upfront case management and supportive service payments. Staff made numerous contacts with their clientele, which led to participation in a variety of program services, such as the formulation of career development plans, job search activities, education and training classes, and life skills workshops — in addition to receiving gasoline vouchers, ancillary payments, counseling, and referrals to social service agencies. Two factors were key to the implementation success of the Volunteer Center: the persistence of its case managers in efforts to locate, recruit, and serve clients and the agency’s partnerships with other community organizations in providing specific services. For example, the Career Institute handled all of the center’s career exploration and job search activities for PASS clients who needed such services. Because of all these factors, the field researchers thought that the Volunteer Center’s program stood the best chance of increasing employment rates, raising earnings, and reducing TANF recidivism rates.

• Valley Restart. Valley Restart staff contacted about half the sample members who were assigned to their agency. Field researchers reported that case manager turnover at the start of program operations contributed to this somewhat lower contact rate. Unlike staff at some of the other providers, Valley Restart staff appeared less proactive in their initial client engagement and follow-up activities, possibly reflecting the relative lack of experience among the case managers. In turn, because staff let clients drive their relationship, client-staff interactions seemed more crisis focused than at other providers. Clients were more likely to contact staff if they had specific needs, such as requests for job leads, food, clothing, housing referrals, or transportation assistance. While program staff were able to fulfill service requests, they reported difficulties in developing the more sustained relationships with participants that could have led to longer-term advancement activities.

• RCC. Staff at this provider contacted slightly more than half of the individuals who were randomly assigned to their agency. RCC staff worked intensively with these contacted clients over a sustained period of time, connecting them to a variety of services, including counseling, career development activities, education and training coursework, job search services, and supportive service payments of various types. Continuous engagement was the primary focus. RCC staff asserted that this approach to case management led to close relationships with their clients, so that clients were comfortable coming to staff with problems as well as to relay successes in their lives. Because of the intensity and duration of program participation by those clients who did engage in PASS services, the field researchers thought that the RCC program had a chance of producing measurable impacts, as long as the provider maintained high and sustained participation rates among those with whom it had contact, to make up for the fact that staff did not have any contact with about half the assigned sample.

• DPSS Rancho Mirage. Despite its small size, contact and participation rates for the DPSS Rancho Mirage office were initially similar to the rates at larger PASS providers. However, client contact rates fell over the course of the follow-up period, eventually ending up at slightly less than half the assigned sample. Those sample members who chose to participate in program services had numerous contacts with the case manager, which led to their receipt of counseling services and supportive service payments and, to a lesser extent, job search assistance and referrals to education and training classes. Given the small size of the sample and the small scale of the program operations, however, the field researchers believed that it would be difficult to get a precise measure of this provider’s impact on employment rates, earnings, and TANF receipt.

How Did ERA Staff Spend Their Time?

In order to more fully understand the practices of the PASS program case managers and what it takes to operate this kind of postemployment program, MDRC administered a “time study” as part of the PASS program. This time study was also administered in the other programs tested as part of the ERA evaluation. The time study captured detailed information on the nature of staff-client interactions and on the topics covered in these interactions. It also collected information on how case managers typically spent their time each day. For PASS, the time study was administered over a two-week period in late October and early November 2003. Notably, PASS service providers were beginning to wind up program operations at that time; the program officially ended on December 31, 2003. All ten case managers across the five PASS service providers participated in the time study.

When the time study was administered, Riverside PASS case managers had an average caseload of 94 individuals, of whom 54 were considered “active” clients. (As defined above, active clients had participated in PASS activities consistent with their program service plans; had worked with staff to identify and resolve barriers to their participation, employment retention, or career advancement; or had had multiple, ongoing contacts with staff.) This average caseload size is significantly higher than in the other programs in the ERA evaluation, which ranged from 39 to 77 clients. Seven of the ten PASS case managers had caseloads of over 100 people; the remaining three case managers reported caseloads of between 21 and 80 clients. About two-thirds of the clients in the case managers’ caseloads were working during the period of the time study.

As shown in Figure 2.1, Riverside PASS case managers spent 28 percent of their work time (or about two hours per day) in contact with clients.3 This result is typical across the ERA sites. PASS case managers spent the vast majority of their contact time interacting with working clients (25 percent) as opposed to nonworking clients (3 percent). Figure 2.1 further illustrates that they divided the remaining 72 percent of their work time among administrative duties (17 percent), client outreach (15 percent), job development or checking job leads (7 percent), and staff meetings (7 percent); miscellaneous activities accounted for the remaining 26 percent of their total work time.

Table 2.2 shows that PASS case managers had an average of six client interactions a day and that each interaction lasted about 31 minutes. Again, this is typical across the ERA sites. Although PASS case managers interacted with working clients far more frequently than with nonworking clients each day, they spent a comparable amount of time with each person, regardless of employment status (31 minutes with a working client versus 29 minutes with a nonworking client).

[D]

Table 2.3 shows that the vast majority of client-staff contacts — 80 percent — were not made in person. Most contacts were made by telephone (71 percent), followed by written correspondence (8 percent). The most common type of in-person contacts were office visits (14 percent), followed by home visits (6 percent). As in most of the other ERA programs, the PASS case managers initiated the majority of client-staff contacts (68 percent). (See Appendix Table B.1 for a breakout of client-staff interactions by contact type and topics covered.)

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Table 2.2
Extent of Contact Between PASS Case Managers and Clients
Riverside PASS

		All Case Managers
Percentage of work time spent in contact with	Any client	27.9
	Working clients	24.6
	Nonworking clients	3.3
Average number of client contacts per day per case manager	Any client	5.9
	Working clients	4.8
	Nonworking clients	1.1
Average number of minutes per contact with	Any client	31.1
	Working clients	30.9
	Nonworking clients	28.8
Number of case managers time-studied		10

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study.

 

The Employment Retention and Advancement Project
Table 2.3
Description of Contact Between PASS Case Managers and Clients
Riverside PASS

			All Case Managers
Percentage of all client contacts that were:	In person		19.9
		Office visit	13.7
		Home visit	5.9
		Employer visit	0.3
		Visit elsewhere	0.0
	Not in person		79.9
		Phone contact	71.1
		Written contact	8.2
		Other type of contact	0.5
Percentage of all client contacts, over a two-week period, that was initiated by:		Staff person	67.8
		Client	31.8
		Other person	0.2
Number of case managers time-studied			10

SOURCE: MDRC calculations from the ERA time study.

---

1In contrast, the intake specialists and case managers at RCC and the Volunteer Center reported that the quality and completeness of contact data deteriorated over the last few months of PASS program operations, in late 2003. (back)

2All cumulative client contact rates mentioned in the providers’ assessments were derived from the final PASS Management Report, dated June 30, 2004. (back)

3Note that all outcomes from the time study use the case manager as the unit of analysis. As a result, equal weight is given to each case manager when calculating the average time per contact, even though some case managers saw more clients per day than others. Thus, the average number of client contacts multiplied by the average time per contact does not necessarily match the average time spent in contact with clients per day. In order to calculate how much time was spent per client contact across all clients (and not for the average case manager), readers can divide the average time in contact with clients per day by the average number of client contacts per case manager. (back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next